Along the lines of Senator Lindsey Graham's terminology in his opening statement, Sonia Sotomayor has avoided a complete meltdown and will thus be confirmed, probably by this time next week.
The Judiciary Committee hearings, however, have not been void of memorable moments and questions have been posed that were worthy of solid answers. At times, such replies were offered, and then there were the other occasions.
I have heard from so many commentators that I can't remember where this particular observation originated, but someone remarked along the way that the Republicans have displayed a startling degree of unanimity throughout this hearing. I agree. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, signalled early on that the line of questioning would be polite, but tough. Sessions came at Sotomayor with marked skepticism over her comment that a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions in certain instances than someone else who did not share that ethnic strand. It is noteworthy that early on, Sotomayor implicitly withdrew this phrasing, stating that it "fell flat" in the context in which she originally employed it and even that it was "bad." She did not say whether it was a bad choice of words or a bad premise; I suspect she meant the former and perhaps does not even realize that there is a world of difference even between these two designations.
Orrin Hatch of Utah followed up with a dizzying array of legal cases that, admittedly, I could not follow, but his line of questioning traced back again to the subject of empathetic judging, as opposed to strict legal reasoning.
Lindsey Graham, whom I generally regard as a less than ardent Republican (I'm being kind), did a superb job in what, again, another commentator referred to as "cross-examination in the style of the lawyer he is" (not exact verbiage, but close). I am not sure, though, how I feel about his questioning regarding whether or not Sotomayor had a temperament problem. When asked whether she felt she might indeed, encounter such difficulties, what was Sotomayor expected to say? "Yes, I think I might have real personality issues?" This begs the question: Why even ask that? It is true that a majority of her former colleagues on the Second Circuit posted such anonymous accusations. I also have to wonder if the same question would have been posed to a male candidate? Yet, when one considers the gutter-level accusations that were flung, with no substantiation, at Clarence Thomas, it is also veracious beyond dispute that Graham's question doesn't even begin to compare to the nastiness Thomas endured.
The Democrats on the Committee are so syrupy and give Sotomayor the verbal equivalent of a sloppy French kiss every time they speak. "What a wonderful woman! What an amazing life story! What level-headed ability! What respect for the law!" It is revolting.
But then, Arlen Specter, a recent Democrat proselyte, was so rude that I ended up feeling sorry for Sotomayor. Can't they find a middle ground?
Senator Al Franken was trying to impress somebody; I'm not sure who. But because of that, he mixed in a bit of demagoguery against originalism (calling it "judicial activism", in a burst of Orwellian brilliance) in the middle of his own brand of excessive delight over Sotomayor's "impressive qualifications."
All of this is interesting for a political junkie like me. I wish more of America were watching or were able to comprehend what they were seeing if they did. (Not that I understand every sentence, mind you, as I've noted previously...there, does that sound less elitist now?)
Fox News broke away for the last part of the day to cover the Kennedy Health Care bill, which Obama is determined to see passed by the August recess. More on that very soon.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Senator McCain on Meet the Press
I have not watched "Meet the Press" much since Tim Russert's untimely death last year. I did see the show that Tom Brokaw hosted when Colin Powell announced his support for Barack Obama, last October sometime. Other than that, Fox News Sunday and ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" have