Red State Rampage

“God Damn America” Convention, Day One: Wha’ Happened?

2008-08-26T17:16:00.000-07:00

It’s Day One of the “God Damn America” Convention, and already Democrats are well on their way to showing how they would govern in January. In fact, it’s a mini reflection on what they’ve done already in nearly two years of controlling Congress: they’ve talked a tremendous amount and accomplished nothing. Even this day in age, where conventions are highly-scripted, the outcome is never in doubt, and each aspect of the message is tightly-controlled, the Democrats have failed to articulate a central theme for their gathering.

Queen Nancy the First started off prime time with a speech as ignored as her recent book, and witticisms befitting a third-grader (or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog). No matter, she had a late-arriving convention crowd chanting “John McCain is wrong!” anyway. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) made several references to the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, but didn’t quite mention the whole Skin Color versus Character Content thing. He also appeared to bury the family hatchet, as Jim Lehrer noted, in regards to his father’s remarks- although presumably not in the same place where his father would rip off.

It always amazes me how Jimmy Carter’s reputation among Democrats is still intact. Not only is his presidency widely regarded as an abject failure, but his post-office endeavors mostly include sucking up to third world dictators. He’s probably more skilled at hammering nails in to a board than he is overseeing elections, anyway: he declared Hugo Chavez’ controversial “election” to have been completely free and fair. Then again, maybe double-digit inflation, sky-rocketing interest rates, social and moral decay, a defeated, humiliated military, and an energy policy reliant on cardigan sweaters represent some sort of liberal utopia, to which Democrats are all too eager to return. We Republicans will at least have the good sense of putting Dubya out to pasture in the next couple of elections.

The most talked about event of the evening was the (un)expected appearance of Senator Ted Kennedy, who defied a malignant brain tumor to deliver an impassioned address for the nominee. After internet reporters ruined the Olympics for those of us on the west coast, they couldn’t wait to crow on this convention tidbit, which was evidently supposed to be a surprise. The liberal icon appeared to be in remarkably good shape, given his condition. To the untrained eye and ear, it would seem as though nothing had changed. Personally, I don’t agree with anything Senator Edward Moore Kennedy has to say, and I don’t even like him all that much for equally obvious reasons. But I respect him and his dedicated service to this country enough to not say “good riddance” while the body is still warm. That kind of all-consuming and obsessive hatred is reserved for left-wing websites.

Ultimately, however, it was Michelle’s night. After the customary tribute via party video, she was introduced by Oregon State basketball head coach Craig Robinson, whose claim to fame is being Barack Obama’s brother-in-law (just ask The Oregonian). Speeches by potential first ladies tend to be high risk-low reward matters. They are soon forgotten if successful, and live in infamy if not. The most diplomatic way of describing Theresa Heinz Kerry’s address four years ago was that she must have been on acid while delivering it. After watching two weeks of diving, it could be said that Michelle Obama’s convention keynote didn’t make much of a splash. While it was historic in that the first African-American wife of the first African-American nominee for president was delivering the keynote address of the night, the speech sounded just like every other “first lady candidate” speech before it. What’s more, with focus group words and phrases, the speech could easily have been given by anyone else on the floor.

Conventional wisdom dictates that these quadrennial meetings are about themes- one or two major ideas that are emphasized from different angles each night. What then is the main idea this week, or even tonight? If it’s that Barack Obama is “just a regular guy,” it would seem to conflict with the media’s messianic image of the transformative candidate. Otherwise, it would appear Night One was a missed opportunity for the Democrats to define themselves, their overall message, and their candidate beyond bumper sticker slogans. With Hillary on tap tomorrow, it would seem the party needs to get down to the business of party unity, lest some 40% of Hillary’s supporters jump ship.

Bucky Dent Hits Homerun, Obama Wins Pennant

2008-06-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

The Drudge Report called it “Over the Top Tuesday” for Barack Hussein Obama, the day Obama finally ended the Democrats’ war of attrition. Drudge’s choice of words invoked Gallipolis and All Quiet on the Western Front, while adulation and cheers from other media outlets invoked radio and TV in North Korea. However, it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign- and indeed, her political relevancy- that was mowed down in no-man’s land. Tuesday night’s delegate count and Saturday’s concession by Hillary made official and final the demise of one of the largest, most-powerful, best-funded, and frankly ruthless political machines in recent American history- and certainly within the Democratic Party. Her failure to capture a nomination which by the beginning of the campaign was thought to be inevitably hers represents a political choke for the ages.

Her epic collapse contains just about all the hallmarks of a spectacularly futile pennant race, seen with the 1951 Brooklyn Dodgers, the 1964 Philadelphia Phillies, or the 1978 Boston Red Sox. Each enjoyed sizeable if not insurmountable leads throughout the season, each drastically underestimated their competition, each was brought down by what could be considered a fatal flaw, and each was beset by panic once it became too late. This was true of Hillary as well, who enjoyed a 20 point lead, according to the Real Clear Politics average, once she entered the race in January 2007. Her preseason lead ballooned to 28 points by mid-October, and the historic Democratic nomination race appeared over before it started. In a crowded field full of name recognition, Hillary polled a near majority with 48.4%. In addition, Hillary had a boatload of cash, just about every pledged elected official to her name, and the nostalgia and sheer power of the Clinton machine.

Hillary’s collapse began, however, once the first pitch of the Iowa Caucuses was thrown. She not only underestimated her competition- this time taking the form of old news candidate John Edwards and some skinny freshman Senator from Illinois with a funny name- she also underestimate the sheer number of Democratic voters, left-wing grass roots members, and the media who had simply had enough of Hillary and her husband. As a shock to just about everyone, Hillary- the inevitable, all-powerful behemoth of a candidate- finished third. What had started as anti-Clinton whispers in Iowa slowly started gathering voices. Hillary cried and then tied Obama in New Hampshire before gathering her first outright (if not uncontested) victories in Michigan and Florida. By South Carolina’s contest on January 26, a full-on chorus not only against Hillary but for Obama had gathered. Unbeknownst to just about everybody, the choke was on.

Super Tuesday was still supposed to be Hillary’s “Over the Top Tuesday,” with an unprecedented number of delegates, several large states polling favorably for her, and a national lead that was still intact. Indeed, Hillary scored impressive victories in her home state(s), engineered a major political coup by winning Massachusetts- where Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama- and collected the big prize out west, California. Nine election seasons out of ten, these and other victories she notched would be enough to snuff out a tough challenge from a political upstart. But Obama strung together lopsided victories in small states and caucuses, and forged a statistical tie (and an actual victory) when the dust finally settled on Super Tuesday.

Hillary’s fatal flaws were obvious, to say the least, and took the form of her own personal and political baggage, and of course, her (in)famous husband. Bill’s antics and missteps on the campaign trail supplied a plethora of sound bites and news clips which sunk Hillary’s campaign. His attempt to marginalize Barack Obama by comparing him to Jesse Jackson, who “won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88,” backfired dramatically. His temper tantrums and overreactions to questioners and hecklers only made things worse. Political commentators almost enjoyed beating up the star-crossed pair, calling Hillary’s would-be administration a “co-presidency” at the kindest, and exclaiming that “the circus is back in town,” at the most brutal. Bill’s uncontrollable, unpredictable prima donna nature not only doomed Hillary’s presidential campaign, it also seriously handicaps any effort for her in the future, to say nothing about a “dream ticket” in the fall. To paraphrase another political commentator, the Oval Office simply isn’t big enough for three people who think they should be President.

Panic set in with the Clinton camp after Super Tuesday, when Obama racked up eleven contests in a row, often by rather gigantic margins. Her national polling lead would disappear by Valentines Day and would not return. With clear advantages in money, exposure, and grassroots enthusiasm, Obama appeared ready to deliver a surprising knockout blow to Hillary in Ohio, and take away her pennant, once thought to be in the bag. But a string of surprise victories in large and important states turned a race which had gone from inevitable to spectacular collapse to a fight to the finish. When April rolled around, Hillary had Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, while Obama had Reverend Wright and William Ayers. His failure to close the deal in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky staved off the collapse until Hillary’s last strongholds and trump cards failed her. Obama gained an advantage among superdelegates, which otherwise threatened to throw the Denver convention in to chaos, and the Democratic rules committee delivered the final nail in the Clinton coffin by only seating half of Michigan and Florida’s delegates. On June 3, Obama’s historic victory was complete, as was Hillary’s historic choke.

Perhaps the best evidence to support a choke is to realize how inevitable the Clinton candidacy was. She was the Democratic frontrunner- in any campaign- by as early as January 2001, when George Bush was inaugurated for the first time. Even her Senate victory the preceding November dropped hints that she wouldn’t stay in Chappaqua for long. Once tears developed in Chris Matthews’ eyes when Ohio was called for Bush instead of Kerry, everyone knew Hillary’s run for the White House would be on in 2008. All that had to happen was for Hillary’s token opposition, in this case an unknown but passionate state senator from Chicago, to go the way of Bill Bradley. But while Hillary was at Bed Bath & Beyond selecting the Oval Office curtains, a real race had developed with Barack Obama. What was first billed as David versus Goliath soon turned out as one-sided and over-hyped as Dan versus Dave. Oh, she might be disappointed now, and she may pity whoever runs against her next time, but she won’t be back to go for the gold in four years.

Monaghan’s Top Ten Items for Victory

2008-05-23T20:20:00.000-07:00

Sean Hannity was on the right track when he outlined ten basic items that Republicans should focus on should they want to win the 2008 elections (or at least minimize their otherwise staggering losses). The Republican Party has lost their way and abandoned conservatism as we have known it in favor of corrupt, big-spending, government-expanding, go-along-get-along liberalism. Hannity’s list was a good start, but it was too negative in attacking the Democratic Party, and barely adequate in addressing the real problems with the country and the party. Much of the proposals in this list come from Newt Gingrich’s Real Change and Dick Morris’ Outrage, because they know more about this stuff than I do.

1. The Republican Party invested too heavily in a failing strategy to combat international terrorism. We will remain the party of national security.

A. Stand by winning strategies and change failed ones in order to ensure absolute victory in the war on terror, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

B. Remain on offense against terrorism by supporting and upholding the laws and procedures that are keeping Americans safe from terrorism at home and abroad.

C. Support our men and women in uniform while on the field of battle in words and deeds, and do not lose sight of them when they return home.

2. The Republican Party placed personal pride above legitimate discussion. We will never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.

A. Differentiate between adversaries and enemies on the world stage. Do not negotiate for negotiation’s sake, but do so to serve and advance America’s national interests.

3. The Republican Party expanded government and increased spending while ballooning the federal deficit. We will once again become the party of fiscal discipline.

A. Develop and implement a clear and concrete plan to balance the federal budget.

B. Reform or eliminate earmarks and cut wasteful spending and bureaucracy.

C. Account for every dollar spent by the federal government and balance spending increases or tax cuts against money the federal government actually has.

4. The Republican Party valued oil profits above environmental stewardship and the national interest. We will become the party of independent and sustainable energy.

A. Create a public-private partnership to research and develop environmentally and economically sound alternatives to current energy sources.

B. Through the free market, businesses, tax incentives, and consumer choices, gradually wean away from oil, coal, and other fossil fuels and inefficient products.

C. Leave oil in ANWR and the Strategic Petroleum Reserves off-limits and accessible only in cases of national emergency, not convenience.

D. Pursue complete energy independence for America’s long-term energy policy for national security, economic, and environmental reasons.

5. The Republican Party resorted to squabbling and infighting and failed to adopt necessary reforms to immigration. We will become the party of common sense immigration reform.

A. Reform America’s legal immigration system, particularly the visa system, so that terrorists do not arrive here legally thanks to lax or non-existent investigations and do not fly planes in to buildings thanks to a lack of enforcement behind their expired visas.

B. Go after crooks and not cooks. Stress a zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigrants who break American laws, punishable by immediate deportation upon conviction.

C. America is a nation of (legal) immigrants. Create incentives for those who wish to immigrate legally and embrace new American citizens with open arms. Create disincentives to arrive illegally by prosecuting businesses who hire illegal immigrants, denying government and other services to illegal immigrants, and stripping sanctuary cities of federal funding.

6. The Republican Party lost the debate of ideas on health care reform. We will become the party that sustains and transforms health care in America.

A. Create health savings accounts which will allow individual citizens to control their own insurance.

B. Work with insurance companies, doctors, and other health care professionals- and not against them- to ensure available, affordable, transparent, accurate, and efficient health care for America’s workers.

C. Adopt tort reform to prevent against superfluous lawsuits which drive up health care costs. Implement “loser pays” systems in place in most other modern democracies as a barrier for entry to the lawsuit lottery.

7. The Republican Party squandered its chance to reform education. We must champion real education reform in America and among the states.

A. As education is primarily the responsibility of state governments, the federal government’s role should be a supervisory one. Insist upon minimum standards that children must meet at graduated stages in their educational development.

B. Mend it but don’t end it. No Child Left Behind was a well-intentioned failure. It must be reformed to meet the challenges of state-by-state education.

C. Emphasize choice and greater personal involvement for parents whenever possible through vouchers and other options.

8. The Republican Party missed its chance to reform run-down entitlement programs. We will save Social Security and Medicare from their own shortcomings.

A. Medicare- and especially Social Security- as they stand today are fiscally insolvent and headed for bankruptcy. Change the situation by working within and without the party to find real solutions and take no options off the table.

B. Ensure that surpluses for Social Security are actually used on Social Security and not raided to pay for pet projects.

9. The Republican Party did not lead by example in regard to judges prior to 2000. We will remain committed to appointing and approving strict constructionist judges who interpret the Constitution as read.

A. Support and approve judges who read and interpret the Constitution and uphold constitutional precedent while placing their own political views and agenda (whether liberal or conservative) on the sidelines.

B. To the victor go the spoils. In a Democratic administration, insist upon up or down votes for all judicial candidates. Oppose far-left, activist judges by voting “No,” instead of using unconstitutional judicial filibusters which waste the Senate’s time.

10. The Republican Party, if elected, will implement the above proposals as a means for all Americans to reach and live out the American Dream and never lose sight of the people who put us there.

A. Government can solve or alleviate certain problems as easily as they can create and aggravate problems. We believe, however, that the American people are best at solving their own problems.

B. If entrusted with the duty and responsibility of government, the Republican Party and its elected members will never again use power for personal enrichment, and will punish swiftly and severely anyone who does. We will not use the conservative agenda as an excuse to intrude unnecessarily in to the lives of law-abiding citizens.

C. Our party remains committed to a bright future for Americans in the 21^st century. Our beloved icons are not coming back, and our party cannot afford to be caught up in nostalgia and reminiscences of the past. Republicanism and conservatism must remain dynamic in order to suit America’s changing challenges.

This we believe, this we will strive for, and this we will achieve if entrusted with the reigns of the US House of Representatives, US Senate, and United States Presidency.

Tell Us What You Really Think, Barack!

2008-04-20T18:43:00.000-07:00

Did you hear what B. Hussein Obama said at a San Francisco fundraiser on April 6? No? I didn’t think so. Trailing by double-digits in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, Obama described Keystone State residents- many of whom had suffered from years of economic hardship and unemployment- as “bitter” and clinging “to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

While his comments were well-received by enthusiastic donors on billionaires’ row and by Obama’s legion of left-wing zombies on college campuses, they were not quite as popular among “these small towns in Pennsylvania” and “a lot of towns in the Midwest.” While Obama’s red meat snobbery would appear to be little more than a gaffe (one of many his campaign has committed in the course of the primary race), they are in fact much more serious. They reflect an attitude of scorn which unfortunately is held by a healthy majority of affluent, urban-core inhabiting liberals.

To make sure he wasn’t talking over the heads of those bitter, gun-owning, bigoted, xenophobic, protectionist, religious zealots (meaning people who live between Manhattan Island and the California coastline), Obama issued a forceful defense in Muncie, Indiana. Lucky for him, Muncie boasts an NPR station and a couple of Starbucks. Instead of shying away from or apologizing for his earlier comments, Obama defended them head on and turned it in to criticism of his rivals:

“Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up, because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter.” He continued, “So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response.” His “explanation” was greeted with thunderous applause by the heavily-Democratic audience.

Obama’s Freudian slip is the latest view of a wealthy urban elitism now dominant in the Democratic Party, which looks down upon the Red States and their inhabitants and treats them with ridicule. Northeastern blue-bloods, Manhattan socialites, and California wine-drinkers can’t stand the ordinary red-staters and view them roughly how Obama described them. The liberal elites, mind you, aren’t like the uncivilized Neanderthals from the Red States- they don’t cling to tacky, outdated superstitions like religion, or own murderous firearms, or fly the Confederate flag on the back of their internal-combustion-powere

d moving vehicle. They think of themselves as uniquely positioned above the ordinary folks and don’t dare stray outside the coverage area of an NPR affiliate. The only thing compelling Democratic candidates to visit the plebs in the great nothingness known as “fly-over country” is the Electoral College (which they also want to scrap . . . for some reason).

Instead of being cheered with the fiendish delight of tens of thousands of brainwashed college leftists, Obama’s comments should be seen for what they really are: the latest in a series of remarks, associations, and incidents which shed light on the real B. Hussein Obama, the Obama his media cheerleaders don’t want us commoners to see. Recall that his wife Michelle is proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. This came after conceiving a racially-divisive thesis at Princeton and describing America (the country which I assume she was only now proud of) as “just downright mean.” Obama’s friends include Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers (who said in a New York Times interview, coincidentally published on September 11, 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough”) and of course, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Tack on to that the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate and a resume about as empty as mine, and you have a man who is drastically out of touch with mainstream Americans and dangerously ill-equipped to be President of the United States.

There’s no question that working and middle-class Americans are under a great deal of strife thanks to a solid economy situated on quicksand. While property in Silicon Valley might have skyrocketed and stock prices might have dropped a few points in the last eight years, real Americans from Nevada to Pennsylvania, from Florida to Idaho, are in real trouble. What’s more, based on the reactions Obama’s comments received, those bitter Pennsylvanians and those frustrated Midwesterners rather resent their lifestyle being ridiculed. While it might not be so for liberal Democrats, traditional institutions like the Second Amendment and the free exercise of religion are still important to many millions of Americans. While cosmopolitan liberals shun notions of borders and national identity, the rest of us are being hurt by the federal government’s inability and unwillingness to deal with immigration and trade issues. Instead of looking down on ordinary Americans, Democrats might think it prudent to defend some of their interests and issues. That is, if they dare to tread outside of the Blue States.

When Battered Conservatives Snap

2008-02-07T16:06:00.000-08:00

I don’t mean to beat a dead elephant, but John McCain’s speech before CPAC delegates on Wednesday represents a return to the honeymoon phase of Battered Conservatives Syndrome. In so wooing conservative activists in Washington today, we are supposed to forget that a year ago, when other lesser-known candidates were bending over backwards to address the annual conference, John McCain flat out refused their invitation. We are supposed to pretend that this colluding, Environmentology-preaching

, amnesty-granting, judicial confirmation-blocking, free speech-abridging, class warfare-spewing, Democrat-pandering, tantrum-throwing liberal geriatric will have a sudden change of heart and start becoming a Republican, for a change. And we are supposed to deny that Hillary and/or Obama will win a 35 to 40 state landslide over a Republican with whom there isn’t a great deal of disagreement or difference.

In the course of these recent partisan events and in light of this long train of abuse by the Republican Party of its conservative base, it seems that many within the party are ready to declare their independence and dissolve the ties that bind them to a party that no longer represents their views or interests. With many on the right vowing to do just about anything except vote for McCain (options currently include staying home, voting third party, voting for Hillary and/or Obama, and moving to Alberta), he seems well on course to do as poorly as the last Arizona Senator to win the Republican nomination. Of course, Barry Goldwater was a conservative. Indeed, in this particular time for choosing, McCain is the quintessential Me-too Republican, representing an echo, not a choice.

Whereas McCain’s speech today marks the honeymoon phase in the abuse of conservatives, McCain’s Senate career represents a decade or more of cyclical abuse of the Republican Party’s most loyal followers. Since being beaten by George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries, McCain has spent practically every waking moment punishing, subverting, tormenting, and destroying the party that rejected him. McCain-Feingold trampled on political speech and was quite simply the worst assault on the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts. McCain-Edwards gave Democrat trial lawyers a present wrapped in gold paper with the tort-happy “Patient’s Bill of Rights.” McCain-Lieberman (which is sounding more like a ticket every day) capitulated to the Environmentologist global warming hysterics and would have imposed a “cap-and-trade” indulgence system on the American economy. And of course, McCain-Kennedy would have opened the borders to criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, and terrorists as well as granted amnesty to twenty million illegal aliens in this country. The bruises and scars that John McCain has inflicted on conservatives just in the past eight years cannot be easily disguised and certainly cannot be ignored.

Likewise, this isn’t the first time the Republican National Committee has told its conservative base to shut up, to support the party with blind obedience, and to open their wallets. To date, conservatives have triumphed in conflicts with the RNC all of twice in the history of their movement. Barry Goldwater won a bitter battle with the beloved icon of the liberal northeastern establishment, Nelson Rockefeller, and Ronald Reagan was forced to put RNC man George Bush the First on the ticket in 1980 after losing out to an unelected RINO from Michigan four years before. Even Senator Robert Taft- “Mr. Republican” himself!- was repeatedly screwed over by the RNC and passed over by liberals Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Time and again the establishment triumphed and conservatives slavishly fell in line and took more abuse. They voted for Richard Nixon one or two or three times, they held their nose and voted for Gerald Ford and George Bush the First, they tried their best to overlook Bob Dole’s lack of charisma and increasing age, and they were fooled twice by George Bush II’s “compassionate” big government conservatism. Now may be the time for battered conservatives to finally snap out of their abusive relationship with the Republican Party. In that case, eight years (or more) of President Hillary may be the alimony the Grand Old Party pays for a messy divorce with its most loyal followers.

Republicans in ’08: The Party’s Over

2008-01-31T01:48:00.000-08:00

When I was in high school I can remember asking a teacher of mine which he thought was more likely to appear: a second undefeated NFL team or a prominent third political party in America. With the 18-0 New England Patriots playing in the Super Bowl this Sunday and with Senator John McCain driving the final nail into the Republicans’ coffin, there’s a good chance we’ll get to see at least one by week’s end. Needless to say, this has a few conservatives wondering how they got where they are now. How exactly a once mighty party went from controlling just about everything as recently as two years ago to getting tired of winning elections and throwing its most loyal base of voters to the trash heap. To make a long post short, the two are strongly correlated.

It is said that while success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. In this case, however, there are enough potential patriarchs of this bastardization of the Republican Party to fill Maury Povich’s studio. Consider if you will three Republican Congresses which spent like drunken sailors who had just been given $1,000 FEMA debit cards. Or a stubborn curmudgeon of a Defense Secretary who wasn’t given his walking papers until the day after 30 Republican Congressmen and six Republican Senators were given theirs. Or perhaps a hermit Vice President, who not only redefined the nature of the office but became his own branch of government as well. Or, yes, the guy at the top: the son of a great squanderer of political inheritance who more than lived up to the family legacy while in the process trying the patience and the intelligence of even the fiercest of party stalwarts, like yours truly. Personally, it will be a championship-celebrating day in Cleveland before I forgive George Walker Bush for pissing away the permanent Republican majority we were promised in 2004.

There were other events and issues which transcend the baffling actions of incompetent men. Hurricane Katrina and a freakishly-unstable economy seemed to catch the administration by surprise, and it was wholly unable to deal with them. The war certainly didn’t help the Republican cause, and neither did waiting to take the ferry across only after all the oxen had drowned. Meanwhile, the Mexican border quickly turned in to the GOP’s Meech Lake, with the volatile issue of immigration tearing the party in two and playing Pac Man to their electoral fortunes. While the Republican establishment desperately clings to one amnesty after another in the hope of courting millions of Hispanic voters, the strongly conservative base seems ready to party like it’s 1836. Indeed, there hasn’t been this much division between the Republican National Committee and the “loud folks” who do the voting since an unelected RINO from Michigan was fighting the base (and a popular former Governor of California) for his first full term.

We Republicans were promised a three-ring circus for our first genuinely open primary season in decades, and in the end it was the party establishment (along with the mainstream media and several thousand crossover Democrats) who made the decision for us. McCain’s Double-Talk Express must make frequent stops to the land of make believe as he pretends to be both a conservative and the agent of change America seems so desperate for. After all, he does have the support of a commanding 36% of the Republican electorate. In truth, however, when not playing up his war record like a Massachusetts Democrat, McCain has spent his entire career frustrating, stymieing, insulting, cussing, betraying, dismantling, and outright lying about his fellow conservatives. After all, it was never Democrats whom McCain called “an a-hole” or “a f*cking jerk.” Conservatives know full well this member of the Keating Five Scandal (you’ll hear all about that sometime between Labor Day and Halloween) is part of the problem in Washington, not part of the solution. McCain’s ascendancy fits well with the epic and monumental collapse of one Rudolph Giuliani. America’s Mayor went from national frontrunner to complete washout in less than a year. Quite frankly, a team of New Yorkers hasn’t performed this badly in the State of Florida since the 2003 World Series. In short, his choke for the ages is like the New York Mets, Portland Trail Blazers, and Phil Mickelson put together- a number-one ranked golfer who skipped the preliminary tournaments and failed to make the cut at Augusta National.

McCain’s victory in Florida established him as the clear frontrunner if not the inevitable nominee of the Republican Party on Tuesday, and while the New York Times (and millions of fired up Democrats) couldn’t be happier, conservatives are trying their best to stay away from sharp objects, high windows, and bridges. The decimation of the Republicans as a national party will almost certainly be completed this November with McCain at the top of the ticket and Republican Senators and Congressmen retiring in droves. To say John McCain- who served in Vietnam- doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning is perhaps a bit harsh. Instead, it would be more accurate to say the 6-14 Oregon State Beavers have as much chance of winning the college basketball championships this March. The Democrats might have an equally tough time uniting conservatives for McCain in a race the base will see as between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Voting for the RNC-approved wolf in sheep’s clothing out of fear of a supposedly more-vicious wolf doesn’t seem to make much sense.

The Republican Party had a real chance to not only learn from the mistakes of the last seven years but to recapture the conservative base and the tried and true ideals of truth, justice, and limited government that swept them to office so many times before. Instead, the Republican National Committee seems content to watch their treasuries dry up, their once-enthusiastic if not fanatical base continue to grow alienated, and their candidates for higher office searching the want ads for post-November work. In the meantime, the “loud folks,” as Senator Lindsey Graham calls them, the “nativists,” as George Bush refers to them, the lion’s share of the 62 million voters who gave the Republican Party its greatest electoral victory (and probably its last for quite some time) will be right here waiting for you to return. If you ever get tired of becoming the coyote to the Democrats’ road runner in the next eight to twenty-four years, let us know. We conservatives will be happy to welcome you home with open arms and open wallets when you feel you need us again. Until then, as it was said Tuesday night on FreeRepublic.com, “John McCain can go to hell . . . and take the GOP with him.”

The Most Popular Man in Washington’s Last Hurrah

2008-01-28T21:41:00.000-08:00

You are looking LIVE at the House side of the United States Capitol where the most popular man in Washington is about to give his last hurrah. It’s the 2008 State of the Union, Presented by Citi, live and in high definition on ABC. Welcome everybody, with my pardner Kirk Herbstreit, I’m Brent Musburger. And folks, the President’s eight year stay in the White House is almost at an end- it seems like just yesterday a newly-inaugurated President Bush was giving his first speech to Congress back in 2001, but to some, those eight years have seemed like twenty. Kirk, what can we expect from the President tonight and the Democratic Congress he faces tonight?

Well, first of all, Brent, I’m not Kirk Herbstreit, I’m Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona. Plenty of people have made that mistake, I’m sure. I think tonight you’ll see a President eager to finish strong. The re-elected President started off so well after his second inaugural before things fell apart in 2005. He lost Congress a year later and now he’s trying to put back the pieces, trying to save a recruiting class of primary candidates and voters, and trying to salvage a positive legacy. I’d look for him to focus on the important themes that have defined his presidency: strengthening and sustaining the economy, keeping taxes low, defending the homeland, and winning the war on terror. I wouldn’t expect any new or ambitious programs tonight.

One thing is certain, folks, at the end of tonight as we head in to primary season, one party will get to “Celebrate.” Tonight’s telecast is available in high definition, presented by Pioneer. Now we see the Sergeant at Arms emerging form the hallway . . . and here comes the President! The tumultuous greeting from this full House is going to be followed by the greeting from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her second year at the post. To her right is Dick Cheney in his eighth year as Vice President, not sure what he’ll be doing in his retirement, maybe a few hunting trips would be in order. With tomorrow’s Republican Primary, that means only the Democrat candidates are here as we take a look at Barak Obama, sitting next to Ted Kennedy, who created quite a stir by endorsing him today. Sitting somewhat closer to the front is his opponent, Hillary Clinton, with her customary scowl. Expect that to stay the same throughout tonight. You’ll also notice that many Democrats have brought their own reading material to keep them from nodding off during the address.

As we take a look at the Pacific Life Game Summary so far in this first quarter, the President started by focusing on the economy with a very cautious and conservative game plan. He promoted the economic stimulus package and urged Congress not to change or add to it, went to the steady ground attack on keeping taxes low, and pushed an executive order restricting earmarks. Overall, nothing we haven’t expected to hear tonight, folks. In fact, it seems to be working so well among the Republicans in the House you have to wonder why he didn’t mention the executive order before! Now we see the President mixing passes with runs: pressing for earmarks reforms and a balanced budget while at the same time pushing for reforms to No Child Left Behind and sustainable entitlement programs. He also discussed new energy initiatives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move toward cleaner fuels. Again, nothing we haven’t heard before, Pardner.

As we move toward the end of the first half, we see President Bush shifting the strategies around a little bit. What was a balanced approach to start the game has now given way to a strong emphasis on his compassionate conservative passing game. He’s aiming for tens of billions of dollars in additional funding to fight AIDS in Africa and almost two billion more in fighting global hunger. We also saw him discuss faith-based initiatives and the need to help struggling private, religious, and charter schools in America’s urban areas. And with new benefits for veterans and more funding for health savings accounts, it’s safe to say the President is throwing the ball all over the field tonight. I’d expect mixed results as we head in to the locker rooms. You’re watching the 2008 State of the Union, presented by Citi, on A . . . B . . . C!

Well folks, as we move midway through the third quarter we come back to the steady ground game and a focus on national security and terrorist issues. To our troops watching overseas, we and those assembled here in the House want you to know we support you 100 percent! We see President Bush now employing a methodical running game to pound home the messages of the War on Terror. The terrorists aren’t going to quit until they’ve driven Americans out of the Middle East, so it’s up to us and our allies to defeat them, as the President says they can and must be. These plays are even getting a lot of support from Democrats, folks. What seems to be helping him now is that the surge in Iraq is working and that is taking the issue away from the Democrats. President Bush is now running off tackle and slashing in to Iran, urging them to come clean on their nuclear program, stop supporting terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, and stop the oppression at home. He’s also running around end and condemning authoritarian governments in Belarus and Burma, while supporting free movements in Colombia, recent elections in Ukraine and Georgia, and a free and democratic Palestinian state.

Now we’re here in the money quarter with President Bush now taking on an issue that really cost him these past two seasons. Immigration was one of the factors that cost his party control of Congress and now it threatens to tear the Republicans apart. We know there are folks in the party pushing hard for amnesty and a few others who want to build a new Berlin Wall and send the illegals home. But folks, even though he pointed to stepped-up enforcement on the border and an end to catch-and-release patrol, he may have come up short again. It looks like a message combining enforcement of the borders with our tradition of compassion and good-will is going to fall incomplete yet again. I guess that means the issue is going to continue to chip away at the Republican Party heading in to the campaign season.

That’ll do it from the Capitol as we bring you the last State of the Union of George W. Bush’s presidency. Overall, I’d say it was a lot of the same plays and the same game plan we’ve seen before mixed with ambitious but incomplete passes on domestic policy issues. His best moments on the field tonight came with the power running game and the War on Terror. It remains to be seen how much of the President’s agenda will be fulfilled and how much else will be lost to history. For Kir-Congressman Jeff Flake, I’m Brent Musburger. So long, everybody! Stay tuned for the Thrifty Postgame Show with John Saunders!

35 Years Later: Roe is Me!

2008-01-23T01:50:00.000-08:00

Tuesday marks 35 years since the Supreme Court officially stopped using the Constitution of the United States as a guide for its decisions. In the worst and most blatant act of activist policymaking in the history of jurisprudence, the Court ruled 7-2 to strike down a Texas law prohibiting abortion for no reason other than wanting to legalize abortion. Reading the Constitution as it is written, there was absolutely zero justification for the ruling, unless one was under a great deal of hallucinogens (this was 1973, after all). The normal, sober reader would find no references to “abortion,” “privacy,” or any other supposed evidence for the seven justices coming to the pre-determined policy preferences they did. Thirty-five years later, not much has changed in the debate that has come to define social policy in this country. Congress is still forbidden from taking on the issue, Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”) is still the leader of an anti-abortion group, 50 million lives have still been lost, and the ruling is still not going to be reversed.

After what must have been years of ceaseless searching, the young and ambitious lawyers Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee- with the full backing of an entire legion of pro-abortion and radical feminist groups- finally found their test case. Ms. McCorvey was willing to agree to the lie that a pregnancy she helped create was the result of rape. The lawyers knew as most familiar with the issue did that no free legislature in the world at that time would take their side and legalize this barbaric procedure (as a side note, the only dissenting votes ever cast in the history of East Germany’s communist Volkskammer came in a vote liberalizing abortion law). They sued in Texas- what more of an iconic state- and after three years of appeals (during which McCorvey gave birth), the battle was on. The hearing based on a lie was a charade from the beginning. The Burger Court, as the Warren Court before it, had an established and well-deserved reputation of liberal activism without regard to precedent or constitutionality. William Rehnquist, one of the two dissenters, wasn’t even able to hear the first round of arguments. Thus, 35 years ago Tuesday, the Court issued its arranged decision. Citing little more than their desire to legalize abortion (they even rejected Weddington and Coffee’s Ninth Amendment argument), the Court declared the procedure a fundamental right.

The results were as predictable and well-known as they are popularly lampooned on college campuses. In 35 years an estimated 50 million abortions have been committed in the United States. While Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League trumpet this figure with National Socialist-like sadism and pride, the Genocide Awareness Project is made fun of, protested, harassed, vandalized, or worse when they cite this figure on America’s havens of Stalinism we call “academia.” Certainly anyone responsible for 50 million deaths would today find themselves on a United Nations war crimes tribunal (Comrade Stalin is blamed for somewhere around ten million deaths, Hitler around twelve million), but not in this case. Abortion is a ritual to the radical feminist, and Roe liberated them.

The aftermath is perhaps less reported. Those 50 million abortions came at a steep cost the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL would rather Americans not know about. Abortion is a horrific procedure, the details of which I’ll not describe here, which results in many cases in severe and permanent psychological trauma. Very permanent and life-threatening injuries can also result, ranging from the inability to conceive or bear a child again to, yes, death. Shockingly, no effort has ever been made to attempt to clean up the procedure: any legislative effort to bring the procedure to within the bounds of modern medicine is seen as an unconstitutional attack on a woman’s right. In which case the procedure hardly seems safer than the “back alley abortions” radical feminists warn us about. So, counter to the slogans of left-wing pro-abortion organizations, the procedure, while legal, is neither safe nor rare. It’s no wonder that Norma McCorvey became an anti-abortion activist and since 1994 has fought to reverse her own Court decision. Maybe you saw her Tuesday in the annual March for Life in which thousands of men and women from all over the country come to Washington, DC in an ultimately futile attempt to change the decision (this is not, of course, to be confused with the annual March Against Life staged by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the National Organization for (Liberal) Women).

The sad truth is that, arguing as a strict constructionist who doesn’t hallucinate when reading the Constitution of the United States of America, there is nothing that can be done. As there was no legal or constitutional basis for Roe being decided as it was, there is also no legal or constitutional basis for it being overturned. Stare decisis- the supposed basis of our judicial and legal system- dictates that court decisions, even erroneously-decided, nonsensical, policy-preferenced ones which blatantly ignore the American Constitution, must be upheld. There are, of course, exceptions. Cases such as Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson were overturned not just because they ignored the Constitution but because they openly defied it. The 14^th Amendment clearly guarantees equal protection and due process of the laws as ignored in Plessy, which Brown v. Board eventually corrected.

In Roe, there is nothing to correct since there was nothing defied. Simply put, two judicial wrongs don’t make a right. The situation is even more unlikely to change considering the current (and future) makeup of the Court. Already there are five solid left-wing justices who will uphold abortion until the day they die (which in a couple of cases may be closer than we think) and four justices who are not particularly interested in injecting their own personal views into jurisprudence. With President Bush’s two appointments of strict constructionist precedent-upholding jurists (and with mainstream Republican nominees promising not to appoint the likes of Pat Robertson to the bench), the law is even less likely to be overturned. That perhaps is the most frustrating thing about Tuesday’s infamous anniversary. “We the People” never had a say in the matter, and we never will.

Huckabee for Chancellor

2007-12-15T17:47:00.000-08:00

The more Mike Huckabee says these days less viable he seems as the Republican candidate. Since his recent surge in the polls he’s slammed the free market Club for Growth, defended anti-gay and profoundly stupid comments about AIDS patients he made as a 1992 Senate candidate, and insulted the Mormon faith with an ignorance that, for a Baptist minister, is baffling. Then again, with his support for illegal alien amnesty, denial of evolution, sacred commitment to solving global warming, and across the board embrace of “compassionate conservatism,” he’s starting to look more like Germany’s Christian Democratic candidate for Chancellor. So it’s not hard to see why other big-government Christians in the Republican base are flocking to Huckabee just in time for primary season to begin.

The story of the Republican primary thus far has been the lack of a “Christian” candidate that can please the religious base. In all fairness to the field, folks like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain may not wear their faith on their sleeve as Pat Robertson did when he sought the ’88 nomination, but they’re far from the godless heathens some on the right-wing message boards are portraying them as. On the contrary, candidates like Huckabee (or anyone else who raised their hand denying evolution) can learn from those able to separate their everyday and religious lives. Faith and religion are just as important to Catholic Rudy Giuliani, Baptist John McCain, and yes, even Mormon Mitt Romney.

Huckabee’s surge may only represent the latest flavor in the base’s “none of the above” disillusionment. The religious right never connected with any of the major candidates and flocked to noted actor and one-time Senator Fred Thompson, who initially was a mere speculative candidate. After taking forever and a day to declare for the race, his campaign got off to a rocky start when he chose talk show appearances over debates. Once he was firmly established in the race, his poll numbers sank, making him more popular as a private citizen and Law & Order guest star than an actual candidate for higher office. If on the other hand the Huckabee freight train continues, it signifies a serious problem within the Republican Party- one that could keep them in the minority of Congress and on the outside of the White House for years to come.

The GOP’s embrace of Christian Democracy is hardly anything new. The Moral Majority folks who claimed credit for Ronald Reagan’s election had no problem extending the state where it ought not to go. Unlike liberalism, they viewed their actions as “Christian” when they sought to impose morality and decency standards on society. “What would Jesus do,” they asked. Re-write the Constitution, mandate religious instruction in schools, sanction government discrimination against gays, create new faith-based (or secular) welfare programs, grant amnesty to illegal (but Christian!) aliens, and militantly oppose abortion, apparently. In terms of cultural and social policy, the sky was and is the limit as to where the state can go. In short, there seems to be no difference between this form of phony American conservatism and the manifestos of the Christian Democratic parties across Europe which are perfectly content with operating in a socialist system where the state lives peoples’ lives for them.

Huckabee’s rise in the polls this time of year makes the perfect present for ambitious Democrats itching to take back the White House (and make gains in both houses of Congress). Huckabee’s public denial of evolution illustrates him as being an anti-science flat world nut. His defense of profoundly stupid comments regarding AIDS and gays fifteen years ago shows him as intolerant towards those people and the very caricature of today’s conservatives. Furthermore, his rebuke of the Club for Growth and his tax-raising, government-expanding, amnesty-granting record as Governor of Arkansas shows him as incompatible with even fundamental small government conservatism. And his lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy would give even Barack Obama the upper hand in debates next year.

His support is only skin-deep as well in a race in which practically every segment of the political spectrum to the right of Hugo Chavez is needed. One in seven non-evangelicals support Huckabee in Iowa and a meager one in twenty non-evangelicals are for him in New Hampshire. This translates to a Republican candidate who would struggle to win states north of his native Arkansas and west of Nebraska. It’s not hard to see then why Democrats- and the media- are going easy on Huckabee and letting him do all the destruction. It’s easy for someone like Huckabee to say that he’d rather be right than be President, and it’s also easy for the Christian Democrats in the GOP base to say they’d rather have someone who believed exactly the same things they did rather than someone who could best win the election. But it’s also very easy to see that with Candidate Huckabee Republicans may be “right” instead of “elected” for a long time.

The Conservative Championship Series

2007-11-05T17:48:00.000-08:00

Britain’s Daily Telegraph recently compiled a list of the 100 Most-Influential Liberals and Conservatives in anticipation of the upcoming presidential election next year. While it made for an entertaining read- especially from a foreign perspective- it was not without its flaws. Since a favorite past-time of mine is scrutinizing and compiling lists, here now are my thoughts on the Telegraph’s list. You might even see one of mine in the future.

Most Overrated:

47. Senator Joseph Lieberman: In an ideal world, all Democrats would act, think, and sound like Joe Lieberman: while liberal on social and economic issues, fiercely patriotic on matters of national defense. Still, Lieberman’s conservative credentials are as greatly exaggerated as the reports of his political demise. In truth, there isn’t a lot this “Independent Democrat” and the Republicans agree on: a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and a 1% score from the Club for Growth, just to name a couple. Still, Lieberman made (both) their lists.

89. Senator Larry Craig: Would this man have made the list a year ago? I’m guessing not. How, exactly, a high profile scandal in an airport bathroom qualifies you as an influential conservative I haven’t a clue. I didn’t see the likes of Mark Foley on this list, for instance. In fact, far from being influential, the conservative movement has turned their scorn his way demanding he resign. Whether or not he does, he’ll be out by the time his term expires in January 2009.

96. Congressman Ron Paul: This second-tier (at best) presidential candidate is both stark raving mad and not a conservative. The Telegraph apparently made the mistake of throwing libertarians in the mix with conservatives. Dr. No (he was an ob/gyn) carries almost no interest in the movement among real conservatives and very little interest outside his small group of e-fanatics.

39. Drew Carey: Another victim of mistaken identity, this libertarian is also quite shy in his politics compared to his liberal colleagues in Hollywood. However, with his career making a comeback, he’s not a bad guy for conservatives to claim. His connection to the Reason Foundation and other libertarian causes though make him a solid defender of the cause of freedom.

38. Jack Abramoff: Along with Larry Craig (and Mark Foley), this guy’s influence will only exist in 2008 among liberal name-droppers hoping to wave the bloody shirt of Republican corruption. That is at the same time trying to draw attention away from the Democratic Congress’ 11% approval rating (the Ebola Virus got around 15% and Yoko Ono scores about 20%, by the way). Among conservatives, however, this disgraced former lobbyist is as distant a memory as last year’s electoral tidal wave. I’m sure that if Hillary wins the nomination, Democrats will do all they can to stay away from the “corruption” issue next year.

Most Underrated:

84. Ann Coulter: Love her, hate her, or wish she had been killed in a terrorist attack, when Ann speaks or writes, conservatives listen and read. If this is not influence, then influence has no meaning. She continues to be both a top draw on college campuses and a more eligible bachelorette among college-aged males than Erin Andrews. All of her books are best-sellers including her newest “If Democrats Had Any Brains They’d Be Republicans.” As the Telegraph put it, “she is impossible to ignore.” Then why put her so low?

82. Bill O’Reilly: Another (somewhat) conservative voice who was placed way too low. The O’Reilly Factor is the highest-rated program on cable news, many of his books are bestsellers, and The Radio Factor boasts millions of listeners. In fact, at this rate he’s only a bad feature film away from replacing Howard Stern as the “King of All Media.” The Telegraph calls him a “liberal hate figure,” and says “when he gets hold of an issue, Conservatives listen.” Personally, if this were my list, he would be #2 only to Rush Limbaugh among conservative media personalities.

85. Justice Clarence Thomas: When Republican presidential candidates are asked what types of judges they will appoint to the courts, Thomas’ name always comes up. Justice Thomas has been a target of left-wing hate since his name was placed by George Bush the Elder to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. Aside from being a conservative replacement for this former NAACP litigator, Thomas represented everything the Democratic Party was against: quite simply, he was a self-made black man. Anita Hill was merely a last desperate attempt to derail his nomination to the Court, and when that backfired, Senate Democrats were left red-faced. Since then he has been a steady and reliable jurist who upholds precedent and reads the Constitution for what it is, rather than what his far-left colleagues would prefer it say. What’s more, the relatively youthful Thomas could see his best and most-influential days ahead of him.

93. Michelle Malkin: Our answer to the hate-filled anti-American blogs of the left. Her webpage gets heavy traffic and her influence on the blogosphere is undeniable: just look at the racist hate mail she gets every day! In the past, she urged Americans to “Buy Danish” when Islamofascists tried to incite a boycott of goods after a Danish newspaper ran a cartoon depicting Mohammed. Today, while still quite young, she is an experienced and tempered culture warrior who blasts amnesty for illegals and keeps GOP hopefuls accountable.

49. William F. Buckley, Jr.: Let me put this quite succinctly: There wouldn’t BE a modern conservative movement if not for William F. Buckley. He founded National Review magazine in 1955 at a time when eastern moderates and liberals like Dwight Eisenhower, Thomas Dewey, and Nelson Rockefeller ran the Republican Party and conservatives like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan were either in the minority or not yet on the electoral stage. Simply put, Buckley was a conservative- a consummate conservative- before it was politically popular. Only his advancing age is keeping Buckley- who recently called the Iraq War a failure- from continuing to play a part in conservative politics. Still, his history and power cannot be overstated as he is nothing less than our movement’s patriarch.

Phony Conservatives

2007-10-12T01:49:00.000-07:00

While the 2008 presidential race continues at its death march pace, a song came to mind thanks to a recent meeting by several prominent leaders of the religious right (only a few of whom are both still above ground AND still relevant). “You can’t always get what you want, but . . . sometimes . . . you get what you need.” It seems that none of the “values voter” conservatives, the traditional Republican base of support since about 1980, seems even remotely satisfied with anyone in the field, unless they’re on a candidate’s payroll. They want Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater and seem unwilling to accept that neither will make an appearance at the ’08 convention in St. Paul.

Their frustrations were brought out at a meeting in late September where they decided to consider supporting a third party candidate should the GOP nominate someone who is not as solidly, unrelentingly, and obsessively opposed to abortion (and gay marriage, and stem cell research) as they are. The short list of those candidates includes current frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and (for some) Mitt Romney. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was there, so was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Most notably, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer joined in by phone, apparently ready to jump from the ship he couldn’t get on.

To be sure, none of the major candidates (Rudy, Freddy, and Romney) has an unblemished record of social conservatism. Mayor Giuliani openly describes himself as moderate or even liberal on abortion and gay marriage while having a shaky marital history himself. Senator Thompson lobbied for abortion groups in his past and opposed a federal marriage amendment, while social conservatives have attacked Governor Romney as “just another flip-flopper from Massachusetts” for stances he took before, during, and after his term in the Commonwealth. Still, early pollsters seem willing to defy the will of the socially conservative base and have placed these three at the head of the pack along with John McCain, who has also drawn the wrath of Dobson.

The religious right’s opposition to these candidates begs the question of which candidates they WOULD support for the nomination. There are a handful of socially conservative candidates who would suit the religious right’s demands for single-issue campaigns, if they had even a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining delegates to the convention. Those assembled in Salt Lake City acknowledged this passively in their opposition to pro-choice candidates while failing to name a preference of their own. Their apparent willingness to abandon the party they brought to and kept in power for the better part of 30 years is perhaps the final break between themselves and the rest of the party.

While the religious right is supposed to be the GOP’s most loyal voting block, I personally would like to know this from the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson: what have you done for us lately? Since re-electing a president they now no longer support, things started getting tough for elected Republicans in 2005. After those in Washington bent over backwards (sorry, bad choice of words?) to accommodate the religious rights demands- another federal marriage amendment, another limp-wristed anti-abortion resolution, another divisive stem cell research ban- how were Republicans repaid when it was time to go to the polls? The religious right stayed home (or worse, voted for conservative Democrats) and put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair.

The recent conference exposes this group for what they really are: phony conservatives. They are in fact no better than the liberals they despise in their opposition to even rudimentary conservative principles. To borrow a party label from Europe, those assembled in Salt Lake City recently are not Republicans but mere Christian Democrats, willing to expand the federal government in size, scope, and authority and impose their will on the majority. In this sense, they are no different from the liberals they despise.

While Americans are themselves the most religious people in the western democratic world, they are content to keep their religious and secular lives separate and to not impose their beliefs on their neighbors. What these phony conservatives want is one of them, who will betray conservatism itself to suit their narrow social objectives. What they’ll get in supporting a third party is a liberal Democrat who will do exactly what they don’t want for four or even eight years. What they really need is a conservative- a small government, low tax, strong national defense conservative- who can lead our country and our party in to the future.

The Case Against Ronald Reagan

2007-08-21T16:57:00.000-07:00

We’ve heard a lot of lip service to our nation’s 40th president by prospective Republican candidates since the official kickoff of the 2008 campaign (the day after the ’06 midterms) and a lot of promises to match conservative words with conservative action if elected. Given the thrashing Republicans took last November and the consensus among candidates for why they lost- abandoning conservatism- it’s not hard to see why appeals would be made to Ronald Reagan in order to make their candidacies look better. However, in so comparing, much is being misunderstood about the Reagan presidency and what exactly made him a great president. I would argue as David Brooks did some time earlier that a Reagan clone is not what America needs in 2008 despite what most Republicans appear to be yearning for.

It’s easy to see why conservatives, feeling betrayed by Bush’s second term missteps, would want one of their own to be the Republican standard-bearer next year. But what kind of conservative are they looking for exactly? There are actions and words in each of the declared (and undeclared) candidates which would qualify them as conservatives and likewise actions and words that would disqualify them. None of the candidates, official or otherwise, appears to be conservative on absolutely every issue as it would seem the base would demand.

Rudy Giuliani’s conservative economic and fiscal policies combined with his tough action on crime and 9/11 heroism is cancelled out by his stances on social issues and past ethical concerns. If conservatives are looking for a candidate with unquestioned and unwavering credentials on social issues they need look no further than Sam Brownback. His views on abortion would require a day’s journey to reach even the pro-life movement’s mainstream. Brownback’s candidacy fizzles along with other single-issue candidates when people discuss Iraq with the Senator or fiscal policy with Tom Tancredo. These second-tier, single-issue candidates are keeping themselves on the sidelines by taking unpopular positions on issues that are very divisive even within the party.

Ronald Reagan, by contrast, represents the consummate conservative to conservatives: someone whose (Protestant) Christian faith was as visible as the suit he was wearing; someone who advocated smaller government, lower taxes, and economic freedom and opportunity for all Americans; and someone who wasn’t afraid to get tough with our nation’s enemies. Conservatives identify aspects of the presidency and the man they particularly admire and are quick to point out that Reagan’s landslides prove that uncompromising conservatism can win in America. What they fail to mention or even realize is that Reagan’s victories occurred in a different time in a different political climate against very different candidates. Notice how no Democrat is hoping to become the next Walter Mondale or even Jimmy Carter.

What conservatives and Republicans should strive for instead is someone who, like Reagan, is the right person for the right time. That is what made Ronald Reagan a great president. His vision for America and drive for change were what Americans wanted twenty-five years ago, but things have changed dramatically since then. First and foremost, America is at war right now, and Reagan was certainly not a wartime president. America’s economic and social conditions are also quite different than they were in the 1980’s: massive foreign debt and housing crises have replaced double-digit inflation and high unemployment as the main economic threats on the horizon; stem cell research and gay marriage, both well outside the vocabulary of 1980’s social commentators, are now very much in the spotlight today. Republicans need a candidate who, while not 100% conservative on every issue, can suit today’s reality and deal with today’s problems instead of an ideal total conservative from a different era.

GOP Candidates Ditch Debates, Pwn n00bs

2007-07-28T11:12:00.000-07:00

You can only be so stupid, but somehow the Democrats’ base has broken such boundaries yet again, and the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates seems all too willing to accommodate them. I refer of course to the much-ignored YouTube debates which allowed those with no business being involved in the American political system an outlet to vent their insanity. The debates were aired by CNN but the format was better suited for Nickelodeon. Serious questions were on the scarce side and, like a Michigan versus Penn State football game, there were no real winners. There were also few viewers, but still more than watched Live Earth.

This isn’t the first time Democrats have succeeded in making 18 to 25 year olds look ignorant, apathetic, and downright dumb. MTV’s Rock the Vote campaign failed spectacularly in its attempt to get their viewers to the polls even after the infamous “boxers or briefs” question asked to Bill Clinton (which somehow was still more articulate than about 90% of this week’s questions). Although candidates tried their best to answer the pressing concerns of the young with a straight face, (condoms in schools, drug legalization, and FCC indecency standards) the young still stayed away in droves.

After the debates, it’s hard to imagine youth showing up again this time around. Questions which survived the rigorous screening process included a song about taxes, more than a few obscenities, a re-launching of the 2000 election conspiracy, and an “are my ‘babies’ safe” question about gun control. One questioner asked each candidate to name something they liked and disliked about the candidate to their left. Not making the cut were questions asking candidates their favorite color and if Hillary would bone Howard Stern. Appropriately enough, the night’s most ridiculous question, posed by a man dressed as a snowman, was answered by the field’s most ridiculous candidate, Dennis Kucinich (this after eventually convincing security he was one of the candidates, not one of the bloggers).

In the wake of this week’s absurdity, it’s not hard to understand why Republican candidates who aren’t desperate for face time (John McCain and Ron Paul) have all declined to show up to the forthcoming YouTube debate in September. Mitt Romney summed up the candidates’ preference for sanity in debates by stating “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.” Eight years of Bill Clinton’s antics combined with this week’s nonsense should erase all question of a higher level held by Democrats.

To be fair, as fundamentally flawed as the YouTube debates were, the basic idea was well-intentioned: regular people asking candidates questions about issues they cared about. A better idea for Republicans would be to make joint appearances on a talk radio program (that is, if Democrats don’t succeed in shutting them down first) and answering questions from listeners. Callers would be screened as to prevent the baffling idiocy of YouTube, their questions would be far less likely to end in “OMFG, PWNED!” and questioners would probably at least hold a high school diploma. What’s more, there would actually be a listening audience this time.

It's All Just a Little Bit of History Repeating

2007-07-17T23:00:00.001-07:00

While the Senate proves once again how worthless the new Congress really is, I stand watching and wondering what could happen if Democrats get their way and the US surrenders Iraq. Granted this means Senators now have something else to do late at night besides chasing escort girls, you would think they’d choose something more productive than selling their country down the river. Then again, as history has proven multiple times, that is what Democrats are best at. The left-wing fringe groups which own the Democratic Party are desperate to see America lose this war and to see history repeat itself.

It was a little more than thirty years ago when the lunatics took over the asylum known as the modern Democratic Party and committed themselves to losing America’s wars. In 1975, with the distraction of Watergate still in full public view, they succeeded in forcing America to tuck tail between their legs and retreat full scale from Vietnam. The images are still vivid enough with hundreds of desperate refugees attempting to cling to the departing helicopters. It was at that point when Americans turned off their television sets and forgot about the ugliness of the conflict. They, of course, were the lucky ones: the new communist regimes which popped up in the wake of liberal treason summarily slaughtered millions of people, the lion’s share in Cambodia.

The Americans’ withdrawal meant “Year Zero” for Pol Pot and Cambodia. Their triumphant ride through Phnom Penh was followed by an immediate evacuation to the countryside, the imposing of ancient first century Khmer culture and technology, and the shooting of anyone who resisted on the spot. As if that wasn’t enough, they imprisoned and tortured “microbes” of society until their victims came to believe the accusations against them. In all, two million people- one in four Cambodians- were executed or starved to death by one of the most evil regimes of the twentieth century. Cambodia itself may never recover. Americans tried to share the pain of those poor people some thousands of miles away, especially after Sam Waterston told us about it in 1984’s The Killing Fields. In the meantime, we forgot who was responsible for the Khmer Rouge coming to power. Today, Cambodia’s communist monsters live as free as America’s liberal enablers.

Thirty years later liberals still have not learned the lessons from history. They are as committed to America losing this war as they were to America losing in Vietnam. I’m already confounded as to what the national interest could be in losing a war without considering the consequences of our unconditional surrender. Without American soldiers to prop it up, Iraq’s fragile government would fall in a matter of days with the worst yet to come. Syria, Iran, and- oh yes- al-Qaeda would lock for control of the country in a battle with no winners. Instead of democracy and peace, terrorism and Islamist tyranny would gain a beachhead in the Middle East. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might make his dream of annihilating Israel and eradicating the Jews a reality without an American presence to stop him. Militant Islamist terrorists would see America for the paper tiger it is and would be undeterred in their quest to impose the 11th century on the world. Iraq poses yet one more danger than Vietnam in that withdrawing American soldiers didn’t bring Vietcong terrorists home with them.

It is well known that those who are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it. These Democrats are simply naïve if they believe mass genocide would not take place soon after our hasty surrender and departure. I shouldn’t have to remind you that there are three groups living in Iraq with a history of killing each other. Saddam Hussein initiated Sunni slaughters of Shiites and Kurds within recent memory. But that won’t happen again, will it? After all, if it’s one thing we can count on from militant Islamist terrorists, its restraint. No, if Democrats get their way and America hands over control of Iraq to al-Qaeda and if we see another Year Zero genocide, I hold those treasonous, enabling, left-wing Democrats as responsible for that genocide as the terrorists themselves.

Smith, New CRNC team thank supporters

2007-07-17T11:48:00.000-07:00

In a blast e-mail to College Republicans across the nation, newly elected Executive Board members this afternoon sent their thanks to those who supported them:

Now that the convention is over, we wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who attended and those who supported the New CRNC. We were honored to receive such widespread support, a true mandate for positive reform to our organization. Thank you for placing your confidence in us and the ideas that we advanced.

We value your continued input as we transition into this new administration. There are no tickets or candidates any more. Everyone is on the same team, and we are all working towards the same goals. Your ideas and comments will improve and refine our efforts.

We stand on the edge of a bright future; these next two years hold much promise for our organization. We all have been called to serve a great cause and a great country; we are humbled that you have entrusted us to lead this powerful movement. With your help, this New CRNC will represent the best of what College Republicans can be.

The New CRNC Team

Chairman Charlie Smith, Co-Chairman Nick Miccarelli, Northeastern Vice-Chairman Mike Keough, Southern Vice-Chairman Kristy Cottrell, Midwestern Vice-Chairman Justin Smith, Western Vice-Chairman Zach Howell, Secretary Dan Carlson & Treasurer Esther Clark

And now for some entirely partial opinion on the matter:
It is important to note that the new Chairman believes there is a mandate for his ideas on reforming this organization, something that a few more people sticking to their guns last weekend in the nation's capital would have changed. Also, in a message claiming that the time for "tickets" and "candidates" has passed, it is signed as being from "The New CRNC Team". There is indeed much to be done in the next two years; let us only hope that they are better than the past two.

Congratulations to CR McCain backers

2007-07-14T15:41:00.000-07:00

We here at Red State Rampage wish to extend our cordial congratulations to each state federation that had many of its members endorse the Presidential candidacy of Arizona Senator John McCain, and the many former state chairmen who worked so hard to grab the attention of the campaign staff. For starters, the people whom you all paid homage to on the campaign staff have all either been fired or quit. Secondly, McCain is fading faster than Barbaro's Triple Crown chances at last year's Preakness. The campaign is now broke and would like back its $1000 checks that it so flippantly passed out last fall to CR chapters like so much Halloween candy. It is also amusing that a campaign that has been as much about pork barrel spending as any other issue so quickly spent itself into debt. Our best guess is that they followed what is popularly known as the Gourley model (spending 19 million to raise 21 million, as was rumored last spring, or paying a company $400,000 to raise you $300 odd thousands).

So here is to you Michael Miltenberger, Dan Carlson, Blake Harris, and Vic Bailey. It looks like selling out to the frontrunner (wow, how fast time does fly!) won you the jackpot! A piece of advice: jump ship before they send you the bill.

Destroyers wreck Force, move on to ArenaBowl XXI

2007-07-14T13:56:00.000-07:00

Earlier this afternoon, the hometown Columbus Destroyers of the Arena Football League defeated the 15-2 Georgia Force in their latest upset victory en route to Arena Bowl XXI. Matt Nagy, who was traded away by the Force in the offseason, led the Destroyers to a 66-56 triumph. It is great to see a Columbus professional sports team doing so well, and even greater to see them make such an underdog run in the playoffs. Columbus entered the playoffs with a 7-9 record and went on to best Tampa Bay on a last-second touchdown in the Wild Card Round. Last weekend, the Destroyers knocked off the Dallas Desperadoes, a team with an AFL-record 15 regular season wins, in the Divisional Playoffs by a score of 66-59.

Columbus will await the winner of the San Jose-Chicago matchup, and is the second team in the last two years to enter the playoffs at 7-9 and advance to the Arena Bowl. In 2006, the Chicago Rush, who Columbus could face in Arena Bowl XXI, accomplished the same feat. Other Columbus professional squads have also experienced recent success, with Major League Soccer's Columbus Crew on a month-long hot streak vaulting them into the upper half of the Eastern Conference and the Columbus Comets of the National Women's Football Assocation making a deep run in their own playoffs. The Comets play this evening in Nashville against the Pittsburgh Passion for the 2007 NWFA Championship.

Calling shenanigans

2007-07-14T13:00:00.000-07:00

While no one will dispute the legitimacy of Charlie Smith's election as CRNC top dog this morning, several state chairmen, especially including Washington's Dan Brutoca, Iowa's Ben Johnson, and Arkansas' Bryant Davis, will have some serious explaining to do when they return to their federations, not to mention their predecessors. As a false wave of unity swept the convention floor following yesterday's passage of reform-minded amendments, one by one the states still considering abstinence from the election were cherry-picked by current CRNC Executive Board members and members of the NewCRNC (same as the old CRNC) team. Some state chairmen rolled over to have their bellies scratched with Credentials Committee slots, others leapt at the carrot of possibly holding regional training in their states, and still others were tempted by Charlie's good natured words with them. Simply amazing to the keen observer though is the fact that these individuals gave up months of fighting on principle only to abandon it for greener pastures. The rewards do not make any of them CR-rich either, as the Credentials slots are simply a one-year term (the next full-ticket election will be in July 2009) and regional training cannot possibly bring any greater benefit to the host state than dinner with Charlie Smith. Maybe NewCRNC should have just passed out candy to attendees instead, then these kids would have gotten some tangible nourishment from the swindle.

Iowa and Arkansas are especially befuddling cases simply due to the fact that each federation's immediate past Chairman was a candidate for their Regional Vice Chairman slot, running in both cases against NewCRNC foes. In Washington, Brutoca will surely have to answer to both Brent Ludeman, a two-term leader as well as leading national reformer, and Neil Uhrig, who was one of the first to speak out against outgoing Chairman Paul Gourley. Word out of the state is that Washington chapter chairmen were not even in favor of attending the convention, but that Brutoca was allowed to head the delegation to D.C. under the requirement that they abstain. If Taylor Burks can be impeached for merely firing an appointed officer, then such treachery can surely be so punished.

Returning Chairmen such as Wisconsin's Mary Ellen Burke and West Virginia's Brian Dayton deserve to be honored for sticking to their guns and not wavering under pressure to support a candidate of whom they do not approve. It seems that the mantle of the reform movement will pass from Ludeman and Brian Siler to such chairs as these, especially given the hands-off, live and let be approach that new leadership in Ohio is expected to take with regard to the CRNC.

In the final analysis, Siler and Ludeman attending the festivities may very well have produced a more organized opposition to Smith's victory, but their absence has hopefully allowed a new cadre of individuals to take the reigns and run with reform. After all, they are both on their way out, so we must have new leadership. In the end, the two Real Reform principals got both the amendments and the language that they desired, which always seemed to be their ultimate focus anyhow. Both are reportedly planning to move on from the CR arena and on to working in the larger grassroots political apparatus, whether it be on the local or national (think Presidential) scale. Their contributions to our organization should be remembered positively by all, and we wish the best of luck to them both as they get on with their careers.

One important note to make about the addition of electoral votes to Missouri, Alabama, and Colorado is that the case the three states made for extra votes was rooted in Facebook group memberships. Newly elected Midwest Vice Chairman Justin Smith argued that Missouran enrollment in CR Facebook groups was much greater than the number of verified members during the credentialing process. While this argument was successful, a proxy form submitted by the Ohio College Republican Federation for the Natl. Board Meeting yesterday was turned down by Chairman Gourley because there was no "Witness" signature. The kicker for my fellow Buckeyes is that no proxy procedure was outlined to the Board, so Gourley's decision was merely on a whim and without any basis or precedent. Granted, allegedly embezzling a few thousand dollars would also have been on a whim and without precedent, so this decision was merely business as usual.

Other absurdities in this election include CRNC Executive Director Ethan Eilon doing double duty as NewCRNC Campaign Manager and running a campaign based around reforming the very organization he was helping to run at the time. His successor as Manager was Blake Harris, who as a Credential Committee member ruled on the appeals for extra votes by his home state, Alabama, as well as Missouri and Colorado. All three states were supporters of his candidate, and he was Alabama's past chairman. Former Clinton Assistant Attorney General and 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick thinks that these were conflicts of interest.

The Reign Begins

2007-07-14T08:51:00.000-07:00

Earlier this morning at the CRNC Convention, Colorado's Charlie Smith was elected to succeed Paul Gourley as Chairman of the CRNC and will serve a two-year term in the post. Also elected with him were Nick Miccarelli (Co-Chairman), Dan Carlson (Secretary), and Esther Clark (Treasurer).
The entire slate of Regional Vice Chair candidates was also victorious, with Michael Keough (Northeast), Kristy Cottrell (South), Justin Smith (Midwest), and Zach Howell (West) all easily winning election.

RSR to add Podcasting of posts

2007-07-13T21:12:00.001-07:00

Given that a good friend of RSR is pursuing a career in broadcasting, we will begin to offer each and every post in audio form for your podcasting pleasure. At some point within the next two weeks we will make the grand rollout of this feature, which will be unique certainly within the CR blogosphere, and rare as well within the greater Ohio community of bloggers. Details are being worked out at the moment, and more will follow as it becomes more concrete. Also on the table are possible audio interviews with CR figures down the road, and maybe even some real politicians and politicos.

Real Reform principals issue statement on amendments

2007-07-13T20:50:00.001-07:00

As any College Republican who is active within the national scene now knows, the full slate of amendments were passed today at the CRNC National Board Meeting after weeks of anxious hand-wringing by many who originally saw Charlie Smith's pledge to bring his supporters to the "Yea" column as an unlikely promise to be fulfilled. Real Reform principals Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman, both notably absent from the nation's capital this weekend, have issued a statement of thanks to their fellow CRs for working to pass the important measures.

"The amendments passed today are the result of six plus months of hard work guided by the bold principles and recommendations outlined in Real Reform. We see these amendments as a giant victory for this organization. We are excited that Real Reform was the genesis for the changes that will shape the future of our organization for generations to come. Thank you to all those who helped spearhead this effort and those who voted on the amendments today.

Reform does not end here. Make no mistake about it, the CRNC faces real problems that demand real solutions. The well-being of our organization has been sacrificed for political expediency and self-glorification too often in recent memory. Repeated scandals that never seem to end have undermined the credibility of our organization. We have lost our way.

In order to enact true, lasting reform in the CRNC, the culture of our organization and type of people we put in power must change. The procedural changes and safeguards put in place by the amendments passed today mean very little if the people entrusted to uphold them do not share the values they reflect. While we recognize that change does not occur overnight, we will continue to push for safeguards and individuals that work to eliminate corruption, increase accountability, improve transparency and put the grassroots first. We see today as just the first step.

Thank you again for all of your work in supporting these amendments and the Real Reform movement. Without your continued support, the changes enacted today would not have been possible."

Speculation about potential opposition to Charlie Smith's imminent election continues to foment, but one CR from Ohio noted that he has plans to meet with Siler in Columbus on Saturday, which would seem to put the kibash on such rumors of he and Ludeman riding into D.C. on white horses. Other sources from within the state have also confirmed that with the Midwest Vice-Chairman election all but over for Iowa's Bobby Kaufmann following Minnesota's decision to back Justin Smith, the decision was made to save the funds for an expanded field program come this fall. While some have speculated that Kaufmann could not win without the votes from Ohio, it was indeed the Minnesotan move that sounded the death knell. Sources have also informed RSR over the past few months that the ultimate priority for Siler became the passage of amendments, which seems to be given credence by the absence of any organized opposition ticket at this convention.

Ohio, Washington virtual no-shows at coronation

2007-07-12T15:47:00.000-07:00

Two of the state federations viewed nationally as leaders within the CRNC's reform movement are largely absent from the early festivities of the biennial convention taking place this weekend in the nation's capital. With no real possibility at this late hour of a challenge to Charlie Smith's upcoming coronation, it is really no surprise that either of the states, or their sometimes enigmatic former Chairmen, Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman, are absent without leave. While the elections are not the only reason to show up, they certainly are the biggest motivator of attendance. With the election results hardly in doubt, even in each of the "Regional Vice-Chairman" contests, the urgency of appearing drops considerably.

Eagerness for Ohioans to attend the 2007 edition of the CRNC Convention surely did wane after a most disappointing Credentials Report back in the spring that left Ohio with fewer than half of the thirteen delegates that it had expected to receive. On the whole, the number of electoral votes allotted were down from 2005, but members of the Ohio College Republican Federation were caught by surprise at the low number of delegates their state was awarded. After a banner year of recruitment and a hard-fought victory for at least partially electronic credential verification, the expected number was 13 votes. While Ohio could still receive an additional vote if their appeal is successful, it still will fall far short.

Sources out of Ohio have noted that the savings from not sending a full delegation to the convention will allow for at least one extra field representative from the OCRF this fall. In taking a brief look at this fall's electoral slate in the Buckeye state, it is not lost on this College Republican that Columbus and Cincinnati both have major municipal elections come November. Extra feet on the ground organizing and driving out the grassroots volunteers that CRs can ably provide seems certainly to be a welcome asset for party leaders in both Franklin and Hamilton Counties.

Live Earth Celebrities to the Rest of Us: Stop Being You!

2007-07-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

Today is another one of those days where the performing elites will assemble on various parts of the planet in support of a cause they know little to nothing about. In so doing they can blame George Bush for whatever it is they’re playing for either not doing enough about it or causing the problem entirely. Take a little from Column “A” and a little from Column “B” for the cause-de-jour, global warming. Yes, just in time for Al Gore’s third unsuccessful presidential run, the superstars of the performing world will bring global warming to our attention by traveling 222,623 miles between them and dumping several tons of fuel (in that it’s been several years since the Battle of Hastings) in the atmosphere and chastising the rest of us for our wasteful ways of life.

Global warming represents one of the most prominent pillars of the faith to the religion of Liberalism and its practice can best be described as “do as I say, not as I do.” The entertainers performing today are hardly environmental stewards, and the concert’s primary organizer is nothing less than a sinner. Gore’s “carbon footprint,” for instance, would require size 23 shoes. His mansion in Tennessee uses more electricity in a month than the average American household does in a year. His natural gas bill wasn’t chump change for the rest of us either: $1,080. What’s more, after making his movie in which he urged Americans to drastically reduce their energy consumption by using less electricity and gas at home (or else!), his personal energy consumption increased! The private jet he’ll be taking to the concert doesn’t exactly run on switch grass either.

It would be interesting if a portion of the proceeds for Live Earth went to cleaning up the environmental damage caused by holding the concerts in the first place. Celebrities are going to be traveling thousands of miles to get to these locations and I guarantee you not one will be taking the city bus. For that matter, they won’t be carpooling or even taking an airliner like the rest of us are told to. The damage to the ozone layer caused by all that fuel from each of their private jets should shame any environmentally and intellectually honest celebrity from coming to this event. This is in addition to other damage inflicted upon the planet such as the Gore-gantuan energy costs and piles of trash left by spectators. Let Melissa Etheridge try and blame that one on FEMA! Of course, this concert isn’t about being honest with the commoners or even being consistent. This is about, like, the environment, man! Oh, and George Bush doesn’t care about black people.

Personally, as I’m not being forced to watch it (yet), I’d rather exercise my right as a consumer while it still exists and watch something else that doesn’t insult me or make me feel guilty about watching it. Like a Lifetime movie. This is yet another excursion in to the world of public policy that celebrities feel entitled to dictate to us about by simply being celebrities. They take up the cause regardless of whether they know anything about it or whether they’re actually part of the problem itself. The likes of John Mayer and Madonna are no more qualified to talk about climate change than George Bush is to talk about music. Wait, who was it that was trying to tell who how to do their job again?

The Old College Try

2007-07-03T23:18:00.000-07:00

YAF recently released their list of the Top Ten Campus Conservatives, and a couple good friends of RSR made an appearance on the list. Bowling Green's Dan Lipian, who is currently serving in his second term as BGSU CR Chairman and in his first term as Ohio College Republican Federation Secretary, was picked for his efforts with last year's 9/11: Never Forget Project and his phenomenal work in bringing conservative activist and musical legend Ted Nugent to Bowling Green. In an aside, RSR attended the evening with Nugent back in March, and it was absolutely packed. On one of the most liberal college campuses in Ohio, Dan and his great group of CRs like Co-Chairman Brian Kutzley packed the 1,000 seat auditorium within 50 seats of capacity.

URI College Republican Chairman Ryan Bilodeau, who is also serving currently as Rhode Island CR Chairman, also was named to the prestigious list. Bilodeau raised many eyebrows on campus with his WHAM (White Heterosexual American Male) Scholarship back last fall, and he went toe to toe with his university for the survival of College Republicans on URI's campus. Ryan has also spent much time coordinating independent student support for Mitt Romney, and was featured on a panel at CPAC with other young conservative leaders. Keep up the good work gents!

Knee High by the Fourth of July

2007-07-03T22:50:00.000-07:00

With just ten days left in the mockery that is the campaign to be CRNC Chairman, the river of crap is rising with a nasty riptide that threatens to bring the whole organization crashing down upon itself. The organization we know and love, New CRNC, which is merely the name Charlie Smith has bestowed upon his ticket, is merely an accomplice after the fact at best and fully complicit with this current mess at worst.
This past month's events, shocking as they may seem to many, come as no surprise to us here at Red State Rampage. When we last opined, we spoke of a growing buyer's remorse, an outgoing Chairman in Paul Gourley who had lost any semblance of control, and a candidate in Charlie Smith who had yet to define himself once and for all. Now that all of these things have come to pass, many times over in some cases, it is very clear that someone must speak up once again.
As Truth Caucus moves on to more grown up topics, such as Paris Hilton's latest exploits, there emerges an ever growing void of hard news and solid opinion on today's CRNC, an ever dulling light shining into the cracks and crevices of this organization, the College Republicans. One thing is imminently recognizable, though: it is high time to hop back on the horse here at RSR and stir the pot once more. With that, we leave you for the next few hours to await the glorious return, a campaign of shock and awe like none seen before.

In Wake of Amnesty, Elites Get Mad, Plot to Get Even

2007-06-29T15:37:00.000-07:00

Despite what you will hear from the mainstream media and the leadership of both parties, yesterday was a triumph. Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Harry Reid, AND George Bush’s immigration amnesty bill went down in flames Thursday when a crucial vote to cut off debate was defeated 53-46. Thursday represents a defeat for the Republican and Democrat party bosses and the elites they have sold their souls to in favor of this fatally-flawed legislation (big business, big labor, and big La Raza come to mind). It is a victory for everyone else (you know, the “loud folks”), and before we go any further, kudos are in high order for Senators- Republican and Democrat- who did the right thing and voted against their leadership and against cloture. Don’t expect the elites in the wake of this knock down to stay down, however.

This bill represents more than any other in recent memory the visible divide between the people’s elected representatives and the people who do the electing. Just take a look at the recent Gallup poll of Congress, which shows the lowest approval rating in the history of the Gallup poll itself. The bill failed principally thanks to an open rebellion among the American people, mostly- but not exclusively- on the right whose message was reverberated on the alternative media. Groups like the Heritage Foundation conducted cost studies placing enforcement (which begs the question that this bill could have been enforced) in the trillions of dollars. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin shed more light on the bill than many Senators would have liked and exposed it for the “come-and-get-it” amnesty it was. Talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham not only offered their views on the bill but aired their listeners’ concerns on the matter. Most importantly, ordinary citizens placed so many phone calls to their Senators that the phone system was overloaded and had to be shut down.

Their response was visible enough at first and will become even more so after their, umm, Cuatro de Julio trips back home. Many in support of the bill were shocked to find that their constituents did not share their enthusiasm for a porous if not absent border and a free pass for 20 million people. How did these public servants, these elected representatives react? By name-calling. Senator Graham’s “loud folks” was just the tip of the iceberg. Senators dropped terms like “racist,” “bigot,” and the slightly-dated “know-nothing” to describe their concerned constituents. Senator Feinstein declared that she had never before received such hate-filled mail from voters who didn’t want to live in a balkanized, bilingual state. Just yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid reported receiving a negative letter from a constituent which he promptly turned over to Capitol Police. I guess petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is grounds for a criminal investigation these days.

And what good is petitioning without a means to petition? Frustrated elitists on both sides of the aisle have now set their sights on the vehicle they see as most responsible for shutting down their amnesty bill: political talk radio. The left has been hinting since before they took power at bringing back the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine” to silence the voice of conservative opposition on the airwaves. Now it seems they’re not only serious about it, but they’ve got Republican support! Just ask Senator Foghorn Hairspray (R-Mississippi) who declared “talk [ah say, talk] radio is running this country and we’ve got to do something about it, [see?]” The “Fairness Doctrine” is gathering steam (or is that hot air?) with Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Durbin, Hillary, and others expressing their support. It was even reported that Democrats told wavering Republican Senators yesterday that by the time they returned from their angry constituents, they would have already “taken care” of talk radio.

It is now becoming apparent that hell hath no fury like an elite scorned, and it’s not hard to see why they’re reacting in this way. Congress and the President hold approval ratings which rival those of the Adams administration, and back then they countered the will of the people with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize President Adams and the Federalist Party’s government. Several members of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were thrown in jail for doing just that. The American people wouldn’t stand for such tyranny then and the Federalists were thrown out in 1800. Now, faced with bipartisan elitism, the end result is much less clear. The American public is quite clearly mad as hell at both parties, and the elites will more than likely try to silence opposing viewpoints in the media and re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine” to maintain their power. However, the two-party system in place in America ensures a result similar to the 1981 NBA Playoffs: somebody’s got to win, even if nobody’s paying attention.

With Dems in Left Field, Republicans Should Play to the Center

2007-06-21T00:44:00.000-07:00

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s termination of what can best be described as a brief and politically-convenient fling with the Republican Party ought to surprise no one. After all, he had been hinting for quite some time at an independent run for the White House next year. While his status as a Republican allowed him to ride his predecessor’s coattails to become mayor of America’s largest city, he fit in about as well with most in the party as I do in a room full of drunk coeds. His exit from the Republican Party is important not for what it means to his future but to the future of the party’s rapidly shrinking center.

Whatever you may think of his real compatibility with the Republican Party, Mike Bloomberg represents a certain wing of the party that is struggling to maintain their place at the table. These are the descendants of Rockefeller, Scranton, Nixon, and Ford who are at odds for being moderate or even liberal on certain issues that have defined the party platform since the 1980’s. They are pro-choice, pro-green deficit hawks who often defy their more conservative members on stem cell research and gay marriage. The losers in the schism that doomed the party in the election of 1964, they are now the ones who, for better or worse, argue for “big tent” inclusion against right-wing extremism.

The election of 2006 didn’t help GOP moderates whose ranks were further depleted by retirement and defeat. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, the House’s lone openly-gay Republican retired, Michigan’s Joe Schwarz was beaten in his primary, and Connecticut’s Nancy Johnson- a founding member of the Republican Main Street Partnership- was knocked off on election night. She, however, was not alone: six other moderate Republican Congressmen and Senator Lincoln Chafee joined Johnson’s involuntary return to the private sector. The fate of elected Republican moderates is not nearly as dire however as those who do the electing. This became apparent in the recent primary debate in Manchester, New Hampshire when a self-proclaimed moderate asked candidates what they would do to reach out to the party’s center. The recent midterms further illustrate how Karl Rove’s strategy of getting out the base on Election Day, while successful through three elections, has led to the party moderates being ignored or abandoned.

Perhaps the most intriguing question through all of this is: what should happen if this group of moderates resurfaces and is successful in nominating one of its own to the presidency? Rudy Giuliani is the current Republican favorite and possesses a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control record (though you wouldn’t know it now by asking him). Many on the right are cringing at the possibility of a Republican candidate who would uphold Roe v. Wade, or at the very least not go out of his way to try to overturn it. What then should happen if the two (or even three with Bloomberg) presidential candidates are all moderate or liberal on social issues? Would this lead to a Sam Brownback or a Pat Buchanan-like candidate bolting the GOP and running as an independent himself? It’s not nearly as far-fetched as it may at first seem: back in 2000 a Pat Robertson autodialer warned South Carolina Republicans not to vote for anybody if John McCain won the nomination.

As history (1912, 1964, and 1976) has shown, factional schism is poison to the Republican Party. It would seem in a race of such consequence that the Republicans have all hands on deck to beat whoever the Democrats come up with. I shouldn’t have to say again that the Democrats have a distinct advantage at this early point in the campaign. What’s more, 2006 proves the Republicans can’t simply rely on their conservative base alone to win, especially with that base becoming increasingly angry with the party itself. Furthermore, Republicans can no longer count on Democrats to beat themselves (or herself) and will have to win 2008 on their own merits with a candidate who is more than he is not. If Republicans hope to win with the right it needs first to reconcile with its center.

GOP Set to Party Like it’s 1993?

2007-06-15T20:36:00.000-07:00

While I was in Canada I mentioned to a friend that I wanted to see Meech Lake, some 25 kilometers northwest of Ottawa. This was the site of the now infamous Meech Lake Accord, where Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tried to get Quebec to ratify the Canada Act in 1987. I told him that I wanted to see just where the Progressive Conservative Party ceased to exist as a national party, losing all but two of its 169 seats in the 1993 federal election. He then asked if I wanted to take a trip this summer to the Mexican border, where the Republican Party will cease to exist as a national party.

The more one looks at this ill-fated and even worse-conceived immigration bill the more it tends to resemble the Meech Lake Accord for the Republican Party. Both initially enjoyed the support of more than one party, both were hailed as compromises and the result of intense negotiations, both were geared at securing a certain group in an electoral coalition, and both (ironically) involved immigration in some form. Most importantly, however, both have severely alienated their party’s conservative base. In the case of Canada, this meant that more than half of the electorate switched parties in the 1993 elections. What’s more, the electoral coalition Mulroney built in his 1984 and 1988 landslides collapsed: Quebec nationalists voted for the new Bloc Quebecois while western conservatives chose Preston Manning’s Reform Party. Everyone else voted for the Liberals, who ended up winning big.

While there is as yet no third party or Manning-like figure to play Pac Man to the GOP’s traditional support, they do face a real threat from a rejuvenated Democratic Party. Today’s Democrats are proving what a difference two years can make with everything seemingly going their way. They have two rock star candidates for the presidency, the momentum of the 2006 midterm wave behind them, and a very unpopular lame duck president the Republicans have to stay away from to hope to win. Put simply, at this very early point in the campaign, the race is the Democrats’ to lose.

President Bush and a group of Senate RINOs aren’t making things any easier. To the contrary, they have taken to blaming “loud folks,” (you know, the ones who put them in power back in 2004) for their bill stalling in the Senate. They have taken to name-calling with “nativist” and “racist” being thrown around by Republicans to describe their most dedicated supporters less than three years ago. They have taken to praising Senate Democrats for their efforts in trying to push this bill forward against the efforts of its more conservative members. If the likes of Lindsey Graham think Democrats are so great for their efforts on this bill, then that’s exactly who his constituents might vote for in 2008.

There are even more immediate consequences for this bill, especially if your name is John McCain. While even being associated with the bill should hurt his campaign enough in the eyes of Republican primary voters, being a co-sponsor with Ted Kennedy could sink it. Even McCain admits it’s not a bill he would have written, which again seems curious when he’s a co-sponsor. If there are any beneficiaries on the right side of the aisle its Rudy and Romney for blasting the bill while proving they are more than single-issue candidates like Tom Tancredo.

While things aren’t nearly as dire for the Republicans now as they were for the Progressive Conservatives in 1993, there are some ominous signs on the horizon as well as some common mistakes in the past. President Bush’s second term can most-favorably be described as a series of unfortunate events. The nomination of Harriet Miers, the Charlie-Foxtrot surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and this current immigration bill stand out as some of the more devastating blows to his administration, to say nothing about the Iraq War. All we need now is a Goods and Services Tax to seal the Republicans’ fate.

By contrast, President Bush has no chosen successor as Prime Minister Mulroney did, and that’s probably a good thing. Mulroney’s heir apparent Kim Campbell was so inept a campaigner and her former boss was so unpopular that Liberal activists met her with chants of “Kim, Kim, you’re just like him!” wherever she went. Desperation time set in with the PC’s airing an ad for 24 hours showcasing Jean Chrétien’s Bell’s palsy. The gift of historical hindsight gives the Republicans roughly 18 months to change their fate for the better. The alternative is to be called upon to “bring out yer dead” on election night.

Tonight at the Reagan Derby

2007-05-04T12:00:00.000-07:00

Historic Reagan Downs in Simi Valley, California will play host to the most tedious ninety minutes in politics, the first leg of the 55^th Run for the White House! Hello everybody, I’m Bob Costas proud to be with you today, mint julep in hand. The initial field is set today on a gorgeous day in California, and the track is running fast. However, many longtime followers of this race are not as enthusiastic about the field as they have been in races past. For more, let’s go down to Tom Hammond for a look at the lineup and the current odds.

Thanks, Bob. What some have called a weak field this season is due to take its first lap around the track where the great Ronaldus Magnus ended his final journey. Each candidate this year is almost certain to run or even look like Ronaldus Magnus and try to remind voters of him. Notable scratches this year include Ordering Law and Grich Blitz, both of whom could be late entries in other legs of the Run for the White House. The early frontrunner, out of New York, is Gracie Mansion in Lane One with 3-1 odds. Barbara Ann is in Lane Two with 7-2 odds. In Lane Three, a long shot facing 20-1 odds, is Tommy Boy. California’s own Armed Service is in Lane Four at 22-1. Salt Lake is in Lane Five at 4-1 odds. In Lane Six is Brownback Mountain at 15-1. At 9-1 in Lane Seven is Razorhuck, he’s from the same state as Slick Willie, who we all know won the Triple Crown in 1992 and 1996. Chairman More is in Lane Eight at 9-2 odds. Lane Nine hold’s the race’s dark horse, Doctor No, who is facing 50-1 odds. Finally, in Lane Ten is Gringo Star at 35-1. Now let’s go down to the track with Chris Matthews and the call to the post.

The candidates are entering the gates and the most tedious ninety minutes in politics is about to begin! There’s the call to post . . . and they’re off! Gracie Mansion is first out of the gate with a steady start on the Iraq War with a field of candidates behind him. Salt Lake running smoothly is catching up and Barbara Ann is covering his best ground at a furious pace! There’s a group of candidates behind the leader trying to catch up with Armed Service drawing attention to his experience, Brownback Mountain sidestepping, and Gringo Star tripping up every few steps. Far behind there’s Doctor No who seems to be running the other way! The candidates are turning the first corner now and jockeying for position on the War on Terror. Gracie Mansion is still in front with a slight lead over Salt Lake who is running smoothly and Barbara Ann who’s frustratingly trying to catch up. They’ve all got a comfortable lead on the rest of the pack who seem to be going nowhere.

We now head in to the straightaway on values with a down-the-line question on abortion. Brownback Mountain leads the charge of candidates to the right and picks up the pace. Barbara Ann runs softer but more dependably this time and Salt Lake tries shifting toward the middle of the track. Here’s Gracie Mansion still in the lead trying to shift from the left to the right and back again. And Gracie Mansion starts to stumble as he charges in a different direction from the pack! They continue on the values path and in to the corner on stem cell research. Brownback Mountain continues to surge to the right of the track, Barbara Ann running dependably in the middle, and Gracie Mansion trying to regain his early pace. Now it’s Salt Lake in the lead as his steady pace overtakes Gracie Mansion!

Down the stretch they come as bloggers from a left-wing website throw in obstacles to try and trip up the candidates! Salt Lake slows and turns to avoid a poorly-thrown question on hating America. Gracie Mansion leaps over a difficult road block on the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and regains his pace, but still trails Salt Lake! Here’s Doctor No returning to respectability with a boost on abolishing the IRS, but he’s still far behind. Salt Lake continues his smooth stride down the final straightaway and Salt Lake has won the Reagan Derby! It looks like Gracie Mansion will place and Barbara Ann will show. The first leg of the 55^th Run for the White House is over, with many, many more to go and the field certain to change with each event along the way. We thank those who attended tonight and the dozens of viewers who tuned in and watched at home! For Tom Hammond and Bob Costas, I’m Chris Matthews. Good night from Reagan Downs!

For Conservatives it’s Not Difficult Being Green

2007-04-30T14:52:00.000-07:00

Once again, the Republican Party faces a time for choosing. These choices on important issues are becoming more numerous as the days tick down toward the 2008 presidential election and also more opportunistic as the party finds itself in the minority in both houses of Congress. We’re already seeing the impact of abortion on the presidential campaign some 18 months before the convention will chose a nominee who may or may not be pro-choice. The Democrats have been hammering home the issue of the environment and thus far have succeeded in defining the issue on their terms. So today, Republicans have a choice as to how to combat the left on the environment and global climate change: they can either continue to claim that global warming is a myth (as the pack of talk radio hosts does) and not offer any solutions of their own or they can offer a genuine alternative to what Czech President Vaclav Klaus has called the greatest threat to human freedom since communism (and he would know!).

If you follow what the Democrats have been saying since Al Gore was putting voters to sleep instead of moviegoers, the Earth is warming at an uncontrollable and unnatural rate because of yuppies driving SUV’s. Therefore, the only possible solution to keep the seas from drowning Florida (which may or may not be such a bad idea) is to drastically change our economy and transform human habits and human nature. Tomorrow’s May Day demonstrations should remind us all how similar left-wing experiments in social engineering turned out. Conservatives are right to denounce proposals like limiting ourselves to one square of toilet paper per trip as draconian and without any basis in reality (as it turned out, it was), but so far they haven’t been offering any alternatives. They have been on this issue as they criticized Democrats three years ago of being on every other issue. They have done nothing but oppose and attack while offering no ideas of their own. This has allowed liberals to characterize Republicans as against the environment which is making it easier for them to advance their radical agenda.

Instead, Republicans can offer a package of common sense policies which balance environmental stewardship with preserving human freedom. There are simple things every one of us can do that can both save the planet and save money that don’t require increasingly ridiculous regulation and bureaucracy. Simply encouraging wiser consumer choices would not only resonate better with the American people than would finger-wagging but would also promote a sound environmental policy without destroying the market economy. If consumers realized, for example, that compact fluorescent light bulbs last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs (and cost a lot less in the long run), a ban would not be necessary. Homeowners are already able to receive a tax incentive for replacing their old furnaces with more efficient models. Perhaps most importantly, Republicans need to champion an energy policy that weans Americans off oil instead of taking their cars away from them. Government can cooperate with energy companies instead of penalizing them and come up with alternative sources of fuel that allow Americans to keep the cars they love and depend on.

Conservatives have a real opportunity to redefine the entire debate on climate change itself. Instead of simply denying it exists and dismissing their claims as Chicken Little hysteria, conservatives can fight the intellectual dishonesty of the left and identify what really is at issue: who or what is causing global climate change and which common sense policies should be implemented to best deal with it. To be perfectly clear, the Kyoto Protocol is NOT in any way rooted in common sense. The United States Senate knew how ridiculous the treaty was in 1997 when they voted 95-0 to not merely reject it but to not even consider it. Other socialist schemes such as carbon trading simply do not work at reducing emissions but change who is emitting them. The ozone doesn’t care which smokestack the pollution comes from, but the global left doesn’t realize this either. Conservatives have a real shot in the next year and a half to take on the left on the environment and offer their own solutions. To do otherwise is to invite toilet paper rations.

Remember Gays, Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires!

2007-04-23T16:27:00.000-07:00

There have been a lot of images, statements, and actions in the wake of last week’s massacre at Virginia Tech that ought to make your blood boil. Within hours of the horror, the far-left blame machine went in to full speed screaming that President Bush was responsible for the carnage because he refused to push for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban some three years ago. Somehow it slipped their minds that Seung-Hui Cho used handguns to commit his slaughter, not AK-47’s. They cried out for tougher gun laws claiming gun control might have prevented the rampage. In a spectacular bit of irony, the Mayor of Hiroshima demonstrated how effective Japan’s strict gun laws worked when he was shot to death the day after the Virginia Tech massacre.

They furthered their amendment-per-week attack on the United States Constitution by braying for the repeal of the Second Amendment (by the way, Harry Reid intends to announce the quartering of American troops in red state small towns). The media did their part to infuriate their viewers by sensationalizing the brutal murder of 32 Virginia Tech students and teachers and by showing Cho’s videotaped vitriol. In so doing, they gave Cho a posthumous forum for his rage and provided inspiration to potential adolescent mass murderers across the country. Not to be outdone in making a terrible tragedy that much worse, the one and only Fred Phelps and his followers in the Westboro Baptist Church announced last week that they intended to protest the funerals of these 32 victims.

Phelps blames the slaughter on the university itself for its leniency toward homosexuals (i.e. treating them like human beings) and said those killed last week are in hell for not being “true Christians.” They claim Cho was sent by God on a mission to punish those he killed for their tolerance of homosexuals. Also, they claim Cho is with his victims in hell because he broke God’s commandment not to kill. In case that confused you, Shirley Phelps-Roper cleared it up in an interview with CBS: “he is in hell, but he was also fulfilling the word of God.” I’ll give you another moment to think about that one.

These actions and statements are as bigoted as they are idiotic, and are to be expected from a group made famous for its protest of military funerals and for its websites “GodHatesFags.com” and “GodHatesAmerica.com.” Phelps and his followers (mostly relatives through blood or marriage) believe each soldier’s death is God’s punishment for America’s tolerance of gays, and Phelps even made overtures to Saddam and paid tribute to his regime before the war. They also praise disasters around the world, both natural and artificial, and blame them on gays (AIDS, 9/11, the Asian Tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina are just a few recent high-profile examples). They even go after other churches and denominations as well as the likes of Billy Graham for refusing to preach their hatred of homosexuals. They refer to Graham as a “hell-bound false prophet.” Last October they also planned protests for the funerals of those killed in a horrific Amish schoolhouse shooting, armed with signs calling the grade school girls “whores.”

Thankfully, this exercise in shame was narrowly averted by radio talk show host Mike Gallagher who offered the group his entire program this Tuesday in exchange for a canceling of their protests. He made the same invitation in order to stop the protests of the Amish funerals. While he could not disagree with the Wesboro Baptist Church more strongly, Gallagher believes as I do that giving them airtime is preferable for these grieving families as well as the Blacksburg community who can simply turn off their radios. Gallagher is a Catholic and thus a target of Phelps’ message of hate as I would assume I am for being an Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church as you recall recently began ordaining gay clergy.

I personally disagree with this and other policies within the church, but that hardly means that our gay priests and bishops (as well as those who elected and ordained them) are doomed to eternal damnation in hell. If anything, hell should be just as full of homosexuals as it would be liars, thieves, adulterers, idolaters, and the Godless. Even if homosexuality is a sin, Christians are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. Phelps and his ilk do not follow this belief in forgiveness and I dare say they are the ones who are not “true Christians.” They are to Christianity what Al-Qaeda is to Islam and should be discredited and condemned by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Campus Left Reveals “Obsession” of Their Own

2007-04-16T14:24:00.001-07:00

DISCLAIMER: This entry is about radical leftists, particularly those centered on college campuses. Most liberals are peaceful. They are reasonably committed to democracy and freedoms found in the First Amendment and a few like America. A couple of them even told me the United States ought to be able to defend itself when attacked. This entry is not about those two liberals.

Last week the South Campus Gateway Drexel theater played host to “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” The movie was surprisingly well-attended and perhaps even more surprisingly co-sponsored by the College Democrats. The film portrayed the threat posed by radical Islam worldwide, often doing so through prominent use of Nazi imagery and comparisons with the warning of history repeating itself. However, the message was not as important in this case as how it was received by the audience Wednesday night. As could be expected on this and other campuses, the screening was attended not just by students interested in learning more about the threat posed by radical Islam or those seeking further discussion of the issue, but by agenda-peddling radicals who are at the very least sympathetic with and at the very worst supportive of these terrorists, their views, and their actions.

Several members of the crowd gathered in the back of the theater talked, snickered, and even laughed out loud as points were being raised during the screening that were not consistent with their worldview. Indeed, their true thoughts on the matter were brought out later during a moderated discussion. These radicals raised the same points and asked the same questions that we’ve frankly come to expect from them: “this wouldn’t be happening if George Bush wasn’t elected President/if America hadn’t invaded Iraq/if Israel didn’t exist!” You the reader should feel insulted that I should have to tell you that terrorist attacks committed by radicalized Muslims- and militant Islam itself- predate the current war in Iraq, the Presidency of George W. Bush, and the establishment of the State of Israel.

Keep in mind we’ve seen this group before. For anyone who did not stay on campus during the war in Lebanon, these agitators were gathered on 15th and High standing in solidarity with Hezbollah and protesting Israel’s “war crimes.” They go above and beyond the “Blame America First” crowd described by the late Jeane Kirkpatrick. They hate Israel just as much as America and shovel just as much blame for terrorism on the “Zionists” as they do on Americans. Mercifully, one troublemaker who was disrespecting the moderator and insulting the intelligence of the audience was kicked out of the theater. What’s more, criticism of the film and its central message was not limited to the left-wing fringe but was even levied by members of the co-sponsoring College Democrats.

“I felt the movie itself was propaganda, and the movie itself shows propaganda as fueling hatred, so it’s hypocritical,” Ingrid Babri, minority affairs director of the Ohio State College Democrats told The Lantern. This should tell you everything you need to know about her party’s stance on terrorism. Indeed, Michael Moore was shown during the film delivering perhaps a far more articulate view from the more mainstream left in this country: “there is no terrorist threat.” The more liberals on the blogs demand their Democrat servants in Congress press for a troop withdrawal tomorrow if not sooner, the more those Democrats continue to undermine the President’s prosecution of the War on Terror (even attempting to ban the use of the phrase), and the more assertive the left becomes in their explicit desire for America to fail in this war, the more apparent it becomes that liberals either don’t know about radical Islamic terrorism and the threat it faces to themselves, to America, and to all of western civilization or they flat out don’t care. In this case, the difference is irrelevant.

Returning to the film itself, “Obsession” describes through interviews from experts on the subject as well as first-hand video from the Arab world the threat Islamic terrorism poses to the world. Indeed, people like Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are quite clear in their goals to wipe out the infidels- the “kafirs” as they’re called- and impose an 11th century-style Islamic state on the world. There were men throughout history who thought as they did, who sought to impose a new way of life on the world and slaughter those who stood in their way. Adolph Hitler was one of them, and was featured prominently in the film. Stalin and Mao also killed millions in their attempts to remake society in their twisted image. Today’s terrorists and their state sponsors are evil men who cannot be reasoned with, cannot be talked to, and cannot be taken lightly. Unfortunately, the quest continues on college campuses like this one to make half the country realize this.

Gullible’s Travels

2007-04-11T11:41:00.000-07:00

How many foreign policies does the United States have? I found myself asking that question as Queen Nancy led a delegation to suck up to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The current President of the United States (who traditionally is responsible for crafting American foreign policy) has said he won’t talk to Syria because they are a state sponsor of terrorism (including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad), they continue to dominate the politics of Lebanon, and they are as committed to the destruction of the State of Israel as they ever were. Oh, and they are also supporting and supplying the insurgency currently killing our soldiers in next-door Iraq. The recent trip by Her Majesty, and the show she put on for the benefit of the local media, demonstrates the left’s continuing commitment to the cause of appeasement. Then again, Neville Chamberlain never put on a pair of lederhosen when he met with Herr Hitler.

Since apparently one anti-Semitic terror-sponsoring Middle Eastern dictator wasn’t enough, the Queen’s entourage is now considering a trip to Iran. That’s right, they want to have “a dialogue” with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the same man who said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, the same man who called the Holocaust a myth (and even held a meeting of the world’s leading anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers on the subject), and the same man who is also responsible for supporting and supplying the insurgency currently killing our soldiers in next-door Iraq. Perhaps the most ironic part of this whole proposed business is that one of Queen Nancy’s fellow travelers Tom Lantos (D-CA), who said he would get on a plane and meet with Ahmadinejad today, is himself a Holocaust survivor! Was one Holocaust not enough, Congressman?

In the midst of these Democrats continuing to meet with our enemies (to be perfectly clear, if they’re killing our soldiers they’re our enemies), they still refuse to meet with President Bush so that the current funding crisis can be solved. Queen Nancy has repeatedly refused to meet with the president (of this country anyway) and Harry Reid refused to do so yesterday. So they’ll meet with Bashar al-Assad but they won’t meet with George W. Bush. They’ll go on Syrian television clad in headscarves but they won’t appear on Fox News to debate each other in the lead-up to their own primary. Is it just me or are Democrats treating conservatives the way they ought to be treating terrorists, and vice-versa?

This is the current state of the Democratic Party whose priorities are backwards. If there’s any indication the “Blame America First” crowd ever left the Democratic Party, this should be it. There’s no ass this party won’t kiss, especially if that ass belongs to an America-hating dictator. How many of them has Jimmy Carter sucked up to since he left office? Appeasement is an integral part of the liberal ideology and it’s on display right now with these visits. I can’t imagine anything productive that can emerge from meeting with an enemy committed to your country’s destruction, and I can’t imagine what Queen Nancy might say to Ahmadinejad (other than “what are your orders, sir?”). If they really support our troops and this country as they no longer say they do, they should be meeting and working with the president of this country on how to win the war and continue the fight against terrorism.

If they were serious in their desires for bipartisanship and cooperation with the administration, they wouldn’t be trying to go behind the president’s back trying to forge a competing foreign policy. They wouldn’t be trying to pull the rug from underneath our soldiers and doing so with spinach subsidies. They would instead be meeting with President Bush in order to resolve the current crisis they started over the funding of our troops. Queen Nancy’s visits with terrorist-supporting dictators that President Bush refused to meet because they are terrorist-supporting dictators are undermining this country. Perhaps more importantly, there can be no more destructive policy of an opposition party during wartime than telling your nation’s enemy to pay no attention to that man in the Oval Office.

Do Republicans Need a Bad Godesberg?

2007-04-05T00:33:00.000-07:00

Looking at the current crop of Republican presidential candidates one has to wonder what Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino must be thinking. While coaching the Boston Celtics, Pitino gave a rather infamous press conference where he told fans that Celtic greats Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish were “not walking through that door,” and if they did “they’re going to be gray and old.” Much to the dismay of my fellow conservatives, Ronald Reagan is not walking through the door of the Republican National Convention in a year and a half, and Barry Goldwater isn’t walking through that door. In fact, if things continue as they are, it doesn’t look like Newt Gingrich is going to walk through that door either.

The fundamental question then is what kind of party we Republicans really want this election season. Indeed, the factionalism that many were warning about after the 2004 election consumed the party by the time the midterms rolled around last November. Today fiscal conservatives, traditional fundamentalists, moderates, libertarians, and conservatives of the “neo” and “paleo” variety all want something different from the Republican Party. This problem becomes all the more complex when you consider the current frontrunner for the 2008 nomination is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. On the opposite side of things, the one candidate whose unrelenting social conservatism no one doubts is himself failing to attract any attention at all.

Perhaps then it would be easier for Republicans to simply abandon the baggage of being an explicitly anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage party supposedly held hostage by the Christian Right. It is indeed possible to defend traditional American values without running on issues that might get 40% support on a good day. Requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work, putting America’s interests before those of an international organization, and requiring all American citizens to learn English are just a few issues on which at least seven in ten Americans agree. I dare say most Americans are sick and tired of hearing about abortion and gay marriage. I know I am. In fact, I personally am calling upon my readers to give the first Republican candidate who mentions “defending traditional marriage” a swift kick to the gonads.

In 1959 at the Bad Godesberg Conference, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, plagued by a series of defeats at the ballot box, finally abandoned the explicitly Marxist elements of its platform that had scared and driven away potential voters for so many years. What resulted was a moderate party of the center-left that won four out of the next six German elections. In 1995, Tony Blair brought the Labour Party to the center kicking and screaming by re-writing Clause IV of the party constitution which had pledged to nationalize the means of production. The rest, as they say, is history, with Blair and "New Labour" in the middle of an unprecedented third term in office.

The lessons of these shifts in party policy show that by ditching divisive elements of the platform a party can still win elections and stay connected with key groups on more important issues. In 2006, the Republicans overemphasized abortion and gay marriage out of desperation since it had nowhere else to turn and nothing else on which to run. The result was clear enough with Karl Rove’s get-out-the-vote strategy falling short and moderate voters fleeing to the Democrats. Overemphasizing divisive social issues elected Bill Clinton twice (I still don’t know what we were thinking when Pat Robertson was made a keynote speaker at the ’92 Convention) and, of course, Queen Nancy. With that in mind, perhaps it would be best to forget about banging the abortion and gay marriage drums for a while and recommit the Republican Party to fiscal responsibility, a leaner federal government, a coherent and common sense immigration strategy, and a redoubling of our effort to win the war against radical Islam. Truly these are issues that can unite the party and carry us to victory.

Criminalizing Conservatism

2007-03-27T12:10:00.000-07:00

We all knew this would happen. When Democrats took Congress, we knew they would begin relentlessly investigating prominent conservatives and Republicans on charges of . . . being prominent conservatives and Republicans! The most recent of these witch hunts involves high-ranking members of the Bush administration being compelled to testify before Congress (in what is tentatively being called the House Pro-American Activities Committee) so that Democrats can trick them in to committing perjury. Rumor even has it that Senator Chuck Schumer has a list of 57 Republicans in the Justice Department! If Democrats went after Al Qaeda as furiously as they are Republicans, there would be no terrorism anywhere in the world.

Their first target was Tom DeLay, who was officially charged in Texas for . . . well, that doesn’t matter, he’s Tom DeLay! The DNC couldn’t be more pleased with the district attorney if they chose him themselves. Ronnie Earle, a staunch Democrat with a history of persecuting Republicans who had dared win elections in Texas (like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison) actually attended a Democrat fundraiser promising to get DeLay. He made good on his promise by shopping for a grand jury that would bring an indictment against him (I guess the eighth time is a charm). In the meantime, rather than risk attracting negative attention to himself and his party, DeLay resigned his House seat, dropped out of the race for his own re-election, and moved to Virginia. In an unprecedented and ironic twist of American democracy, DeLay was actually forced by a federal judge to stay in the race and relegate the GOP’s replacement to write-in status, thus giving the seat to the Democrats on a silver platter.

Next on the Democrats’ hitlist was Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney. Since they couldn’t actually prove in a court of law his boss was Satan incarnate, Democrats charged Libby with perjury because he couldn’t remember who told him about the wife of a man with an overactive fantasy life. Even when it was revealed that Richard Armitage was the one who outed Valerie Plame, the investigation continued as zealous as ever. They even found a sympathetic jury to convict him. Perhaps “sympathetic” is the wrong word, as jury members made statements after the verdict wondering why Rove, Cheney, and Bush weren’t on trial instead.

Now, perhaps finally concluding their seven-year odyssey for “George Bush’s Watergate,” they’re going after the Department of Justice because the President fired a few federal prosecutors who serve at the pleasure of the President anyway. Never mind that President Clinton fired all 93 prosecutors so he could provide enough cover to dismiss a single prosecutor in Chicago who was investigating the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee for corruption. Democrats already succeeded in springing their perjury trap on Libby, now they’re setting it for Rove, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, and God- sorry, DARWIN- knows who else.

There is no merit behind whatever Democrats are alleging and they even admit no laws have been broken and that the President is within his power to remove federal officials (unless they want to bring the unconstitutional Tenure of Office Act out of mothballs). The sad and simple truth is all their actions are driven by nothing more than an unrelenting quest for vengeance. They’re desperate to get back at President Bush for Iraq, they haven’t forgotten what they imagine happened in Florida almost seven years ago, and they’ll never get over the impeachment of President Clinton. Yes, it seems that at long last, liberals have no sense of decency.

Conservatives Should Not Be Allowed On Television!

2007-03-13T11:04:00.000-07:00

With the coming backlash related to comments of one Ann Coulter in the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), it is becoming clear that conservatives are being met with increasing hostility by liberals in the media on the pretense of saying controversial or outrageous things. A number of newspapers have dropped Coulter’s column and a number of other media outlets are refusing to book her for this reason. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has made his views on the matter clear by calling on practically every Republican everywhere to condemn her words and disassociate from her immediately.

The effective blacklist levied against Ann is only the most recent attack by liberals in the media against conservative or even differing viewpoints. Liberals dominate the media. Take that as simplistic or misguided, but it is a statement of fact. The left dominates the three-letter broadcast networks, CNN and MSDNC in cable news, NPR, and the lion’s share of American newspapers. What’s more is they constitute a vast majority of the nation’s editors and reporters. Just ask them. Of course, the left is not content with owning the majority of the nation’s media outlets; they want to control them all, as they once did. They want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” in order to silence conservative talk radio. They want to return to the good old days where all Americans (and a good portion of the Vietcong) received their nightly dose of news from Uncle Walter.

In so condemning Ann Coulter for her “hate speech,” the left is showing the rest of America how committed they are to freedom of speech (which, the last time I checked, was still part of the First Amendment) and how tolerant they are of differing viewpoints. And it’s not as if the left is just reacting to extreme statements in general. Contrast the visceral “holy-water-poured-on-Satan” reactions to Ann Coulter’s statements with their reaction to what Bill Maher said recently. What, you hadn’t heard? Maher said as many on the left’s blogosphere did that he wished the recent assassination attempt against Vice President Cheney had been successful. So let’s recap: Ann Coulter insults a presidential candidate and is blacklisted by the American media, Bill Maher openly wishes the Vice President of the United States had been killed and is ignored or even praised.

The recent inconsistency of the left in this matter should come as no surprise to anyone who has not had a large portion of their brain removed. Democrats have always been committed to upholding two sets of standards: one set for conservatives and a different set for themselves. It’s simply hatemongering for Senator Trent Lott to congratulate a southern statesman on his 100th birthday, but it is perfectly acceptable for Senator Robert Byrd to say the n-word on national television. It’s OK for Randi Rhodes to imply killing the President of the United States in front of her dozens of listeners across the country, but it’s not OK for Rush Limbaugh to do pretty much anything these days. The simple truth in this matter is that conservatives are committed to freedom of speech and are tolerant of views that differ from their own and liberals, quite simply, are not. Just ask the pack of Democrat presidential candidates who won’t appear on Fox News.

CPAC 2007: Ann Shines, McFeign Stays Away

2007-03-05T20:20:00.000-08:00

The big story among conservatives at CPAC 2007 was not the work of the annoying squad of lackeys for first and second-tier Republican candidates, nor was it the speeches of the candidates pretending to be conservatives themselves. It wasn’t even the inspiring words of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the only man in or out of the presidential race with any positive ideas for the future of the Republican Party and the country. Nor was it the performance of Ann Coulter this weekend, who was her old, controversial, vitriolic, inflammatory, hatemongering self that conservatives like me have grown to love. The story conservatives were talking about at the Omni in Washington this weekend was the cold shoulder they received from phony conservative John McCain.

About the same time the conference began on Thursday, McCain released a statement refusing CPAC’s invitation to speak to what he called "Washington insiders." Apparently three trips to the DC area makes me a Washington insider. Go figure. All this while other candidates and explorers like Sam Brownback and Jim Gilmore had practically bent over backwards to get in long ago. McCain’s “diss,” as American Conservative Union’s executive vice president William Lauderback put it, was not well-received on the convention floor with delegates booing his fifth place straw poll finish. Quite frankly, one has to wonder who McCain hopes will support him after telling the conservative base of the Republican Party- the one responsible for winning three out of the four elections this decade- to screw off. This is especially true with McCain trailing Rudy Giuliani by double digits.

As for the rest of CPAC, the usual activities, speakers, and groups were there, whether they were expected or even wanted by other attendees. Personally, I’m as much at a loss to explain the presence of the Catholic Crusaders as most were to explain the ACLU’s. The purpose of CPAC should not be merely to point fingers at who was to blame for November’s loss, especially since there was plenty of blame to go around. Nor should it be to endorse and impose one form of conservatism over another. The presence of groups from the Libertarian Party to Muslims for America should show how diverse a movement American conservatism really is, and is an asset rather than a liability to that movement in showing the many ideas present on the right side of the spectrum.

CPAC also showed conservatives how much work we have to do to prepare for 2008. The fact of the matter is if the election were held tomorrow, the Republican candidate- whoever it may be- would lose. Badly. Democrats have all the momentum of November’s victory, all the name recognition, and it would seem all the charisma. The current crop is one without a visible front-runner, or at the very least a conservative front-runner. Rudy’s speech largely avoided the domestic issues for which he has drawn criticism from those in attendance. The party needs a serious candidate with leadership experience on the national level; an unquestioned conservative, but one who doesn’t make opposing gay marriage and abortion the cornerstone of his campaign; someone with bold solutions to face our nation’s problems; someone who can show America that conservatism can do for Americans what liberalism was supposed to. In short, the Republican Party and the conservative movement need Newt Gingrich.

Shakeups occur in Michigan, Kentucky, and Connecticut

2007-03-02T11:20:00.000-08:00

Over the last few days, several major shakeups have occurred in the state federation elections of Michigan, Kentucky, Connecticut, and a slate of candidates came to the forefront in New Jersey. Michigan has been the most contentious of elections thus far, starkly contrasting the prior three months of the race. Awhile back, Ryan Thompson of Hillsdale dropped out of the race for Co-Chairman and swore off CR politics. Now, as Michigan's Justin Zatkoff, currently Dan Carlson's Executive Director, enters the fray against Steve Japinga of Michigan State, Thompson is back with a vengeance. While he holds many a grudge against Carlson, the outgoing Chairman of MFCR, he resents Japinga and Co-Chairman candidate Jeff Wiggins, also of Michigan State, much more.

Thompson has sent out no less than five blast emails to members of MFCR trashing the pair for their 2008 Primary affiliations, challenging Wiggins' attendance to a college, and bashing both for their dealings thus far in this election. It is essentially a direct-mail hit piece in a College Republican election, something that we never thought would happen, or was necessary. It is ironic in a sense that these emails focused on Japinga's ties to Dan Carlson in the very week when a slate of candidates emerged that appears to have his backing. In any case, the heat seems to be on Japinga and Wiggins, if not from these emails, but from the emergence of opposing candidates in their campaigns. Zatkoff entered the race against Japinga for good after first mulling a run at Chairman back in December and then ending a short run for Co-Chairman a few weeks later. Michigan will be holding convention later this month, so the race is very much becoming a heat to the finish line.

In Kentucky, a long-rumored switch has happened. Morgan Wilkins ended a bid to succeed Brian Weber as KFCR Chairman after seemingly performing well in her first debate against opponent Michael Wray of Louisville. Jeremy Hughes is the man that Wilkins stepped aside for; she had promised to step aside if a better candidate emerged in the race. She will now be moving down ticket, taking a little of the pressure off and, should she win, giving her a year to gain experience and make a later run if she wishes. Hughes is a former deputy of former KFCR Chairman Derek Hall, and a student at Morehead State, which is coincidentally the school of current KFCR Chairman Brian Weber. In an apparently unconnected story, Matthew Ballard, currently Executive Director of the UK College Republicans, is planning to run for KFCR Vice Chairman. Kentucky will be holding convention and elections in April, on the 13th and 14th.

In Connecticut, sources say that UConn student and College Republican David Brewster has met with CUCR Chairman Sarah Armstrong about being a candidate to succeed her in their upcoming elections. Brewster is a relative unknown, and we could not find any connections to current current or past CUCR Chairmen. Not much is known beyond this, but we will be following up on the matter shortly. We are also still waiting to hear if the rumors of another so-called "Opposition" candidate having Connecticut locked up have any grounds.

In New Jersey, a full slate has emerged with the backing of NJCR Chairman candidate Christopher Stark, who is seeking to succeed outgoing NJCR Chairman Frank Luna. Terence Grado of TCNJ will be running for Co-Chairman, and Joseph Grennon of Rutgers will be running for Vice Chairman. The Treasurer candidate is Ben DeMarzo and Executive Director candidate Matt Mowers are both Rutgers CRs as well.

In other news, Iowa CRs elected Ben Johnson to succeed Bobby Kaufmann as their State Chairman. Ohio Chairman Brian Siler was in attendance, but no other national figures were spotted at the convention. Mason Harrison's designated successor, Ryan Clumpner, and his Team Activate appear set to win easily in California. Clumpner, of UC Davis, appears to have no significant opposition, if any real opponents at all. Ohio CRs are playing a game of wait and see with their fast-approaching elections, which will be held April 20-21. The location of Ohio's convention is not yet set, but will be known in roughly ten days. No candidates are announced, but there are rumors of a single ticket emerging, with the focus of the elections being more on issues than on candidates.

"DC" equals Dudes and Cock

2007-03-01T21:48:00.000-08:00

The supposedly stellar College Republican hangout Hawk and Dove may as well be known as Cock and Balls. Thursday evening's edition of DC Fest was full of College Republicans glad-handing and feebly attempting to work a room full of their peers, making sure to give each a freshly-printed, but equally ridiculous business card. Not only were all bars inside the joint locked down tighter than Fort Knox during a security drill, but at least half of the attendees appeared to be well beyond the College part of College Republican. In another key shortcoming, random observation revealed the male to female ratio to be at least 6:1, although this figure has been disputed as being quite generous. These things happen, though, when you are trying to challenge the likes of Mainefest and other more established parties. My Sam Adams bobblehead is shaking his head in disgust.

In Time for Valentines' Day: Broken Condom No Problem, says OSU

2007-02-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

Ohio State’s daily dead fish wrapper reported on Tuesday that the Wilce Student Health Center would soon be offering Plan B, the new pill that prevents victims of bad hookups from bearing the responsibility of having a child. This is in accordance with the pill becoming available over-the-counter last August. The move should hardly be regarded as surprising or shocking, as it is the latest implementation of Ohio State’s policy on sexual relations, which can best be described as “they’re going do it anyway, so we might as well make it easier for them to do it.”

Yes, the same people who gave you more condoms than you knew what to do with the first day you checked in to your residence hall (as well as extensive, mandatory lessons on how to use them) is now providing you with an additional escape route should any of those condoms fail. The pill has been a point of controversy on both sides of the abortion debate, pro-life and anti-life alike, since it was approved for use in 1999. “There’s no controversy here, we feel it is a part of routine care,” said Dr. Roger Miller, assistant director of clinical services for Student Health Services. Personally, if I’m any indication, sexual activity is anything but “routine.”

The pill marks the latest addition to the vast collection of contraception available to students at little or no cost. This is consistent with abortion advocates’ assertions that abortions be safe, legal, available to all, and taxpayer-funded. The addition is no doubt the university’s response to other pharmacists in Ohio daring to let their primitive notions of “ethics” and “morals” get in the way of 14-year-olds weaseling out of a surprise pregnancy. It is the assertion of this university that moral objections to dispensing Plan B are trumped by the pharmacists’ obligation to provide “treatment” to customers, or at least refer them to where they can get it themselves. It is well known that Unplanned Parenthood is adamant in dispensing this and other products to whoever wants it, regardless of age or circumstance, at reduced cost or no cost at all. And I even know where they’re located on campus.

Perhaps the best course of action for Ohio State and for Ohio pharmacies as a whole is to treat Plan B as they would treat Sudafed. As we all know, Sudafed is a cold medicine of somewhat questionable legality, since its main ingredient can be used to produce methamphetamine. States have tackled this problem not by attacking the meth manufacturers themselves or by enforcing existing drug laws but by making Sudafed virtually impossible to obtain. Therefore, if someone really needs Sudafed, they can get it, but only by jumping through a series of hoops. Pharmacies can place Plan B behind the check-out counter, keep track of how much they have and how much they sell, and make the little harlots ask for it by name with proof of age and identity. Certainly terminating a pregnancy is a matter more serious than treating the common cold. Or at least I thought it was.

Wilkins responds to Oregon's Swanson

2007-02-13T20:19:00.000-08:00

Recently Oregon CR Chairman John Swanson lambasted candidate for KFCR Chairman and former CRNC and LI field rep Morgan Wilkins for her actions during the fall election season, and Wilkins has responded in kind to the statement. It looks like we could have a bit of a war of words on our hands here. First, Swanson's statement, followed by Wilkins' reply:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am clearly an outsider looking in – my relationship with KFCR officers in the past has been little more than brief conversations and the sharing of ideas. Maybe there is something I am missing in this equation, but based on what I have observed, I feel obligated to step up and voice my humble opinion.

In any political organization, there are 2 defining forces – those who make progress, and those who do not. Progress is made by carrying your message correctly, respectfully, and in a manner that convinces and attracts. I have every reason to believe that after Kentucky’s chapter growth and stable leadership, progress has occurred – and ought to be continued.

Progress is hindered when a message is either not carried out, or carried out improperly. Too often, College Republicans resort to unconvincing tactics to convey issues to their peers. It is always vital to judge your success based on the degree to which you grow the Republican Party – not the volume in which you shout at left-wing students. I was appalled to see that a representative of our national organization was using such immaturity – with blatant racism and seduction, evidence of which was apparent on several websites. I feel the College Republican National Committee is an organization of integrity, and the act of eliminating this loose cannon from payroll proved that the CRNC lives up to such a standard.

It is appalling to see that after jeopardizing the legitimacy of our organization, this same individual has gained momentum to become a state chair. I believe I speak for more state chairmen than just myself by saying that I have serious reservations to this. Delegates at the KFCR convention: Pretend you’re an HR manager, and you have 2 employees in front of you for 1 job. One was fired from a similar job for failure to perform adequately, and the other has a proven track record and recommended by a successful predecessor. The choice is clear – always aim for progress.

John Swanson
State Chairman, Oregon

John-
In your letter you claim that you are simply an "outsider" who is so troubled with the possibility of me becoming KFCR Chair that you feel the obligation to intervene. You also state several concerns that you have with me as a College Republican, and especially as a leader.

It is very unfortunate that we have never actually spoken to each other, and that instead of addressing me personally with your concerns, you resort immediately to writing a degrading letter on my opponent's facebook wall. Do you call that "progressive?"

You also say in your letter that "It is appalling to see that after jeopardizing the legitimacy of our organization, this same individual has gained momentum to become a state chair."

John, the legitimacy of the organization was not jeopardized by me, but by the person who signed deceitful fundraising letters two years ago; the person you voted for: our national chairman, Paul Gourley.

One event does not compare to the culture of corruption that took over the CRNC years before I even got involved, but one vote legitimizes it: your vote for Paul Gourley. And maybe this could be forgiven, but even today you continue to voice your support for someone who brought shame to our organization. Liberty has no time for moderates.

The KFCR is suffering in many ways that you, as an outsider, may not realize. I am currently working together with many College Republicans across the state to make this federation all that is should be. We are making significant progress.

If you would like me to fill you in on KY matters in more detail in the future, then please feel free to contact me personally.

Respectfully,
Morgan Wilkins

The CRNC campaign thus far, plus what to expect

2007-02-12T07:49:00.000-08:00

Colorado's Charlie Smith has had the floor for the better part of a month now, and while he has not used the open microphone very extensively, he is still the lone candidate in the race. For better or worse, whether you agree with his silence since announcing his candidacy or not, no one is exactly forcing him to explain himself.

No platform? No problem, because there is no one there to call him out about running for an office for which he has no plans for. No website? No problem, because no one else can say they have a better one. No announcement of a national chapter and state tour? No problem, because there is no need to get out on the stump for votes when there is no opposing candidate.

This past week, feathers were ruffled when Smith turned down the invitation to appear on a panel at CPAC, a panel which also featured Leadership Institute mogul Morton Blackwell. A group of state chairmen sent him an email expressing their displeasure for this move, but it was largely misconstrued as anger that Smith was appearing to slight the Leadership Institute. The real reason for the email? Well, it is right there in the email, for all to see: how can Charlie Smith claim to not be the CRNC's favored son when they chose him to appear on the panel? In 2005, when it came time for CPAC, Chairman candidate Paul Gourley was tapped to appear on the CRNC's behalf. The CRNC generally gets "their guy" to do this, and while Smith chose not to accept, the very fact that he was asked sends bad signs.

Next weekend is the planned summit of the key players in this election in California, at a pseudo-conference with Michael Davidson that looks to be a much more contentious version of Yalta, where the Churchill and FDR figures will not let the Stalin figure out of line an inch. This is not the first such meeting of the minds, but it is the broadest such gathering of this election season to date. Along with state chairmen and key figures like Davidson will be several key advisors to the former "Opposition" movement, which now finds itself seemingly splintered into a thousand little fragments, a mere shell of its former self.

Charlie Smith has had the ear of Davidson before, but came away without winning the key endorsement. Davidson signing on with Smith would be the death knell sounding upon any hopeful candidate looking get in the race, as California would likely be off the table and in Smith's column. All signs from former Real Reform principals Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman, both of whom will attend next weekend's gathering, point to New Jersey's Frank Luna as the current flagbearer. Luna, however, has been reluctant to commit to a run, taking more of a wait and see approach.

Time, especially in this campaign, is of the essence, simply due to the difficulty of getting College Republicans gathered together in large groups to address. Next month’s edition of CPAC is really the only chance for candidates to have the ears of a multitude of CRs from around the country until July’s CRNC Convention. The March 1 kickoff for CPAC is looming right around the corner, and it leaves only a week and a half after this weekend’s California summit to make preparations for a campaign kickoff. That is roughly ten days to book a location for the announcement reception/campaign kickoff event, get campaign collateral designed and printed, develop a platform for the campaign, organize a street team of supporters to get the word out and promote your candidacy, and get a fully-functioning website up and running. Ten days surely creates something of a time squeeze to say the least.

The next twenty five days will be among the most exciting of the spring for anyone following this CRNC campaign, and especially for those actually involved in it. Imagine this schedule for a random state chairman traveling this weekend to California:

Friday afternoon, February 16: Board plane for cross-country flight, plus connections and layovers en route
Friday evening: Dinner with the other attendees
Saturday, February 17: Meetings and discussions all day
Saturday night or Sunday: Board plane for return trip home
Monday through Friday (2/19-2/23): Classes, midterms, and state federation business
Saturday, February 24 and Sunday, February 25: In the case of Ohio’s Brian Siler, a Leadership Institute YLS and Ohio Board Meeting
Monday through Wednesday (2/26-2/28): Classes, midterms, preparing to travel to DC.
Wednesday afternoon through Thursday early morning: depart for CPAC, hotel check-in, CPAC registration
Thursday through Saturday (March 1-3): CPAC itself, all state federation gatherings, CRNC events, and any other meetings scheduled
Sunday morning, March 4: depart DC for home

In any case, this race will take shape over the next twenty-five odd days, and we will work here to keep you updated on every twist, every turn, every little bit of information that you need to know.

Effects of the Minimum Wage: We Told You So!

2007-02-11T17:39:00.000-08:00

There’s an old saying that I’m sure you’ve all heard: be careful what you wish for, you may get it. Teenagers in Arizona are learning that the hard way thanks to their recently-enacted minimum wage hike. Bombarded with the same emotional garbage you and I were hit with this fall over how nobody can ever support themselves or their families on (whatever the current rate was) an hour, voters with the best of intentions passed similar raises in states across the country. Now, not even two months after many of these initiatives went in to effect, workers in these states are suffering from a case of unintended consequences.

Libertarians and conservatives threw everything they could at these initiatives- objective information, logic, charts, and the basic knowledge you learn in Economics 100 courses- but they were ignored by voters and labeled as heartless and unsympathetic to the needs of the poor. Never mind that the vast majority of those on minimum wage are young and work part-time, rather than the struggling single mom with several kids trotted out in the commercials: a whopping two percent of the American workforce above the age of 25 makes the minimum wage, and all of 4.1% of those on minimum wage are single parents. I’m sure most of you reading this have completely forgotten what they teach you in the very first economics course you ever take, assuming you took it at all. Raising the minimum wage makes hiring more people more expensive and thus, more difficult to do, especially for those small businesses liberals love to talk to us about in contrast with the evil corporations. With this in mind, businesses are forced to hire the best workers they can for even the most basic of tasks, since they can’t afford to take risks on the uneducated and inexperienced. I shouldn’t have to explain that if it’s more difficult for you to get hired, it’s more difficult for you to get a job, but even this basic tautology is lost on the political left.

Consider what is currently happening in Arizona. The good people, while feeling warm and fuzzy inside because they think they’ve helped the poor, are now witnessing the havoc they’ve wrought, often while searching for jobs themselves. The recent hike has caused some employers to cut hours, institute hiring freezes, and lay off employees because they simply can’t afford to do otherwise. And guess who the first to get the pink slips were! Businesses, especially in the food industry, are being forced to take fewer and fewer chances on workers with little education or experience, effectively pricing them out of the labor market. For those on the left, that typically means you and me. On the other side of the coin, those who were fortunate enough to keep working were enjoying the benefits of slightly more money. Yes, raising the minimum wage is great . . . if you can keep your job.

While those suffering the consequences of the minimum wage hike would appear to be clear enough, those reaping the benefits are not. Some of the most ardent supporters of the new hike (besides elected officeholders desperate to find some issue that could beat the Republicans) were union members. This would seem ironic since their wages are typically well above the minimum wage. In fact, they’re often contractually tied to the minimum wage, guaranteeing them a certain percentage above the mandated rate. That’s right, the one’s who are really profiting off the short-sightedness of American voters are not the poor, the downtrodden, or the single moms, they’re economically comfortable unionized workers who don’t give a damn about the poor, the downtrodden, or the single moms. All I can say is “we told you so.”

Free food and beverage to be in abundance at CPAC

2007-02-10T12:07:00.000-08:00

Let alone the fact that this is a CRNC campaign year, and that candidates in that race will undoubtedly throw open-bar bashes, and you will still find plenty of free plunder to be had during next month's edition of CPAC. Mainefest is always on everyone's calendar for the trip to DC, and we reported last week that Ohio will also throw a separate party during CPAC as well. Ohio has historically hosted an event for all Ohio CRs in attendance, but will for the first time be opening the doors to all. Emails were sent out yesterday to state chairmen inviting them to DC Fest 2007, hosted by Mike Keough's DC Federation of College Republicans on the first day of CPAC at the Hawk n Dove. Please consider this my open plea to OCRF officers to NOT name the Ohio party "Ohio Fest". I thought that a "fest" was usually a title reserved for a hippie convention, but I could very well be wrong.

Correction: Colorado Candidate McCoy, not Conroy

2007-02-10T12:02:00.000-08:00

We mistakenly listed a potential candidate to succeed Charlie Smith in Colorado as Craig Conroy, but intended to name instead Craig McCoy, who is the Regis University CR Chairman. Thank you to the commenter who caught this, and shame on us for failing to catch the misprint before publication. We have also heard in the past week that McCoy may not be in the race at all; we will work to clarify this and report when more information is available.

Boehner speaks to high school and college crowd in hometown

2007-02-10T11:47:00.000-08:00

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) spoke in the city he calls home in Ohio's 8th District this morning to a crowd of high school and college students gathered at Westchester's Lakota West High School. The event was organized by Lakota senior Parker Novak, who is also a member of the SOB Alliance (Viking Spirit Blog) and is a very involved GOP grassroots worker in Southwest Ohio. Boehner spoke for about 25 minutes to the assembled crowd and covered several topics currently being debated in Congress. Boehner mused that Republicans largely lost control due to a combination of factors, but that too many of his colleagues valued re-election more than real results. Rep. Boehner urged finding solutions that lead to success in Iraq, lest the terrorists follow US troops home, and he spoke generally about developing a new group of Republican solutions to the problems being faced here at home with entitlement programs and fiscal matters.
More pertinent to College Republicans reading this would be the attendance of OCRF Chairman Brian Siler, and the surprise appearance of Morgan Wilkins, candidate for KFCR Chairman. One must wonder if anything was discussed between them, but to the best of our knowledge, the two do not see eye-to-eye on matters of consequence. This probably bodes nothing, but it still an interesting encounter.

CR Power Rankings

2007-02-09T07:02:00.000-08:00

As requested by you, the reader, we present the latest attempt at CR Power Rankings. There are some new names, some old names, and some people that should probably just move on past their glory days. These rankings are completely scientific, so feel free to treat them as such. Without further ado, on to stroking egos:

National Power Rankings:

1) Michael Davidson: Please note that potential candidates to replace Chairman Gourley are gunning for Davidson's approval, not Gourley's.
2) Amanda Hydro: Lay the blame for the past two years at her feet, as she is effectively playing Chairman at this point.
3) Frank Luna: Has everyone waiting to see if he jumps into the race. CPAC fast approaches, so time is of the essence.
4) John Plecnik: His name is here simply for ego stroking purposes. If we were being honest, he wouldn't even smell such a list.
5) Charlie Smith: Mr. Smith has the floor, certainly, but will he take advantage of it or continue backroom dealing?
6) Brian Siler: My humble attempt to suckle at the teet of power.
7) Derek Hall: He may not necessarily ask for importance, but everyone wants his approval just as much as Davidson's.
8) Paul Gourley: Even though he has been effectively forced out of the day-to-day, he may just pop up at the ACU as a comeback of sorts.
9) Mason Harrison: Unless he makes a pledge of support soon, his time will be in high demand come CPAC-time.
10) Lindy Dinklage: Not in the employ of the CRNC any longer, but meddling has always been a favorite pastime.
11) Blake Harris: Moved up the hierarchy of advisors this cycle, but did he forsake what got him there?
12) Michael Miltenberger: Unmistakably making the rounds with Mr. Smith, and has probably landed himself on the ticket. Did he do anything substantive to deserve it though?
13) Brent Ludeman: Found the sledding tough yet again in his second solo go-round.
14) Ryan Bilodeau: Has a network of connections that rivals most state chairman, let alone any rank and file College Republican.
15) Nick Miccarelli: Making the rounds with as well; how high will he be on the ticket?

State Chairman Candidate Rankings:
1) Steve Japinga: Election is a sure thing for him, but how long will the coat tails be in Michigan?
2) Morgan Wilkins: Running the race on her own terms, and most definitely defining the debate in Kentucky.
3) Sean Matthew: Almost seems assured of victory, and Pennsylvania is always a player nationally.
4) Chris Stark: Will he remain unopposed in Jersey, and can he continue Luna's cleanup job of the past year?
5) Erin Karriker: Out of state players are trying to knock him off, but are they a nuisance or a threat?

Power on the wane:
1) Nate Walton: Maine Fest is all he has going it seems.
2) Sarah Armstrong: We will believe it when we see it, but word on the street has Connecticut slipping from her grasp come springtime.
3) Erin McTiernan: New York is always volatile, and we hear plenty of unrest with the way she has (or hasn't) run the state fed.
4) Paul Gourley: Go ahead and add the "former" to his Chairman title.
5) Dan Schuberth: Rumors of a late jump into the national race have all but disappeared.

Ones to watch:
1) Justin Jordan: Who knows what he will say or do next, but we will be watching for sure.
2) Frank Luna/Brian Siler: Will they or won't they? Time will tell, but time they do not have.
3) Ryan Bilodeau: Could be part of the new crop of state chairs, but he has plenty of influence regardless.
4) Michael Davidson: Upcoming consortium in California is last shot to impress before CPAC, and a non-endorsement is as good as a death knell for any opposition to Smith.
5) Presidential candidates: Who gives money, and to whom, will be an interesting saga indeed.

Michigan YR Chairman subject of criminal investigation

2007-02-09T05:07:00.000-08:00

Last summer, the National Federation of Young Republicans held their annual convention in Cleveland, and Michigan YR Chairman Michael A. Flory is waking up to quite the bad hangover nearly seven months later. Cleveland police received a report from a Michigan woman, also in town last July for the convention, that Flory had sexually assaulted her. A 17-count indictment was handed down that looks to be very serious against Flory, who will face charges of rape and kidnapping, among others. He will be arraigned on February 22; we at RSR will continue to follow this case.

Michigan is in the midst of a heated battle for Michigan GOP Youth Chairman, which is a separate office from the Michigan YRs, but seems to be involving all Republicans in the state. As of this time, we have been unable to find out which, if either, candidate Flory endorsed, although he has endorsed John McCain in the Presidential Primary. The Youth Chairman race pits Matt Hall against Trevor Pittsley in what some are calling a proxy battle between Presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, a native of Michigan, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Wilkins issues second debate challenge to Kentucky opponent

2007-02-08T18:34:00.000-08:00

Candidate for Kentucky State Chairman Morgan Wilkins has issued a second challenge to debate to her opponent, Louisville CR Chairman Michael Wray. Wray reportedly has yet to reply to the original challenge, issued almost a week ago, and his silence on the matter apparently has some of his own supporters asking questions. Wray entered the race with the blessing of Derek Hall, among others, after Wilkins kicked off her campaign in mid-January.

We will continue to follow this story as it develops, but we surmise that this move goes a long way to dispel any rumors of Wilkins dropping out of the race. It appears that she is in, and in to win. Kentucky will gather for its annual convention and elections on the weekend of April 13 and 14, a weekend that is already shaping up to be a busy one with a flurry of other state gatherings scheduled as well. A practical solution to ensure as many CRs as possible see the debate would be to hold it before or after the next KFCR Board Meeting, if anyone in Kentucky is listening.

Former OCRF and CRNC Field Rep garners national media attention

2007-02-08T14:49:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Truth Caucus linked to an ABC News story about Ohio University senior and former field representative for the Ohio College Republican Federation and College Republican National Committee Charlie Vansant's car being mistakenly stolen, and Vansant made the media rounds today. We spoke with him this morning as he prepared for an interview with ABC's Columbus affiliate, who aired a piece on the incident during tonight's 5 PM news broadcast. Charlie seemed to be in a rather jovial mood, considering that he was without his vehicle to travel to classes, forcing him to walk instead in the coldest week of Ohio's winter thus far. Vansant was interviewed by FOX News earlier in the morning, and told us that he had more lined up for the afternoon.

The incident occurred when a mother of a fellow Ohio University student mistook Vansant's 1987 Toyota for her daughter's similar vehicle, and drove it to her home. No charges are being pressed, but Charlie's car has been broken down since the "theft", ironically enough. The story of how he left the CRNC to work for the OCRF was one of the great untold stories, really, of the 2006 election season, especially given that his resignation from the CRNC came amidst several other high-profile situations with other CRNC field reps.

Following just one week in Ohio, David Lazo was removed and relocated to Indiana after the Ohio Republican Party asked Chairman Paul Gourley to pull Lazo from the state. A few weeks later, CRNC rep Angie Poole was removed and relocated to the New England area, due to circumstances that deserve to be told in its own story. Following that, the third of four CRNC field reps sent to Ohio was asked to leave as well, when OCRF Chairman Brian Siler requested to have Marc Baylen pulled. After all of this happened, Charlie Vansant resigned his post to take a similar job at the OCRF.

Anyhow, all of this is another story for another day, really. We hope that Charlie gets his car up and running soon, and if you wish to see for yourself the segment from this evening's news tune into FOX 28 WTTE at 10 PM for the re-airing.

Ohio AG Dann experiences need to compensate for shortcomings

2007-02-08T07:54:00.000-08:00

Photo taken from today's edition of The Columbus Dispatch.

The Columbus Dispatch reports this morning that Ohio's new Attorney General Marc Dann (D-Warren) has purchased a new 2007 Chevrolet Surburban LT, valued at well over $40,000 for use as his personal transportation while in office. He bought the SUV from a campaign donor, to boot, and your tax dollars will foot the bill. It is five times more valuable than former AG Jim Petro's personal car, a 2003 Mercury Sable. The Dispatch also reports on the other statewide office holders' choices of vehicle, all of which besides Governor Strickland's are cheaper and get better gas mileage. Kudos to Treasurer Rich Cordray for using either his own vehicle, or a pool vehicle for his transport rather than springing for a new ride. But for Marc Dann, this is simply the latest in an embarassing line of decisions since being elected. No word yet on whether Dann will be speaking out against global warming from his new SUV ot not.

Arkansas State Chairman race update

2007-02-08T06:02:00.000-08:00

Arkansas was not a state included in our mass update on the various state chairman races earlier in the week, but a couple of names have surfaced. Arkansas Chairman John Burris, of Arkansas Tech, is not reportedly seeking re-election, and at least two names have been tossed around in the past few weeks. Most recently, former Arkansas Tech Chairman and current Grassroots Director for AFCR Bryant Davis announced his intention to run for the post. Davis has a website up and running for the campaign, and has promised a platform to be forthcoming. A name that has been in circulation for awhile now is that of Chase Dugger of Arkansas State. We will follow this race as it develops.

Godless Governor Removes Environmental Heretic

2007-02-07T12:04:00.000-08:00

It was Ann Coulter who first described modern day American Liberalism not merely as an ideology devoid of religion but as a religion in and of itself. With that in mind, Oregon’s Governor Ted Kulongoski, himself a devout Liberal, is set to fire the State Climatologist for daring to disagree with one of the central pillars of the faith, that global warming is caused by man. Interestingly enough, Kulongoski has no authority to do so presently, since the position was created by Oregon State University and not the state government itself. He has publicly stated that George Taylor’s views interfere with his regime’s stated goals of combating greenhouse gases within the state, and wishes to appoint a practicing Liberal to the position himself.

Taylor’s differing perspective on global warming is tantamount to heresy in the Liberal faith. He has stated repeatedly that the recent observable changes in the climate are caused by documented natural variations that have gone on for thousands of years instead of by affluent suburbanite Republicans driving SUV’s as Liberals claim. This is in spite of a proclamation Friday by hundreds of the top Liberal clergy (in what is tentatively being called “Kyoto II”) that man is, in fact, the cause of global warming, evidence to the contrary be damned. The fact that there are a large number of prominent scientists, including Taylor, who do not accept this finding should be enough to declassify man-made global warming as scientific fact. That is unless Hummers existed 400 million years ago.

The assertion at Kyoto II does not so much represent irrefutable scientific fact as much as it does Liberal religious dogma. Taylor is being punished by Governor Kulongoski for holding a view contrary to that of the Church of Liberalism. There is a bill currently being proposed that will give Kulongoski the authority to fire Taylor and personally appoint a successor. Senator Brad Avakian (D-Washington County) has even gone so far as to invite Taylor to testify to his beliefs before his committee (doesn’t that sound familiar?). While it hasn’t yet reached the scale of the Catholic Church’s persecution of Galileo and Copernicus for questioning the geocentric theory of the universe, Taylor is having his employment threatened in a state which will almost certainly blacklist him for his heretical beliefs. Quite simply, George Taylor’s high profile and contrarian beliefs on global warming could make him almost unemployable in a state as devoutly and fanatically Liberal as Oregon.

In his place, Governor Kulongoski wants to fire Taylor and replace him with a stanch Liberal who will defend the flat earth- er, artificially warming earth- dogma. This intolerance of dissenting views (and the evidence to prove them) represents the doctrine of infallibility characterized by Ms. Coulter in her recent book. Furthermore, the assertion that man-made global warming cannot be disproved separates the statement of belief from mainstream science. Instead of someone who might pose a threat to the Liberal view of the world, Kulongoski wants to be able to appoint someone to a position the state government never had any jurisdiction over in the first place in order to carry out their crusade against greenhouse gasses. Let this action serve as a warming to all of us who challenge Liberal orthodoxy. After all, no one expects the Liberal Inquisition!

CR Power Rankings on the way...

2007-02-07T10:20:00.000-08:00

A few housekeeping matters to announce for Red State Rampage:

-CR Power Rankings are forthcoming within the week, so if you have anyone that you see as worthy of inclusion, feel free to shoot an email our way with names and why they should be included.

-The CRNC Convention is set for July, and CPAC is just weeks away, all of which means we find ourselves in full swing of state and national CR elections. For the next few months, much of the coverage here at RSR will be of CR matters, with national politics and Ohio politics taking a bit of a back seat. That being said, there will still be coverage of real politics and news, but it will be sparing compared to the space given to CRs.

-We are looking to expand here at RSR, and some of these changes will be evident in the coming months. Aside from expanding the site itself, we are always looking for interested contributors. If this is you, simply email us for more information.

Christopher Stark to run for NJCR Chairman

2007-02-07T06:57:00.000-08:00

Election season for College Republicans is heating up as CPAC rapidly approaches, and New Jersey now has a potential successor to Frank Luna in the pipe. Seton Hall junior Christopher Stark is currently the NJCR Executive Director, and he appears to be supported, although not formally endorsed, by Luna. We will provide a link to his website when it goes live in the coming days, and continue to report on any other candidates in the race. His platform centers on expanding the NJCR presence to every campus within the Garden State and proposes the hiring of a Field Coordinator to supplement any CRNC help. Other stated goals of Stark include improved training, an increased presence on the Internet, decentralization to a degree, and more regular communication within the organization. Keep an eye on New Jersey in the coming weeks, in any case, because we continue to hear whisperings of a Frank Luna run for CRNC Chairman.

Former CRNC Chairman Bill Spadea is seen here on the left with Christopher Stark, candidate for NJCR Chairman.

State Chairman Race Rundown

2007-02-06T15:06:00.000-08:00

As promised, coverage of the various CR State Chairman races that are gearing up is here. For now, here is a list of the candidates for office in each state, along with additional pertinent info on the race itself.

Kentucky:
Morgan Wilkins (KCTCS) vs. Michael Wray (Louisville)

Wilkins is the outside candidate in this Reform-held state, running against former KFCR Chairman Derek Hall's candidate of choice in Wray. It is also of note that while Wray would obstensibly hold the same, or similar, views with regard to national matters, Wilkins has not spoken publicly about these matters in any sort of depth. Wilkins arrived on the national scene this past fall after a very public controversy surrounding her performance as a CRNC Field Rep in Michigan, for which some feel she was dealt with in a bad way. She has also joined up with Students for Brownback as the Kentucky Chairman, while Wray's 2008 loyalties are heretofore unknown.

North Carolina:
Erin Karriker (UNC Charlotte) vs. Tyson Grinstead (UNC Chapel Hill)

Former CR John Plecnik appears to be meddling back in his old stomping grounds, as he has recruited Grinstead to run against outgoing NC Chairman Jon Thompson's pick in Erin Karriker. Both have released platforms, and this has been a slightly contentious race to date. Sources say, however, that Karriker has the votes necessary to win.

Florida:
David Stevens (Florida State) vs. Tommy Keller (Stetson)

Stevens is currently the second-in-command to outgoing Chairman Scott Wacholtz, and is rumored to have his support as well. Keller is the current Treasurer of FFCR, and has not made public his support for any of the P2008 candidates. Stevens is believed to be a Romney supporter, and this race appears to be up in the air. We give a slight edge to Stevens.

Michigan:
Steve Japinga (Michigan State)

Controversial two-term Chairman Dan Carlson is on his way out, and Japinga has been in the race for awhile now. At first, rumors swirled as to who Carlson would tap to run against Japinga, but leading potential candidate Justin Zatkoff settled for a run at a lower ticket spot. While there is still time to put someone in the race, we see Japinga as the likely successor to Carlson. Zatkoff is facing Michigan State's Jeff Wiggins for the Co-Chairman slot, a race that is less crowded after Ryan Thompson bowed out last week.

New York:
Kelly Eustis (SUNY Potsdam)

Eustis is the rumored successor to Erin McTiernan, if she decides not to run again. Her announced reason for not seeking a national run was to strengthen her home state, which is truly in shambles. New York has always been a tumultuous state federation, so this will be a state to watch regardless.

Minnesota:
Bethany Dorobiala (Minnesota-Twin Cities)

Dorobiala appears to be next up in Minnesota, and she has paired up with Co-Chair candidate Nathan Swanson for her run. We are currently researching this race and will report information on it as we have it.

Pennsylvania:
Sean-Tamba Matthew (Penn)

Nick Miccarelli's pick is the only known candidate in Pennsylvania at this time, and we will continue to report on this race as more information is known.

Arkansas:
Chase Dugger

Dugger would appear to be the choice of current Chairman John Burris, who will not be seeking another term.

Colorado:
Craig Conroy (Regis)

Conroy has been a rumored successor to CRNC Chairman candidate Charlie Smith, but is not certain at this time.

Tennessee:
Jonathan Bryant (Bryan College)

Lindsay Moffett's handpicked successor currently serves as her second in command.

West Virginia:
Brian Dayton (WVU)

Dayton has done a solid job in his first term, and is rumored to be seeking a second term.

Rhode Island:
Ryan Bilodeau (URI)

Bilodeau is a favorite of RSR, as he has run a phenomenal chapter at URI and is a staunch conservative. He is known to be interested in seeking to follow outgoing Chairman Ethan Wingfield, and there will possibly be opposition to his candidacy from a couple of minor candidates.

Texas:
Eliza Vielma (Texas State) or Justin Jordan (Texas Southern)

Jordan would come to the forefront if Vielma decides not to seek another term, especially with long-rumored candidate Jason Fite graduating.

Ohio:
Although no one has announced, it is believed that if Chairman Brian Siler decides not to seek re-election this spring, his chosen replacement will come from his fellow Executive Board members, most likely one of his appointed officers who were instrumental in executing Ohio's highly successful field program last fall. There is not any major opposition to Siler within the state, but Ohio has a history of candidates hopping in the race as late as convention time in April.

Connecticut:
Over the past few days, Opposition operatives have been bragging openly about picking off this solid Establishment stronghold. We will see how this race develops.

We will continue to report on each of these races, and follow the remaining states as their respective elections near. If you have any information on these, or any other races, feel free to email or AIM us (AIM: redstaterampage).

Red State Rampage to Attend CPAC

2007-02-06T09:52:00.000-08:00

-MEDIA ADVISORY

February 6, 2007

(Columbus, OH)--Officials at Red State Rampage have announced today that contributors to Red State Rampage will indeed be attending CPAC 2007 this March 1-3 in our nation's capitol, contrary to reports of a supposed CPAC boycott that surfaced in the past week. Site founder, known only as Cut the Crap, informed an anxious crowd of reporters earlier this morning that rumors of a boycott were without grounds and were simply part of the smear campaign against the site. "We at Red State Rampage are privileged to be attending this great event, as it serves to educate and motivate conservatives, young and old alike, in the coming year," said the shadowy character.

Also of note at the de facto press conference was the mention of support for the College Republican No-Bullshit Caucus. Rumors of a CRNBC Meeting to take place at CPAC have abounded for weeks, and, according to sources, will take place. "We wholeheartedly support the actions undertaken by the No-Bullshit Caucus, and would like to encourage their further actions in making light of the poppycock spewed forth from many College Republican leaders open mouths."

The pool of press invited to the event were also informed that the founder will be accepting requests for audiences during the convention; all requests are to be submitted to the RSR media contact as soon as possible for review and likely denial.

For more information, please contact Red State Rampage at redstaterampage@gmail.com, or simply wait for them to contact you. As is the policy at RSR, if you are deemed necessary to have words with, you will be notified that your presence is required.

Disclaimer: In no way is this press release intended to be a slight aimed at The Honorable and Benevolent John Plecnik, His Majesty, who sent out an actual press release to announce his plans to attend CPAC in past years. It is also not intended to be a jab at self-important State Chairmen located in the New England states of Maine or Massachusetts who send out press releases such as this to announce meaningless things, such as this.

Buckeye State Breakdown

2007-02-06T09:33:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, the state board of the Ohio College Republican Federation gathered, and a few things of note came out of the meeting:

-Ohio will be holding a party/event at CPAC to rival MaineFest, although the two events will not be held at the same time to allow you, Joe CR, and you, pompous jackass (better known as Joe State Chairman), to attend both celebrations. Watch your mail for invitations to the gala, likely to be held at either Stars & Stripes or Hawk & Dove.

-It appears as well that Ohio will be a large presence again at CPAC with chapters attending the meeting reporting at least 300 Ohio CRs are making plans to attend the annual convention.

-Bids were entertained for the upcoming OCRF Convention, to be held in mid-April, and three separate bids were submitted to the board: Bowling Green State University, University of Akron, and a collaborative effort between Ohio State, Columbus State, and Otterbein College, three Columbus-area schools. The collaborators are seeking to bring 2007's convention to Downtown Columbus and were reportedly the only bidders ready to present said bid. A source has informed us that a website will soon be up and running to promote the effort.

-Keen listeners at the meeting noted the seeming annointment of a hand-picked successor to Chairman Brian Siler, and we will report more on this development as it unfolds.

-We at Red State Rampage would like to congratulate two of the newly elected Chapter Chairmen in Ohio: Natalie Brown of Franciscan University of Steubenville and Mary Estock of The Ohio State University. Best of luck to both of them in the next year, and a special thanks to outgoing FUS Chairman Billy Valentine and outgoing OSU Chairman Matt Kocsan for their service to their chapters, and the state organization itself.

Back and better than ever...

2007-02-06T09:24:00.000-08:00

I wanted to make it a full month away, because there are certainly things to be done within College Republicans that are far more important than blogging, but the dialogue has dropped off so far in the past few weeks that I find it impossible to wait any longer before returning. So, with that out of the way, I am back and better than ever, and will no longer cut people the same slack once afforded them. Posts will be coming on some of the individual State Chairman contests, the state of the race for CRNC Chairman, and the happenings around the landscape of College Republicans, as well as coverage of events in the real world, also known as the things that really matter.

A Streetcar Without Desire

2007-02-04T21:16:00.001-08:00

So Columbus Mayor Mike Coleman wants a streetcar service to run downtown. Great. For a minute there I thought we had run out of ideas for things the city didn’t need that nobody would use. Then again, this seems to be a dominant paradigm of though amongst the powers that be in public transportation, and not just in Ohio. Too often multi-million dollar transport boondoggles are forced upon the citizens of major (or even minor) metropolitan areas whether they want the service or not. With this obsolete and costly transport burden upon the citizenry, Columbus may yet join the proud ranks of my beloved Portland as cities whose sense of nostalgia overwhelmed their knowledge of the market.

To be fair, there was a period in American history where streetcars were both popular and profitable. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, they were reliably known as the most effective form of mass transit within major cities, replacing the horse-drawn carriage (at least Mayor Coleman doesn’t want to bring those back). They also were electric-powered, which conserved rationed fuel during wartime, and provided a means for commoners to get around the city, since the personal automobile was still considered a rare luxury item. Like most means of mass transportation, however, the streetcar died out in popularity once owning a car became more common.

The postwar popularity of the automobile made getting from 15^th and High to the Statehouse in less than half an hour a possibility and represented a sense of independence and self-reliance that socialist government public policies have never been able to destroy. The simple fact is that no matter how high gas prices get, no matter how many different and quirky forms of public transportation are conceived and constructed, and no matter what Algore’s scare tactics might allege, people will never give up their cars. Public transportation nowadays represents a niche market at best, to which the likes of college students like myself belong. If these riders had cars (and if I had the ability to drive one), they wouldn’t be riding buses. It simply makes no sense to drive your car to a designated “Park and Ride” location only to take a bus to get to your destination in a lot more time, other than it making the rider feel warm and fuzzy about saving the planet. Pollution is still pollution whether it comes from your car or their bus.

Granted there are cities in this country that can and do support public transportation like New York’s subway, Washington’s metro, and the Bay Area’s BART. Columbus is not one of them. Its population and rider statistics suggest a mid-sized city in love with their cars, a combination that proves lethal to these projects. Again, that doesn’t seem to bother transit agencies like COTA. My hometown of Portland recently installed a streetcar line running through a downtown loop. Not only is ridership well below what was projected but the streetcar is entirely dependent on TriMet for funding, since it operates in Fareless Square, where all bus, light rail, and streetcar rides are free. The result is a multi-million dollar white elephant that only adds to the traffic congestion it was supposed to fight in a similarly-sized city. But at least it looks nice from the window of your car.

Ohio Educrats' Plan for School Funding: Feed the Addiction!

2007-01-29T11:31:00.000-08:00

Ohio’s “never enough” crowd is at it again. You know the ones. The educrats and union reps surrounding Ohio’s public education establishment who believe (and say) that no matter how much the state legislature spends and allocates to education, it’s never enough. Motivated by the twin misconceptions that Ohio’s schools are under-funded as a whole and that more funding will lead to better schools, they’re proposing an amendment to the Ohio Constitution taking the form of a ballot initiative. This proposal will effectively write successive blank checks to the Ohio Board of Education which will be rendered untouchable by the state legislature and lead to unavoidable cuts in other state programs and Scandinavian tax increases to pay for them. In the meantime, however, nothing about Ohio’s schools or students will change.

The proposed amendment will effectively place K-12 funding in the hands of the Ohio Board of Education who would then dictate to the state legislature (you know, the ones who traditionally control the power of the purse in an electoral democracy) what that year’s education budget would be. Should the legislature dare to dissent, the Board’s plan could only be overridden by a three-fifths vote in both houses and even then would be subject to a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court. Furthermore, the amendment to the Ohio Constitution classifies “a high-quality education” as an inalienable right, and one which doubtless would be open to interpretation by this unelected board and the Court. By daring to appose snowballing increases to education funding, the state legislature would therefore be denying Ohio children of this manufactured right.

With their hands tied by the “never enough” crowd and unable to meet their increasing demands, Ohio’s legislators would be faced with a choice between two bad options: cuts to vital state services like public safety and Medicare and increases in taxes to pay for it all. Proponents of this amendment have said quite plainly that they do not care about the very clear scarcity of Ohio’s resources or the competing demands of society for those resources. Instead, as William Phillis has said, “the amendment will put school funding on ‘autopilot’ in that the level of resources will be based on student needs and not residual budgeting.” For those of you who attacked the proposed Tax and Expenditure Limitation in such a manner, this should be your rallying cry. Mandated constitutional increases to state spending are just as dangerous for a state as mandated constitutional limits.

Of course, increased spending to Ohio’s broken-down, monopolistic, bureaucracy-choked public education establishment would provide no incentives whatsoever to reform the system. On the contrary, it would reinforce the educrats’ belief that more and more funding is needed in able to support this inalienable right to a “high-quality education,” whatever that means. Ohio’s public education system is in desperate need of real reform, and monetary needs are only the tip of the iceberg. Structural reforms need to be implemented. Local property taxes must be eliminated from the funding equation. Competition from private and charter schools needs to be introduced. Allocation should be shifted from buildings and artificial boundaries and unions to parents and students in the form of vouchers. Ohio’s educational establishment needs a twelve step program, not more and more booze to feed their addiction.

State of the Union Play-by-Play

2007-01-26T20:45:00.000-08:00

You are looking live at the United States House of Representatives, where President George W. Bush is ready to deliver the 2007 State of the Union, Presented by Citi! Hello again, everybody! With Bob Davie and Kirk Herbstreit, I’m Brent Musburger. Now folks, the President is entering in to some unfamiliar territory this year, and with both Houses run by the Democrats, he’ll have to give a whale of a speech to win Americans back to his corner. Pardner, the gallery is ready, kickoff’s just around the corner, and folks, President Bush is here for The Thrill of It!

Welcome back to our nation’s capital, I’m Brent Musburger. This broadcast of the State of the Union is being brought to you in hiiiigh definition by Aquos. For those of you who just joined us, President Bush started the 2007 State of the Union, Presented by Citi by recognizing and praising Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the new Democratic majority in both houses. Now folks, this is the first time Mr. Bush has faced a hostile chamber since becoming President. And remember folks, in the State of Texas, both sides of the Statehouse were controlled by the Democrats at one time or another during Bush’s terms as Governor. You can tell that he’s got a lot of fire in his belly, folks, because he’s starting off strong with broad images of national unity and calls for continuing the fight against evil. Now Bob, what do you think of President Bush’s economic plans so far?

“A very conservative approach rooted in the fundamentals: a balanced budget, low taxes, and tight spending. All three of which Republicans struggled at last session. In order to be successful tonight and this season, he’s going to have to push these hard, especially against this tough liberal defense. I also liked the blitz on earmarks and the quip about C-SPAN. Social Security and entitlement reform has been a trademark idea of the Bush administration, you can tell he wants to run with it, but he’s struggled to get it going.”

Folks, he’s now in to the red zone needing important points on his health care and immigration reform. This is one of the many issues in the last election where the Democrats won without being able to offer anything coherent. Both of his proposals looked good, with tax deductions and federal funds for states covering their citizens, but these bold ideas might not make it against this stout defense. Folks, it looks like he may go three and out again on immigration, a move that cost him late in the last election season. Energy is another important set of issues and proposals that don’t look good against the Democrats’ prevent defense.

We’re in the money quarter of the 2007 State of the Union, Presented by Citi. The President has moved in to his foreign affairs agenda, and lucky for him, this doesn’t seem to be effected by the Democrats’ defense, which proved dominating in the past three quarters. President Bush has discussed the need for continued resilience in the War on Terror, support for our allies and pressure on our adversaries in the Middle East, and he stressed the importance of winning in Iraq with increased troop numbers. Now folks, the Democrats want very much to keep that from happening, but they can’t seem to be able to do anything about it with weak “symbolic resolutions” and feeble rhetoric about “a new direction” that’s being met on the line. It’s safe to say now folks that the most important part of the President’s game plan is working without much opposition from the Democrats. They can complain and protest as much as they want, but they won’t be able to beat America without pulling funding from the soldiers themselves.

Well folks, the President has entered victory formation with salutes to soldiers, entrepreneurs, and famous athletes in the gallery. It’s safe to say that he got the job done tonight. He didn’t do a lot right, but he didn’t do all that much wrong either. That’ll do it for the 2007 State of the Union, Presented by Citi. For Bob Davie and Kirk Herbstreit, I’m Brent Musburger. Stay tuned for the Democrat response given by a first-term Senator from the south with a pound of chewing tobacco in each cheek. So long, everybody!

Repealing the Freeness Doctrine

2007-01-18T09:44:00.000-08:00

Well, the communists are back in power, and as we all know if there’s one thing they can’t tolerate it’s dissenting and differing points of view, especially on the public airwaves. Not surprisingly, they support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine- that relic of the 1940’s and agent of media control and suppression for nearly 40 years- as a means to that end. This should alarm not only listeners to Rush Limbaugh (who, by the way, number in the tens of millions per week) but anyone who truly values freedom of speech and a free (note: not “fair”) press guaranteed by the First Amendment, which judging by their speech codes on college campuses is another thing liberals have never been particularly fond of. They’ve already got your votes, now the left wants your hearts and minds as well.

Based on everything they’ve has ever said on the subject, the left longs for the bad old days when the American people had no choice as to where they got their news and information and no access to differing points of view. Media expert George Clooney, for example, expressed his nostalgia for domination by the three broadcast networks and the time where Walter Cronkite was “the most trusted man in America.” Traitor and liberal heroine Jane Fonda asserted that “a truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start a war.” Whether they want to accept it or not, the country has changed since 1973 and the media has changed with it. Today Americans can get their information from a wealth of sources ranging from traditional newspapers to radio stations to 24 hour television networks to the internet. In each and every medium, the left has lost their monopoly to more conservative voices and perspectives, and the ratings and circulations and hits reflect this.

So in order to regain their complete control over American thought, liberals in Congress are digging up the grave of this dead Doctrine. The cause is being championed in Congress by none other than the Keebler Elf himself, Dennis “the Menace” Kucinich. His desire is based on the belief of a far-left agenda that is being ignored in the mainstream media, which he seeks to thrust in to the spotlight, whether Americans want it there or not. Their charge is a corporately-owned media which serves only their own narrow agenda of shifting wealth from the poor to the rich. Yes, in an age of global threats from militant fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, Democrats remain focused on what really matters to Americans: redistribution of wealth.

Liberals see the successes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and Matt Drudge as threats to their agenda that cannot be checked by market forces. Every attempt to counteract differing points of view have been colossal failures, the most recent of which being Err America Radio, now filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They can’t compete with conservatives on the airwaves, so their remedy is to shut them down. This is a blatant assault on our Constitution beyond even the wackiest charges by the left of the PATRIOT Act. Free speech and freedom of the press were recognized by the founders as a central tenet to democracy itself. The moment the Democrats take this away is the moment our constitutional democracy begins to unravel.

Holding nothing back: Texas' Justin Jordan

2007-01-15T22:54:00.000-08:00

(Note: The reason behind the delay in posting this interview is that I suck at life and accidentally deleted the file it was in and spent most of the day retrieving it. Luckily, I was able to pull it off, and put it all back in one piece. My most sincere apologies, but at least it is here, unlike Truth Caucus’ Who’s Next feature!)

Justin Jordan is surely the closest to a dynamo that we in College Republicans have, at least out of those that I have met or know of. There are very few people, not just in our organization, that possess strong moral fiber and great character, even an unwavering sense of right and wrong. Very few college freshmen make it out of their dorms for class on most days, let alone uncover and pursue corrupt administrators, even after being wrongfully arrested for doing so. There are also very few people in our organization, or in politics on the whole, that are as unabashed and forthright in offering their honest, candid opinions and answers. Very few have anyone in mind but themselves, as well, or care about results more than they do rhetoric. And even fewer would put their own political future on the line for what they believe is right.

Justin Jordan brings all of this to the table, plus a wealth of experience. Few have shot upward so quickly in College Republicans, going from founding a CR chapter to interim Texas Vice-Chairman in mere months. Next weekend, he will be up for special election in Texas to fill the rest of the current term as TFCR Vice Chairman, and some heavy hitters in Texas politics will be pulling for this young man. He holds nothing back, and if you do not like it, he is probably deservedly calling you out. So, without further pomp and circumstance, the much-anticipated Red State Rampage debut of Justin Jordan unleashed:

Red State Rampage: You are running to keep your job, in effect, as Vice Chairman of the Texas Federation of College Republicans, after you were appointed in the interim since Jason Fite of Texas A&M stepped down. Can you speak to why it is you were chosen to fill the role of Vice-Chairman, and why there was a vacancy?

Justin Jordan: Well the Chairwoman expressed her confidence in me after seeing that I am a hard worker. Jason Fite graduated in December so it left that vacancy within the organization. Eliza called me just as I was about to go and cut the yard and asked me if I would do it and I told her sure.

RSR: Since your appointment was temporary, you have to run in this special election to fill the rest of Fite's term officially. You are opposed in this race, by Ryan Murphy of the Colin County CC College Republicans, a chapter that has been involved in TFCR for almost three years longer than Texas Southern. What, then, uniquely qualifies you to be Vice Chairman instead of Ryan Murphy?

JJ: Well I have always believed that my relationship with various elected officials uniquely qualifies me to be Vice Chair. The Vice Chair's role is one of high importance because I am actually in charge of helping Republican candidates on the campaign trail and raising money-something i have effectively done at my own chapter.

RSR: Your candidacy has been endorsed by some heavy hitters in Texas politics, including Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, future Congressional candidate Paul Bettencourt, and the President of GOPUSA Dr. Bobby Eberle. How did you go about winning their support? How exactly can you capitalize on these individuals support to better TFCR for all of its members?

JJ: I won their support because they know how hard I work to keep Texas a red state every election season. These are respected folks around my state and in some parts of the country. With these guys behind me, it gives TFCR a chance to develop those relationships in other parts of the state and it will enable us to raise more money.

RSR: Corruption has been a hot button issue nationally, and you have been recognized for your efforts to battle corruption at your own university, Texas Southern. You and a couple of friends took on your school's President, and it certainly was not easy going at all. How has this experience affected your life, and would you do it all over again?

JJ: Well it lets me know that there should be a 2^nd Civil Rights movement started. One that frees blacks from Corrupt Ass Blacks who steal from their own children and people. It also showed me and the other 2 Gentleman that you have to be the change, you can’t just talk that talk and not walk the walk. If I had to do it all over again, I would in a New York Heartbeat! It was a challenge but it was also so much fun.

RSR: Did you ever consider backing down, especially when you were arrested during the ordeal?

JJ: No, it did scare me though. After we were arrested we went back to the Governor’s office then shortly after that we approached the Attorney General and his office who then introduced us to the Local District Attorney’s office. The DA’s office took the case and as a result of us turning over the evidence we had, Dr. Slade along with several other people have been indicted on numerous charges. Knowing many of them were indicted put a big smile on my face of course.

RSR: What advice would you pass along to someone in a similar situation as you found yourself in? What do you think can be learned by others from your actions?

JJ: No matter how much pressure is put on you always do the right thing. If you know you are right then what others say really means nothing.

RSR: Besides taking on corruption in your own backyard, U.S. Representative Tom Delay also represented your area until resigning amidst accusations of illegal activity. One of the pictures on your campaign Facebook group features you with Mr. Delay. Do you see Mr. Delay's situation as one he brought upon himself, or is it a mere political ploy, as some have suggested? And do you see his resignation as a good thing in the long run?

JJ: The accusations against Delay were like most lies, if you repeat them enough they start to sound true. Tom Delay was indicted by a backwoods hick Democrat named Ronnie Earle who has a record of going after Republicans with trumped up charges. I knew Congressman Delay and he was a great ally in terms of helping the CR’s in my area out. I volunteered on his campaign and we grew to know each other that way. I hated to see him resign, but what I can say is he is no Priscilla Slade.

RSR: You worked to found the College Republican group at Texas Southern, and you were successful in doing so. Texas Southern, as with other predominantly black colleges, presents a challenge to College Republicans, because of the perceived, and sometimes real, hostility to the Republican message. Do you see this as being a real issue, and, if so, what can College Republicans do to be successful in this area?

JJ: Well I think some black Republicans whine too much when they talk about the "hostility" they receive from other black people about being a Republican. Personally, I love the hostility from black liberals because usually I hate them just as much. However, the whole idea in recruiting minorities is that you don’t want an all black thing or an all white thing. I personally don’t think that all blacks should be involved in the GOP because we have some in the GOP now who are the biggest gate-keeping assholes. I can attest to that because they are in my state. These are your older ones mind you, but they are still narrow minded assholes and if they are reading this and are offended then I am talking about you.

RSR: There are some within the Republican Party who do not think Black Republicans can be successful in winning election. They often point to the recent losses by Maryland's Michael Steele, Pennsylvania's Lynn Swann, and Ohio's Ken Blackwell as evidence of this. In Blackwell's case, a race that I saw first-hand, this was even used against him in the primary, which he went on to win. What are your thoughts on the matter, and do you think they have a valid argument? Do you even think voters should consider race when choosing whom they will vote for?

JJ: No they don’t have a valid argument. First of all, who are “They”? Those in that “They” column are your cowards in the party, the ones who tear down and don’t build up. Black Republicans tend to do better with white voters and some black voters because they feel like that racial stigma will not be used (i.e the Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton type of Bull Jive). Yes I think voters should factor race when choosing whom they vote for especially if Barack Hussein Obama is the Democrat Nominee. I hope that every white person and black finds that racist bone on Election Day and votes against him. He is not even black by the way, just ask Congressman Bobby Rush [RSR Note: U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) represents an urban district of Chicago, Illinois, and was challenged in the 2000 Democratic Primary by Obama]. I know I won’t be voting for him. Also, 2006 was a bad year for all Republicans and when you run most of your black candidates in blue states this is what happens. If they ran a black candidate in Texas or any other red state--in a district that isn't predominately black-- they would win, are you reading this ROVE?!?!?!?!

RSR: The national scene of College Republicans is, quite frankly, a mess. There is no semblance of cooperation, and many seem to have themselves at the heart of their interests. What are your thoughts on this situation, and what can you do as a state federation officer to help change this environment?

JJ: I don't have any thoughts on the national scene.

RSR: One question that I like to ask all College Republicans, especially leaders like yourself, is where you see the role of College Republicans being at: on campus fostering real debate on the issues of the day, or on the campaign trail getting results for Republican candidates?

JJ: Both.

RSR: What, if elected, do you see as being your biggest priority for TFCR? What would be one thing that you would advocate continuing in Texas, and where would you seek change from the status quo?

JJ: Getting Republicans elected statewide and at the local level too. I would advocate spreading the message of Republicanism across the state and to more young people. Well my mere presence is a change from the Status quo. Don’t you think?

RSR: College Republicans tends to be a rather hierarchical system, where one moves up the chain as experience is gained. You will be one step away from leading TFCR if you win this election. Are we going to see a Chairman Jordan in the future?

JJ: Who knows? Probably. Do you think I would make a great chairman? I may decide to throw my hat in for CRNC chair and go straight to the top from Vice Chair. I know I would have Yogi Bear and Fred Flintstones support; I haven’t heard back from George Jetson yet.

RSR: Your current state chairman, Eliza Vielma, seems to be a very polarizing figure among College Republicans involved at the national level. It appears that most either love her, or hate her. You get to work with Eliza on a more personal level than most, so what is your opinion of the job she has done? Can she really be as hard to get along with as some would say?

JJ: Honestly, from what I hear--depending on who you ask--everybody on the national level is "polarizing". This is one of those loaded questions. Well if I didn’t like Eliza I wouldn’t be answering these questions right now, because I wouldn’t be Vice Chair. So that should tell you something. No she is not hard to get along with and she is doing a great job leading TFCR. By the way she can cook some good Hamburger Helper with the tortillas on the side.

RSR: One of our shared personal heroes is J.C. Watts, of Oklahoma. How hard is it for a Texan to openly like a Sooner, first of all, and secondly, do you see Watts as having a viable future in politics if he chooses to seek it?

JJ: When Watts stops doing those damn infomercials he can come back to politics. But Watts is making too much money in the Private sector to come back to the public sector and who can blame him?

RSR: Why is it that people like Jesse Jackson and Donna Brazile have so voraciously attacked J.C. Watts for his views? Do you see the perception of the Black Republican as a negative one within the African-American community?

JJ: Look at the 2 people you gave me to choose from of course they attack him, he is smarter than both of them put together. The reason Donna attacks him is because she and other black Democrats can't control him like they control black Democrats. Jesse Jackson is an idiot and the fact that most black people will still line up behind the Rev. Baby Daddy should tell you a lot about the state of the black community. When the GOP starts targeting younger upwardly mobile Blacks like myself and others only then will they then see different results.

RSR: Obviously, there is a primary upcoming in early 2008 for President, and people are starting to line up behind candidates. Have you made your decision yet, or is there anyone that you would particularly like to see win the nomination?

JJ: I would love to see Justin Jordan win the nomination! But yes I have gave it some serious thought and I am just undecided right now.

RSR: We wish you the best of luck in next weekend’s election, and anxiously await whatever it is you do next! Thanks for talking with us, and we hope to do it again soon!

The rumors are true: Wilkins set to run in Kentucky

2007-01-14T14:33:00.000-08:00

Former Leadership Institute field representative and noted College Republican Morgan Wilkins appears set to announce her campaign for Kentucky Federation of College Republicans Chairman in the coming weeks. A website, www.MorganWilkins.com, has been registered, and a greeting at the site promises a full launch soon. It is not known at this time who else will be entering the race, but speculation centers around a few likely candidates, most notably current KFCR Chairman Brian Weber, of Morehead State. Weber became Chairman following the resignation of Derek Hall last year. Kentucky's CRs will vote on their next slate of state leadership on April 13th, when the annual KFCR Convention is held.

PLAYOFFS??!! Don't talk to me about playoffs!

2007-01-13T22:11:00.000-08:00

Another college football season is behind us and another torrent of BCS complaints and feeble demands for a playoff system are just beginning. Indeed, ever since the system was adopted prior to the 1998 season, such complaints from fans of Mountain West Conference teams and people who won’t admit that they prefer college basketball while pretending to follow the pigskin ensued almost as soon as the crystal football was lifted by the winning quarterback. To be sure, several of their anti-BCS grievances are spot on. The BCS isn’t perfect and no playoff system could ever pretend to be, but currently it’s the best among bad systems. Just like democracy.

One such criticism of the BCS is that it rarely determines a consensus national champion or even a national championship game everyone can agree on. Then again, neither did the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, and the anarchy that preceded it. Before the BCS was established, your only hope of getting a #1 versus #2 game was to hope that one of the contenders wasn’t contractually obligated to play in the Rose Bowl (as they were in 1994, 1996, and 1997). Prior to the Coalition, you often had to catch lightning in a bottle with perhaps an independent against a major conference tie in team. Never mind that the bowl system, with more than seventy years of established tradition, was never supposed to name a national champion in the first place. These were exhibition games held by chambers of commerce and local industries (you know, like cotton, sugar, and orange growers) to entice people to leave their cold, snowy towns for the fun and sun of California, Texas, and Florida. The national champion was usually named in advance.

Perhaps if there is one motto to the BCS it’s “Every Game Matters.” One could argue that college football already has a playoff system known to everyone else as “the regular season.” It is for all intents and purposes a double-elimination tournament, with one-loss participants being rare. Take the Ohio State-Michigan game on November 18 as an example. It was perhaps the most consequential game of the year, with #1-against-#2-winner-going-to-Glendale stakes added to what is already the most intense rivalry in the sport. The game came down to the final gun, with Ohio State edging out a 42-39 win in arguably the most thrilling game played at Ohio Stadium. Contrast that to any week seventeen match-up in the NFL, where starters are often AWOL. Already assured of home field advantage, a first round bye, a playoff spot, or a good spot in the draft, most late season NFL games are of little consequence unless you desperately need to win to see tomorrow. A trivia question I’d love to see the answer to is how many games Tom Brady or Peyton Manning started in week seventeen. NFL teams have the advantage of resting their starters in meaningless games. College teams either win their last game or make travel plans for Orlando and San Diego.

If there’s one thing playoff proponents have in common it’s that they can’t agree on what a playoff system would look like. Every professional league has a different system (and has changed their system at least once), so there’s really no telling what it would look like. Who gets in, how many teams, how long it would take, where it would take place, and what the bracket would look like are just a few unresolved questions. Keep in mind a team can only play one football game a week. Additionally, playoffs have the unintended consequence of not putting their best teams in the championship game. Just ask any AFC team from 1984 to 1996. Again, too little emphasis on the regular season results if a team can get lucky and win three games in a row. These are just a few reasons against a playoff system for Division I-A college football. I’m sure I didn’t touch on all of them, but stay tuned for next year when I’m sure I’ll get another chance.

Gov. Strickland lays out priorities in Inaugural Address

2007-01-13T12:39:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, in a cold and wet Columbus winter morning, Governor Ted Strickland gave his Inaugural Address to Ohioans, and an interesting speech it surely was. Strickland quoted Winston Churchill, George W. Bush, the Bible, and told critics of Ohio to, "get thee behind me." The speech itself offered no real revelations on what Strickland intends to do while Governor, but it did offer much insight into the priorities and beliefs that he will bring to the Governorship. In this excerpt, Strickland talks about why Ohio is being held back, and high taxes and regulation are not the causes at fault in his mind: (Bolds are mine)

"Though significant, the road to our renewal is not blocked by overregulation or lack of infrastructure, or even high taxes. No, we are only being held back to the extent that our state fails, either from lack of investment or lack of innovation, to provide the opportunity for quality learning for every citizen."

Governor Strickland also spoke of Ohio's common values, and how he shares these priorities. Please note that the first value/priority listed in the speech is universal health care, and that the last priority in the speech is using wisely Ohioan's tax dollars, after protecting the environment.

"We all want health care for those who need it. We all want a solid education for our children. We want a system of higher education that is affordable and gives our kids the opportunity to remain in Ohio to raise their families -- strong families, where moms and dads can have living wage jobs. We all want to honor the contributions of our parents and our grandparents so they can feel secure in their retirement years. We want safe and secure neighborhoods. We want to protect our natural environment and to ensure the health and safety of our children. We all want a government that provides services that are needed, but we also want the government to stay out of our lives when it has no right or reason to be there. We want the price we pay for a civilized society -- our tax dollars -- to be used wisely -- with proper respect for the hard work that has made them available.

I am willing to, and going to, give Governor Strickland every chance to turn around Ohio, because Ohio most certainly needs turning around. However, it is going to take some hard realization to see that lower taxes and less restrictive government regulation should be on even footing with a better education system. If we simply educate our children without creating a good business environment, they will continue to move elsewhere to find work. Best of luck, Governor! The people of Ohio are counting on you.

4 More Years for Ohio Lawmakers?

2007-01-13T11:53:00.000-08:00

Coming to a ballot near you next November, if Ohio's Democratic and Republican Chairmen have their way, will be an initiative to extend the 8-year term limits imposed in 1992 to 12-year limits. The Dispatch discusses the news in an article that merely puts an official sort of stamp on what has been rumored since the November 2006 elections: that ORP Chairman Bob Bennett and ODP Chairman Chris Redfern agree on the damaging effect of current term limits. Some would advocate term limits as a way to restrict and prevent corruption, but others see them as damaging to the legislative process in terms of the quality of laws enacted. Personally, I support the principle of term limits, but I would tend to agree that 12 years may better serve Ohio. Especially at the state level, so many incoming Assemblymen are rather inexperienced with the workings of state government, drafting legislation, and the working of the Assembly itself. It really takes a full term to get acclimated, in some cases more, and two more terms would only be four more years.

If term limits are extended, however, I would like to see a different way of drawing the districts. A Representative or Senator in the General Assembly should not be able to get elected once and coast for the next twelve years; districts should be at least competitive at the state level for no other reason than to productivity on the part of the elected. It seems that Speaker Jon Husted (R-Kettering) agrees with this notion, as he is quoted in the Dispatch piece as saying:

"It seems to me that we should have a fair way of drawing districts before we start talking about changing terms," Husted said. "The voters will be more receptive to it if they think elections really matter."

If you were reading Red State Rampage last week, we reported about Bennett, Redfern, and Husted all traveling together with the Ohio State University delegation to the BCS Championship Game last weekend. It is rather fair to assume this topic came up in discussion; it will be interesting to see what else, if anything, comes of that trip.

Minimum Wage Hike Hitting Consumers in the Pocketbook

2007-01-13T11:25:00.000-08:00

As we covered earlier in the week, the Ohio minimum wage hike, and pending federal minimum wage hike, are having unwelcome consequences to consumers. The restaurant owner that I spoke of in the previous post is definitely not alone, as the Columbus Dispatch has a story today about rising prices due directly to the increased minimum wage that took effect on January 1, 2007. I also talked briefly about the fact that employers will not be able to hire as many workers or give current workers as many hours as usual in order to offset the costs, and this quote from the article about Columbus-based Max & Erma's perfectly illustrates that.

"The company also plans to improve its scheduling to make up the remainder of the pay boost’s total impact, which is estimated at more than $1 million a year at the chain’s 33 Ohio units."

By the way, "improve scheduling" is corporate-speak for cut hours and staff, for anyone who did not catch that. Another portion of the article talks about another Columbus-based restaurant chain, Bob Evans, and the negative impact that the higher minimum wage is having already on their stores.

"Bob Evans, which employs tipped servers and hourly workers, operates on slim margins, so any significant cost increase has an impact on the bottom line, said Tammy Roberts Myers, spokeswoman for the Columbus-based restaurant chain."

Beyond not actually helping workers, and being bad for business and the customers of those businesses in general, this hike is hurting Ohio-based businesses as well. Nothing says, "Ohio is open for business," quite like killing your homegrown companies.

McTiernan Exploratory Committee hits the Net

2007-01-12T09:40:00.000-08:00

A website for Erin McTiernan's CRNC Exploratory Committee went live this morning, in a sign that the New York State Chairman is more serious about her candidacy than first assumed by many. The placeholder page can be seen at One CRNC, a domain that was reportedly bought earlier in the week by McTiernan. Two other domains also redirect to the One CRNC site: The New CRNC and United CRNC. We will follow this as it develops, if necessary.

Karriker to run in North Carolina

2007-01-12T08:57:00.000-08:00

University of North Carolina Charlotte student, and College Republican Chairman at UNC-Charlotte, Erin Karriker has announced his bid to be the next Chairman of the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans. This appears to have the blessing of current NCFCR head Jon Thompson, as it appears Thompson will not seek another term at the helm. Thompson is the latest in a growing number of state chairmen stepping down at the conclusion of their terms, joining Michigan's Dan Carlson, Florida's Scott Wacholtz, Virginia's Andrew Lamar (term already concluded), Arkansas' John Burris, Colorado's Charlie Smith, and Missouri's Justin Smith (stepped down prior to completion of term), with more surely to follow.

Karriker, meanwhile, released a letter declaring his intentions to seek the post, in a move that coincided with the launch of his campaign website, www.ErinKarriker.org. He currently serves NCFCR as the Communications Director, and is running on a platform of streamlined organization, better communications, and more visible campus activism. The announcement also brought the launch of a coordinating Facebook campaign group, Erin J. Karriker for NCFCR Chairman. Karriker's chapter was awarded NCFCR Chapter of the Year, and he has appeared on FOX News for his efforts on the issue of illegal immigration. Here are some of the highlights of his announcement letter:

"Through vigorous recruiting, equipping new members and reviving the spread of conservative campus activism, we will ensure a successful outcome for the Grand Old Party in 2008.
...It is with sincere respect and humility that I announce my candidacy for State Chairman of the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans. As the chairman of the UNCC College Republicans, I have overseen the most active chapter in the state, enjoying many far-reaching successes. As your next State Chairman, I plan on continuing that level of commitment and dedication to true conservatism."

Bill Todd for Mayor?

2007-01-11T10:39:00.000-08:00

According to today's Columbus Dispatch, the Franklin County Republican Party is set to put forth Bill Todd as their candidate for Columbus Mayor in 2007. I was hoping to see Jennette Bradley, but she is apparently not interested in the race. I will hold out hope for a City Council run or something, because she is very electable in Columbus. Anyhow, Bill Todd is a noted elections attorney, and has definitely paid his dues in Republican politics. The article talks a bit about his campaigning past, and definitely puts it in a negative light. I, however, think Todd will be a solid candidate, even if he is not my first choice.

It is good to see Franklin County GOP putting up a good candidate, and putting up a candidate at all is an improvement over 2003, when there was no GOP candidate on the ballot against two-term Mayor Michael Coleman. Coleman seems to be moderately popular, but he strikes me as a buffoon, especially whenever I have been around him in person. Most notably would be his explosion on The Glenn Beck Program, and, for me personally, his actions prior to the 2006 St. Patrick's Day Parade. For quite some time, WNCI's morning show poked fun at the Mayor, who was only too happy to oblige in participating in the show's bit pieces.

Most shocking in the Dispatch article, though, was that Jim Petro had been asked about running for the office. Petro is a competent manager, even if I don't always like his politics or personality, but he came to Columbus after being a Cuyahoga County Commissioner. I have no stats or records in front of me to know for sure, but I would have to say such a switch would be unprecedented, to go from elected in one major city to another.

$6.85 Not Enough for Ohio's Congressmen

2007-01-11T08:53:00.000-08:00

Yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives, under the steady guidance of newly-elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the Fair Minimum Wage Act was overwhelmingly passed by members of both parties. The Fair Minimum Wage Act, if it passes the Senate unchanged, will raise the minimum wage in three steps over the next 26 months to $7.25 an hour. While all Democrats voted for the bill, many Republicans crossed the line as well to support the measure. In all, only 116 Republicans voted against it, with 4 abstaining from the vote. It was no surprise that each of the Ohio delegation's Democrats voted for the wage hike, but six of the Republican members abdicated on the bill as well. Jean Schmidt (R-OH 2), Michael Turner (R-OH 3), Paul Gillmor (R OH 5), Steve LaTourette (R-OH 14), Deborah Pryce (R-OH 15), and Ralph Regula (R-OH 16), all were supporters of HR 2, and all should be on the receiving end of concerned e-mails, phone calls, and letters.

The minimum wage is an issue that is never given honest debate in the public arena, because anyone who wishes to speak against its merits is simply shouted down with accusations of hating poor people, when the opposite is actually true. Raising the minimum wage only affects workers in entry-level positions, a very small percentage of the workforce and an even smaller sector of workers supporting a family on that salary. According to Dept. of Labor statistics, a mere 479,000 workers were paid at the minimum wage last year, which does not even equate to 0.25% of the American population! Let us think logically then, considering the fact that most of the entry-level jobs in America (fast food, restaurant workers, grocery store clerks, and public recreation employees like lifeguards and YMCA referees) are worked by either high-school or college age students who are not relying on their part-time work as their sole means of income.

That leaves us with the very small group of workers who are relying on these jobs to feed their families. Raising their hourly wage feels good, doesn't it! Boy, it sure does! But, as with most government solutions in history, raising the minimum wage will create more problems than it is worth for these workers. The grocery stores they shop for food at will have raised their prices to offset the wage increases, the public recreation facility that they send their children to as a means of babysitting will charge more, the gas stations will raise their prices to compensate for their higher pay, and on and on. All of these factors will combine to eat away at most, if not all, of their pay raise, making it a moot point. Aside from price increases, firms will not be able to hire as many new workers, making jobs scarce as well for those who need them.

Who does the minimum wage help, then? Well, unions who operate on contracts with set pay raises certainly benefit. When it comes time to renegotiate their next deal, if they wait that long, unions can simply point to the unskilled laborers making $7.25 and demand more based upon their status as skilled labor. Then, the same thing happens to these firms as did the entry-level firms: they have to raise prices to make up for the wage increases.

In Ohio, voters recently passed an increase to the state minimum wage that raised it to $6.85, effective January 1, 2007. The law also increased tipped employee minimum wage to $3.43 an hour, and instituted an annual increase tied to the rate of inflation. Given a conservative, steady amount of inflation, 3%, in 2008 Ohio's minimum wage will rise over $7.00, and in another few years we will be talking about minimum pay near $10 an hour, as there is no cap written into the legislation.

Recently I spoke with a Columbus-area restaurant owner who estimated that the current wage hike in Ohio would require his business to make at least $0.30 more off of each customer walking through his doors. What do you think he is doing to keep his business from losing money? That is right, he is being forced to raise his prices to compensate. The kicker to this story is that he is not paying any higher wages to his kitchen staff, as they already begin at $9 an hour or higher, but simply to his serving staff for their mandated wage increase of over 61%. Even more ridiculous is that his servers receiving the wage increase typically garner around $10 an hour simply in tips and gratuity on a bad night. He told me, as well, that most other restaurant owners he had spoken with where in the same boat: raise prices to avoid losing money.

A friend of mine relayed this story about a major Ohio city's YMCA, where many inner-city youth are able to enjoy low-cost sports leagues, swimming classes, and after-school activities. They recently inquired about returning to work part-time while in college, and was told that the minimum wage increase had effectively prevented them from bringing on any extra help. The YMCA was also forced to drastically raise membership costs, as well as enrollment fees and league fees, in order to stay afloat. As a result of this, many of the inner-city children who are able to receive guidance and a safe haven to have a good time in through the YMCA will no longer be able to afford it.

Voters went to the ballot box in Ohio on November 7, and in Congress yesterday, and made a decision rooted simply in making a good stage show. Raising the minimum wage sounds great, and, of course, if you vote against it, you hate poor people. Our kudos go out to the five Ohio Congressmen who stood up for what was right, rather than what was easy: Steve Chabot (R-OH 1), Jim Jordan (R-OH 4), David Hobson (R-OH 7), John Boehner (R-OH 8), and Pat Tiberi (R-OH 12). One of the quotes given by a Republican in opposition sums it up best. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) said, ""In America we can either have maximum opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both." This is a bad deal for the poor in America, and every single one of the Representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, who voted for this hike should be ashamed of themselves for placating this small group of America's poor.

56th Carnival of Ohio Politics

2007-01-11T08:39:00.000-08:00

The 56th Carnival of Ohio Politics is now up and ready for your viewing pleasure, so go check it out. Here are the three stories from Red State Rampage in the past week that are featured in the 56th Carnival:

Who's OSU taking to the Dance?

Rob Portman on Tour

Ohio Losing Two House Districts in 2012?

Red State Rampage welcomes new contributor, Holy Buckeye

2007-01-10T17:23:00.000-08:00

Up until this point, there has been but one voice pontificating here at Red State Rampage, but that will soon be changing. Although yours truly will continue to lead the charge here, we are welcoming Oregonian native, and Ohio transplant, Holy Buckeye to the dais. Scroll below the just posted interview with Steve Japinga to see the inaugural piece from Holy Buckeye, one in which he comments on the recent removal of Air America from the Columbus airwaves. Holy Buckeye will be regularly opining on the pages of Red State Rampage, so keep an eye out for the keen analysis that was so notably lacking before his arrival. We are also in the process of recruiting a few more contributors to Red State Rampage, so be on the lookout in the coming months.

Next Up: Steve Japinga

2007-01-10T17:12:00.000-08:00

Within the past few months, Steve Japinga has burst on the scene in Michigan, announcing his candidacy for Michigan Federation of College Republicans Chairman, putting forth a new plan for MFCR, and weighing in in support of Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis during his sometimes contentious battle to win re-election. At this point, Japinga is unopposed in his bid to succeed two-term Chairman Dan Carlson, but a fight is looming down ticket between his running mate, Co-Chair candidate Ryan Thompson, and independent Co-Chair candidate Jeff Wiggins, a fellow Michigan State CR of Japinga. As this has become public since this interview was conducted, we did not have the chance to ask Steve about it, but we will definitely be covering it as it develops. So, here it is, our interview with Steve Japinga, next up in Michigan:

Red State Rampage: You are running as a candidate for Chairman of the Michigan Federation of College Republicans. What do you think most qualifies you to be the next Chairman of MFCR, and why are you running for this position?

Steve Japinga: I believe what most qualifies me to be Chairman of MFCRs is my willingness to work with everyone and to have an open and honest dialogue with each College Republican chapter. I’m running for this position because I know I can take the MFCRs to the next level by creating new clubs at Michigan Colleges that do not have College Republican groups, to increase participation, to raise money to give back to the chapters, and to help every Republican candidate.

RSR: Your background in College Republicans has been at Michigan State University. What are you most proud of being a part of while in College Republicans there?

SJ: There are so many different moments that I have been proud of at MSU while participating in the College Republicans. The most honorable moment I can think of was the MSU CRs 9/11 event. We gathered at 8 o’clock the night before September 11 at the Rock, which is a place where fraternities, sororities, and student groups express a messages by painting the “rock”. We painted “9/11, We Will Never Forget” and then put one flag for every soul that died on that terrible day behind it in the ground. We stayed up all night to defend the Rock from groups that wanted to destroy this sacred monument. I will always remember that day.

RSR: Obviously, there is a Presidential race on the horizon, and every candidate is looking for support. A short while ago, a large group of MFCR leaders endorsed John McCain, including the present Chairman of MFCR, Dan Carlson. Do you think that an organization like MFCR should become partial in this primary race? Why exactly do you feel that way?

SJ: I do not believe that the MFCRs should be partial in a primary race. I believe that any Republican that wants to run for President should have a fair shot to show the people of Michigan who they are and what they want to accomplish. In this organization, there is a wide variety of different college republicans that like many different candidates; Tom Tancredo, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich. College Republicans should be able to work for who they believe in.

RSR: In Michigan after the November elections, there was a push to unseat Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis. You signed on to a letter, along with many other College Republicans, showing support for Chairman Anuzis. This bid is no longer an active one, but why did you feel the need to support him?

SJ: There was no need to have Saul step down. I felt that Saul has done a great job as our Chair and he has always been helpful with the Michigan State College Republicans and other College Republican clubs. I will continue to support Saul as our Chairman and whatever he does in the future.

RSR: Speaking of the Michigan GOP, how would you work beside them as Chairman of MFCR to achieve victory for the Republican Party at the polls? Is this any different from how the relationship operates now or in the past?

SJ: It’s simple; open communication. I have made great relationships with many of the Michigan Republicans. I want to work with them as much as possible to find out what we need to accomplish so we can win in 2008.

RSR: Currently in your state there is a Democratic Governor and two Democratic US Senators, out of which the Governor and junior Senator were just re-elected. Do you think that College Republicans did enough to defeat them, or could more have been done? Was the onus on the leadership of MFCR or the individual chapters?

SJ: I believe that College Republicans worked their hearts out in this past election. The problem that we faced was that it was always the same people working and there were not enough new people participating. Also, we had no way of knowing that national issues would dominate in a State with the worse[sic] unemployment in the country. We have some of the greatest College Republicans in the country here at our universities and this is apparent with Western Michigan College Republicans winning the best chapter of 2006 in the nation. It is important that if elected Chairman that I work with each chapter so that will be even stronger for 2008.

RSR: If you are elected to a term as Chairman in Michigan, what will be your top priority? What would you most like to leave office having accomplished for your organization?

SJ: If elected as Chairman, my top priority will be to make sure that there is a College Republican club at each university and college in Michigan. When I leave this great organization, I really want to make sure that the College Republicans are ready for the 2008 elections.

RSR: I am sure that your detractors have said Michigan does not need change or that you are not qualified enough to lead MFCR. What would you say to them on these counts, and what makes these accusations false?

SJ: Well, the first thing is I am not a threat. I want to work with everyone, even those who do not support me. I want them to know that I am qualified to lead the MFCRs through my experiences with MSU CRs, my work on various campaigns, and my ability to work with College Republicans.

RSR: As you may well know, there is an election coming up in 2007 for Chairman of the CRNC. Dan Carlson has committed to support Charlie Smith, the Chairman in Colorado. Would you continue this support or would you examine other options before making your decision?

SJ: I support Dan for his national ambitions and believe that having Dan playing an important role in CRNC will be good for Michigan. I have not met Charlie Smith yet and I look forward to talking with him.

RSR: I think that your own state probably comes before the national scene, but do you think that the amendments passed recently in Denver are improvements for the CRNC? Are you happy with the current state of the organization nationally?

SJ: To be perfectly honest, my main focus is with Michigan right now. We need to get this State back to the color Red.

RSR: Within College Republicans, I see two main philosophical camps as far as tactics of operation: those who argue in favor of simply volunteering with candidates and campaigns, and those who are in favor of focusing on campus activism and fostering debate on the campus. Do you see this as an absolute issue, or is there instead a proper mix of the two? How, in your opinion, can CRs be most effective?

SJ: I believe that volunteering for candidates and campaigns, campus activism, and open debate is all important to the effectiveness of College Republicans. Obviously, College Republicans are at their best when they are active.

RSR: One of the biggest struggles that I see within College Republican chapters is not recruitment, but rather retention. Do you feel that retention of members is a difficult task in Michigan as well, and how would you suggest to go about improving the retention rates?

SJ: Yes, I do believe that keeping the members motivated and active is the hardest part in College Republicans. By improving this, I would suggest that College Republican clubs find new and creative ways of retaining members either by having their meetings at different locations other than on campus or holding social events after meetings. There are many different ways to keep clubs fun and exciting for college students.

RSR: Back in the fall, one of the field reps sent by the CRNC to Michigan planned an event called "Catch an Illegal Immigrant", and there was much attention given to the situation that developed from this. The field rep, Morgan Wilkins, was later fired. Do you agree with how the situation was handled? Do you think that CR chapters should push the envelope, so to speak with their own events on campus?

SJ: There was a decision from the national level to have her step down and I respect that decision.

RSR: Dan Carlson has served two terms as Chairman of MFCR, and has undoubtedly made an impact in his tenure with the organization. What is one thing Dan brought to MFCR that you would like to continue in? On the flip side of that, what is one thing that you would do differently?

SJ: One event that I will continue if elected as Chair is the “Resolution Weekends.” This was an idea that became a reality for College Republicans from all over the state to come to a certain college campus and help out candidates in that specific area. It is a great chance to meet new people from other College Republican clubs. On the flip side, I would have done more events to bring College Republicans together.

RSR: Thank you very much for your openness and honesty in answering my questions, and best of luck in the rest of your campaign for MFCR Chairman. One final question for you though: will Mark Dantonio be successful with Spartan football, even at a school where basketball reigns supreme?

SJ: Mark Dantonio will be very successful at Michigan State. We are very happy to have him!

WTPwnaGe

2007-01-10T16:43:00.000-08:00

If there is any solace in the wake of the greatest catastrophe to affect the State of Ohio since, well, the November elections, it’s that Err America Radio is out of Columbus. After two years of getting their butts kicked in the ratings by the likes of WLW (who, by the way, don’t even broadcast from Columbus), WTPG 1230 decided to adopt a format more successful than the left-wing lunacy of Randi Rhodes. This is no different from station managers in larger markets around the country that have dumped Err America for formats people would be more likely to listen to- like music from the 1940’s. One of the many truths in this world liberals will never be able to accept (like how declassified Soviet intelligence documents proved Senator McCarthy was right) is that their brand of far-left hysteria never caught on with the American people and the numbers are there to prove it.

Unfortunately for the left, Err America was doomed almost from the start, failing even to meet their fundraising goals for startup money. Contract disputes, bounced checks, and lawsuits followed in the network’s first year. Some twenty-five markets have dropped Err America (including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia) citing ratings that placed them just above dead air. Columbus is the fifth market in Ohio alone to drop the network for programming people actually listen to. Perhaps with fewer people listening nationwide to far-left garbage than they could be getting elsewhere from Radio Havana Cuba, it isn’t surprising that the company declared Chapter Eleven bankruptcy in October.

Here in Columbus, we’re told by the Columbus Disgrace that WTPG’s loyal listeners in the area (all five of them) weren’t taking their much-ignored format switch lying down. They formed the ironically-named Ohio Majority Radio to circulate an online petition signed by residents of Columbus and suburbs like Niagara Falls and Rochester, New York. They staged a gathering at the Capitol attended by tens of thousands (ok, maybe just tens) to save “Progressive Radio” from the forces of the market and the millions of people throughout the Columbus area who would rather listen to something entertaining or informative. They even staged a mock funeral procession for their beloved radio station. This was a typical liberal funeral in that it quickly became a political rally and forum for Bush-bashing.

What somehow didn’t come up at the protest few outside their own Yahoo group knew existed was that they were almost upstaged by conservatives! Sister station WTVN dropped the far more popular Glenn Beck at the same time and listeners- more numerous by about a power of four- were outraged. Fans of the show planned a similar demonstration of support for Beck- and in far greater numbers- for last Saturday. Thankfully for sick, twisted freaks who don’t have XM Satellite Radio, Beck was picked up by WTDA 103.9 FM. This is perhaps what is most infuriating among Ohio’s dyed-in-the-wool communists. They can win our votes, but they can never win our hearts, our minds, or our ears.

BREAKING: Florida's Wacholtz not seeking re-election; 2 candidates emerge to succeed him

2007-01-10T00:22:00.000-08:00

As the spring months approach, many states will be holding elections in their respective College Republican federations, and each individual race will be of great import to the upcoming CRNC elections in June. It appeared just a few weeks ago that Florida's Chairman Scott Wacholtz would be seeking a second term, but it now is known that Wacholtz will instead step away from FFCR at the end of his term. Vying to succeed him are two members of his Executive Board, First Vice Chair David Stevens and Treasurer Tommy Keller. Stevens, hailing from Florida State University, was a past chapter Chairman at FSU, and served as Wacholtz' running mate in 2006. Keller, who is a student at Stetson, was elected as Treasurer of FFCR in November of 2005, and he has named Florida Atlantic University CR Stacey Chait as his running mate.

Both campaigns have set up Facebook groups, the campaign site of choice for College Republican elections everywhere, and have released letters announcing their intents to run for the open positions. Tommy Keller's group, Tommy Keller for Chairman, boasts 78 current members, and features a letter detailing some of the plans Keller has for FFCR leading up to the 2008 Presidential elections.

"It is too simplistic for any individual seeking Chairmanship of this organization to boast about supposed accomplishments that have recently been made. However, if we are to have the most influential impact, it is time to be honest. The question, “What is the purpose of our State Federation?” must weigh heavily upon the minds of the elect in this organization. And the current status quo cannot and must not continue into another term."

The group touting the candidacy of David Stevens, David Stevens for FFCR Chairman, also features a letter declaring his candidacy, but, in addition to that, features a list of Stevens' accomplishments as well as a couple of choice photos, while having slightly fewer members at 60.

"...we have worked hard to expand our federation and lay the foundation so that the FFCR will be the best in the country. While I was disappointed to hear that Scott would not seek a second term, I fully understand his reasoning and wish him well in his future endeavors. Scott has done a great job this past year, but there is much still left to do. After discussing the matter with friends and family, I have decided to announce my candidacy for Chairman of the Florida Federation of College Republicans. In order to take our federation to the next level, we need someone who is dedicated, organized, and experienced."

BREAKING: Stewie Griffin to run for CRNC Chair?

2007-01-09T22:28:00.000-08:00

A source in Ohio just alerted me to a new Facebook group started in light of the circus that is the CRNC election pushing Stewie Griffin for CRNC Chairman. The group states that Stewie Griffin is the only man who can get the job done, and has already equaled the momentum driving the express train that is the Erin McTiernan for CRNC Chairman push at four members. The group is surely to catch on like wildfire and will probably force many a would-be candidate out of the race. Red State Rampage could not reach Mr. Griffin, most famous for his ongoing tenure on the FOX sitcom Family Guy as himself, or any member of his staff for comment at this hour. We will continue to develop this evolving and emerging story as it takes the College Republican world by storm. If Stewie Griffin is indeed formally declaring his candidacy, the dynamic of this race will change drastically, as it is almost sure none of the existing candidates are of equal, or even comparable, stock.

CRNC Election News & Notes

2007-01-05T02:40:00.000-08:00

-We will be soon posting interviews with candidate for Michigan Fed. of College Republicans Chairman Steve Japinga, a Michigan State CR, and interim Texas Fed. of College Republicans Vice Chairman Justin Jordan in the coming days. The interview with Japinga should be up later this morning, and we are also in the process of interviewing Students for Brownback Chairman Billy Valentine. Stay tuned for these, and several more interviews in the pipeline over the coming weeks.

-In a move that has been expected for some time, Rhode Island's Ethan Wingfield endorsed Real Reform yesterday, releasing the following statement on his support:

“The biggest challenge the College Republicans face is not reforming its national committee. Our challenge is building an organizational infrastructure that will make it easier for Republicans to get elected. The common-sense goals of the Real Reform platform will streamline the organization, make it less succeptible (sic) to corruption, and will ultimately enable us to more effectively campaign on behalf of candidates we all want to see elected. That's why Rhode Island voted unanimously to support Real Reform.”

The endorsement makes formal what has been known for sometime, and there seems to be quite a bit of grassroots support for reform at the chapter level in Rhode Island. There are now 17 sitting state chairmen supporting Real Reform, and we keep hearing whispers of a major announcement coming from Real Reform principals Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman.

-Truth Caucus is reporting that New York's Erin McTiernan is exploring the possibility of the run for National Chairman. McTiernan is best known nationally for calling out Paul Gourley publicly over a few matters, most notably for the alleged subterfuge of a CRNC field rep in recruiting a registered Democrat to run a College Republican chapter in New York. New York has a long history of infighting, but it is a state who has been solidly in support of reform for some time. It, along with California, is a state notably absent from the supporters of Real Reform.

Students for Brownback Chairman issues statement on John McCain

2007-01-03T22:37:00.000-08:00

With all of the buzz surrounding recent College Republican figures endorsing John McCain for President, and the donations given to some of the figures who endorsed Sen. McCain, Students for Brownback Chairman Billy Valentine has issued a brief statement in response:

"It is no surprise that College Republicans continue to sell out the conservative movement to moderate Senator John McCain considering the large sums of cash he has been offering for their souls. Unlike Senator McCain, Senator Brownback has been winning College Republican support through his consistent conservative record, something that money simply can't buy."

We at Red State Rampage have been very vocal in our criticisms of the McCain campaign for seemingly buying College Republican support, so it is refreshing to see another voice, especially one from another candidate's team, picking up on this. Back in the fall, Sen. Sam Brownback spoke to over 400 students and College Republicans in Ohio, and Brownback will also be a featured speaker at CPAC this coming March.

Red State Rampage in the 55th Carnival of Ohio Politics

2007-01-03T17:44:00.000-08:00

The Carnival of Ohio Politics, now in the 55th edition, is rolling strong into its second year of providing a comprehensive weekly report on Ohio bloggers. In this edition, Red State Rampage has three featured posts, and if you have yet to read them, what are you wasting your time doing instead? Anyhow, check out the posts below and the 55th Carnival to see what else Ohioan bloggers have to say this week.

Note to BSB: Go ask the 6th District about the Govt. "Workday"

Update: Columbus losing "Progressive" Radio in 2007

Marc Dann: Providing Comedic Fodder Since Birth

Sports Night

2007-01-03T16:15:00.000-08:00

Columbus sports fans and baseball fans across the nation mourn the loss of former International League President George Sisler, Jr., who passed away at the age of 89 on December 31, 2006. Sisler served as the general manager for two Columbus minor league baseball teams, first the Red Birds and later the Clippers. He also spent time from 1966 until 1976 leading the International League, which is based in Dublin, Ohio, a northwest Columbus suburb. Sisler was the son of Major League Baseball Hall of Famer George Sisler, Sr., who held the record for hits in a season (257) until it was broken by Ichiro Suzuki's 262 hits in 2004. Sisler, Jr. was part of four IL Championships while with the Clippers and was named IL Executive of the Year four times as well.

-In comments that are sure to gain Stuart Appleby both adulation and scorn, the PGA veteran suggested that teenage golfer Michelle Wie should improve her game on the LPGA Tour before continuing to play in men's golf events. Appleby did provide some basis for his comments, stating the facts that Wie has missed 11 of 12 cuts and has yet to win an LPGA event, but there is much doubt as to how his comments will be taken. Wie has went beyond simple novelty participation and straight to embarassing in my opinion, especially given the nature of her performances in both men's and women's events. Wie has shown flashes of brilliance, but she needs to build up some confidence and experience before continuing to try and swing it with the guys. If Wie continues to develop, and enrolling at Stanford to play golf is a sign that she is committed to improvement, there is almost no doubt that she can dominate the LPGA and someday compete with the man. Right now, though, she is undergoing a seeming exercise in futility. Meanwhile, Appleby will be gunning for a fourth straight win at the PGA's All-Star tournament, the Mercedes Championships, and this time he will not have to compete against Tour heavyweights Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson.

-It appears that the Cleveland Indians will soon be adding another late-inning option to their bullpen, as Red Sox pitcher Keith Foulke is in town for a physical. Foulke missed much of last season with injuries, and was supplanted by rookie sensation Jonathan Papelbon in the closer's role for Boston. Signing Foulke would be the latest move in a string of offseason signings and trades to improve the Indians; other acquisitions include 2B Josh Barfield, P Joe Borowski, OF David Dellucci, and P Roberto Hernandez. The Tribe has also invited two former MLB infielders to Spring Training who spent last year in the minor leagues, Luis Rivas and Keith Ginter. Both are expected to compete for the open utility infielder position and received minor league contracts with the Tribe. Indians GM Mark Shapiro has also been hard after St. Louis Cardinals P Mark Mulder, a 29-year old starter who will miss 2007 while rehabbing from major surgery. Any deal would likely be a two-year deal, with no expectations of major league production from Mulder until 2008. This move would appear to provide insurance in the case of two current Indians starting pitchers who will be eligible for free agency after the upcoming season, Paul Byrd and Jake Westbrook. Bryd is 36 years old, and Westbrook could price himself out of the Indians price range, especially given the large deals given to rather mediocre starters in this offseason. Having Mulder around would be a solid contingency plan, should the Indians win out in this bidding war against the Rangers and Cardinals, the other two possible destinations for Mulder according to his agent.

-ESPN's Bill Simmons is a phenomenal writer, and easily one of my favorite sports columnists. He is back at it this week with a piece in ESPN the Magazine, which is also featured online at ESPN.com, on the hypocrisy of Mark McGwire's exclusion from the Hall of Fame. Go check it out!

Who's OSU taking to the Dance?

2007-01-03T10:53:00.000-08:00

When the Ohio State Buckeyes play Florida in the inaugural BCS Championship Game in Glendale, Arizona, on January 8, The Ohio State University will have a very large contingent of guests in attendance. The Columbus Dispatch has published the list of all official guests of the university, and there are no real surprises, simply a lot of the likely suspects (suspects may be a bad choice of syllogism when speaking of politicians, eh?). Ohio GOP and Ohio Democratic Party Chairmen are both on the list, with ORP Chairman Bob Bennett taking his wife Ruth Ann Bennett, and ODP Chairman Chris Redfern taking his fiancee Kim Kahlert. Among other Ohio politicians in the General Assembly attending include:
-Speaker Jon Husted (R)
-State Rep. Steve Reinhard (R)
-State Rep. Michelle Schneider (R)
-State Rep. Robert Hagan (D)
-State Sen. Steve Stivers (R)
-State Sen. Jay Hottinger (R)
-State Rep. Jim Carmichael (R)
-State Sen. Steve Austria (R)
-State Rep. Jon Peterson (R)
-State Rep. Tom Letson (D)
-State Rep. Jim Hughes (R)
-State Rep. Matt Barrett (D)
-State Rep. Ross McGregor (R)

Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman (D) is attending, as is outgoing City Council President Matt Habash (D). Ohio Secretary of State-elect Jennifer Brunner (D) will be on the flight, as will Ohio 5th District Congressman Paul Gillmor (R). All of the politicians are paying their own way, at $2,100 per person. Other notables include ambitious OSU Student Senate President Nick Benson, whose trip is being paid for by the university from the bowl payout, and Undergraduate Student President Ryan Fournier, whose trip is covered because he is working on the trip. The Board of Trustees also is on the list, part of which will be paid for by bowl proceeds. Notable Republicans on the Board of Trustees include RNC Co-Chair JoAnn Davidson, outgoing Auditor of State Betty Montgomery, disgraced former Taft aide Brian Hicks, and GOP campaign treasurer extraordinaire Bill Curlis. Of these four, only Curlis is paying his own way.

One interesting side note to this list are the few Republicans who will get to spend a plane ride and a weekend with Chairman Bennett, no doubt discussing 2008 ambitions and beyond. State Sen. Jay Hottinger, rumored candidate for Congress in the 18th District is one of these to note, as are Speaker Husted and Rep. Hughes, who have both been rumored replacements for 15th District Congressman Deborah Pryce if she retires. State Rep. Steve Reinhard is also a rumored candidate to replace term-limited State Sen. Larry Mumper in 2008. It also is not known if Governor-elect Ted Strickland will be making the trip.

Rob Portman on Tour

2007-01-03T04:12:00.000-08:00

In another sign that former Ohio 2nd District Representative and current White House Budget Director Rob Portman will be a candidate for public office soon once again, he is criss-crossing Ohio in the coming week, with stops in Cleveland and Columbus. The City Club of Cleveland is hosting Dir. Portman this Friday for a noon luncheon, where he will be the featured speaker. Next Wednesday, the John Glenn Institute for Public Policy at The Ohio State University and the Concord Coalition are hosting Portman at the Blackwell Inn (on OSU's campus) as a panelist on the Fiscal Wake-up Tour, put on by the Concord Coalition.

Three's Company Once Again: Derek Hall Dodges the Draft Movement

2007-01-03T03:18:00.000-08:00

The field of potential candidates is back down to three tonight after Kentucky's Derek Hall opted not to seek a term as Chairman of the CRNC in 2007. Over the past few weeks talk had surfaced about Hall's national intentions at a fervor not seen since the summer of 2006, when a candidacy for Chairman by Hall was seen as very likely. With this announcement, the field is pared back down to include the team of Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman, Charlie Smith, and an ever looming bid by Dan Schuberth, who seemed very much a candidate at the December 2006 CRNC Board Meeting. Draft Derek Hall, the blog that really brought talk of a Hall candidacy back to the forefront of College Republicans, has the statement, as does Truth Caucus. Due to the eloquence of Hall's letter, it is being posted here also:

"The past two weeks have been quite a whirlwind experience for me. I have talked to many individuals about the possibility of running for the position of CRNC Chairman, but I felt it was necessary to officially announce that as of now I have decided not to run for the position. I have been extremely flattered by the outpour of support and kind words; I was not expecting to hear from so many individuals from across the country.

I have worked diligently for the College Republicans since stepping foot on the campus of the University of Kentucky, and I feel that I have an invested interest in the future of this organization. We all need to recognize its time to introduce sound, intelligent reform to the CRNC, and hopefully our candidates will continue to preach this message as they campaign over the coming months. At times, we over-complicate this organization, and I hope that our next crop of leaders realize its time to simplify each facet of the group. This means we need to put more emphasis on helping to win real elections and strengthening our local chapters. We need to stand together and proclaim that playing politics within the CRNC is the business of the past and promoting the Republican Party is the answer for the future.

Once again, I want to thank everyone for their support, and I hope we are able to come together to produce the best team for guiding the CRNC. Thank you and God bless."

Hall is still expected to find a place on someone's ticket, and a close relationship with Missouri's Justin Smith and Ohio's Brian Siler could play a large role in where Hall stands in the upcoming race. In the recent Truth Caucus poll, candidates from states supporting Real Reform, including Derek Hall, Brian Siler, and Brent Ludeman, won 78% of the vote, so a combination of the three on a ticket could prove formidable. It is also very refreshing to see someone talking of winning real elections and promoting the Republican Party over inter-organizational squabbles; for whatever reason this seems to have been absent for some time within the CRNC. We will continue to follow all of the potential candidates in the race, and have continuous updates on any decisions being made. No formal announcements are set as of yet, but it is rumored that all candidates are within days of making their final decisions.

Columbus well prepared for emergency communications and planning; Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo lag behind

2007-01-03T02:49:00.000-08:00

In a new report released by the Dept. of Homeland Security, Columbus was one of only six U.S. cities given an advanced rating in all three categories, making it, on paper, one of the most well-prepared cities for emergency planning and communications. The report also ranked Cleveland as one of the worst cities in emergency management, citing the still informal and unorganized status of the area planning groups. Cincinnati and Toledo were graded only slightly higher due to an improving performance in organizing those same area planning groups.

The report graded the cities in three major areas of communications preparedness: Usage, Governance, and Standardized Operating Procedures. The Usage category was evaluated on how effectively first responders actually were in cooperating and communicating during drills and emergencies requiring interorganizational cooperation, essentially how well the plans are currently implemented. Columbus was rated as having advanced usage, while the three other Ohio cities rated were given only an intermediate ranking on usage and implementation. Governance ranked the organization of emergency planning groups, the existence of definite protocol, and the active funding and constant updating of this planning. Cleveland was cited for not having a definite strategic plan or formal planning group in place, while Columbus was again rated advanced in the area. Toledo and Cincinnati were given intermediate rankings in this category as well, given the improving nature of their plans and the formality of the planning groups. Standardized Operating Procedures encompassed the actual effectiveness and implementation of the plans themselves in exercises and actual emergencies, with Columbus again being advanced to the other three Ohio cities intermediate ratings.

Ohio Losing Two House Districts in 2012?

2007-01-02T13:19:00.000-08:00

(UPDATED 1.3.07: Commenter Kelly has pointed out that the Congressional redistricting takes place in the Ohio General Assembly and is simply a bill the Governor at that time will sign into law. The Apportionment Board draws the lines for both houses of the Ohio General Assembly, although both processes will be occurring at roughly the same time. My apologies for getting my facts mixed up there, but it is corrected in the post below now.)

When reapportionment comes around next in 2012, current population and migration trends indicate that Ohio will likely lose at least one Congressional district, and possibly two. This would continue a trend of lessened national influence, leaving Ohio with just 18 electoral votes and 16 U.S. Representatives to complement the two Ohioan U.S. Senators. With redistricting due in 2010, Ohio appears to be in for major changes on the statewide political scene. The two districts to be eliminated would be chosen by the party controlling the Ohio General Assembly, although with the current map, it would be tough to eliminate two seats currently held by the same party. For something so earthshaking, the story is drawing almost no coverage, even in the blogosphere.

Obviously this will not take place for another few years, but it is most certainly on the horizon. The rapidly shrinking population in Ohio loses an average of 250 residents each day to Florida alone, and the onus is most definitely on the governing body to reverse this trend. Governor Bob Taft failed to do so during his eight years, but regardless of party affiliation, we would be happy to see Gov.-elect Ted Strickland do well in this regard. Ohio must keep its young talent, the thousands who graduate every year from Ohio's higher education system, and even those who have just received their high school diplomas. We must also create a more business-friendly environment, in order to bring in new jobs and keep the jobs already in Ohio home. However, if we hope to reverse the trend, we need to be concerned with effecting that change now, and not in five years.

Red State Rampage joins with State of Ohio Blogger Alliance

2007-01-02T13:09:00.000-08:00

Red State Rampage is the newest member blog of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance, a conservative-leaning and generally Republican association of bloggers. A new live feed of posts by other SOB Alliance members has been added to the sidebar below the Links portion, and a blogroll will be forthcoming. This group includes some of my favorite blogs, and ones that I read everyday, such as BizzyBlog, Right Angle Blog, Lincoln Logs, Viking Spirit, and Weapons of Mass Discussion. I would most definitely suggest checking them out, and I am glad to be joining such an esteemed collective of established bloggers in Ohio.

Editorial: The Many Faces of Charlie Smith

2007-01-02T01:54:00.000-08:00

Just who is Charlie Smith? Why is he running to be the next Chairman of the CRNC? What exactly does Charlie Smith stand for? For the casual follower of College Republican politics, those who simply read the headlines and look no further into them, these are questions that cannot be answered. To the average onlooker, they may even think there are three separate Charlie Smiths in our organization: the Charlie Smith who voted for Paul Gourley and was vying to be the heir to his throne, the Charlie Smith who was vowing to Unite the CRNC just weeks ago, and the Charlie Smith that now wants to bring you, Joe CR, a New CRNC by embracing reform and an agenda he once opposed. That average CR would be right, too, in thinking that three separate versions of Charlie Smith exist, because within the past six months each face of Smith has been worn publicly.

There really is no true way to tell where Charlie Smith does, in fact stand, and this is not a good place for a politician of any level to be. Fresh in American minds is the image of a flip-flopping John Kerry, a man who measured the changing winds of opinion before making his choice. In the 2005 CRNC election, Charlie Smith publicly endorsed the current Chairman of the CRNC, H. Paul Gourley, and Colorado cast its electoral votes in favor of Chairman Gourley. This past summer, and into the early fall, Smith was maneuvering to succeed the wounded Chairman in 2007 and be anointed heir to the relative dynasty that is the Establishment within the CRNC. He held at least two separate conference calls discussing the possibility of him running in place of Gourley, in order that the Opposition may not become victorious in the next go round. There was no doubt, until very recently, whose side Charlie Smith stood on.

Then came a couple of amendments, one proposed in 2005 and pulled from the floor and the other a new idea. Both involved making the elections process more accountable, and both were seen by some as a vengeful act by holdovers from the 2005 campaign. Charlie Smith signed on as a sponsor, and Charlie the Uniter was born. In the run-up to the 2006 CRNC Winter Board Meeting, held just last month in Denver, both sides bickered back and forth regarding the merits and intent of the amendments, but by December when state chairmen gathered to vote in the Rockies, both would pass with ease. Some still in the CRNC office were not happy with them, nor with Charlie for playing a role in their passage. Smith's former patrons were none too pleased with their protege, and this is why Charlie Smith did not announce his candidacy at the Board Meeting.

Now playing cowboy, and rounding up all of his straying cattle, he was on the defensive. No solid platform had been proposed, and so Ohio's Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman of Washington, two other rumored candidates, put forth an all-encompassing slate of ideas for reform, under the label of Real Reform. Nearly every supporter of Real Reform initially, and to this day, has been an unquestioned supporter of reforming the CRNC, so it was somewhat surprising to see Charlie's response to the move. Charlie Smith was so brash to welcome proponents of Real Reform to the debate, a debate that Charlie himself was more than fashionably late to. He released his own list of supporters, and it was noticeably heavy on Gourley supporters, especially for a group posing as one of reformers. What he could not admit, however, was that his letter brought no substance to the debate, but merely rhetoric.

Still portending to wish a coming together, a unification of the CRNC, Charlie Smith purchased a domain to back up his Unite the CRNC platform, which never went live (and no platform ever emerged). Shortly after this was discovered, just in the past few days, Smith shifted his focus yet again. After receiving a mere 22% of the vote in a Truth Caucus poll, he wrapped himself in a new banner: a New CRNC. Another domain was bought, and College Republicans were left wondering what this Smith guy stood for.

As a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, I am all for conversions in faith and beliefs. One of the biggest goals of College Republican organizations across the nation should be winning hearts and minds with our proven message. True conversion is something that must manifest itself in concrete actions and not mere words. So when I see politicians converting from pro-life to pro-choice, and back again, simply for the purpose of winning votes and support, it disgusts me. I have seen this same convenient conversion, still a false change, in the evolving stances of Charlie Smith.

This pandering nature is something I have noticed for some time, and have remained quiet. Everyone should be given a chance to show themselves true, and so I have allowed this chance multiple times in Charlie Smith's case. Time and time again, we have seen him change his foundations to what is currently popular, seemingly for his own benefit. Though I have not met him, Michael Davidson appears to me to be a great diviner of character. You will recall that Davidson recently met for dinner with Charlie Smith, purportedly to discuss Smith's intentions of running nationally. You will also recall that Smith was sent away for want of solid evidence of his reformer stance. If Michael Davidson did not see him as a true reformer, I remain hesitant to as well. This upcoming CRNC election is far too important to choose a new Chairman based solely upon what a man may say. No, we must follow those who have backed up their words with actions, like at least three other possible candidates have. We cannot, and must not pick a man who does not even know where he himself stands. Charlie Smith, a man of many faces, is most definitely not the man for the job.

From here on out, Red State Rampage will pull no punches, because Charlie's third change was the charm. We need leadership with clear direction, not someone who is heading down three separate paths. We need a man who will stand up and fight for his beliefs, not a man wishing to be everything to everyone. The answer to the question, then, is that no one really can know who Charlie Smith is. One thing is certain though: until he makes up his mind, we should not be trusting him to lead us.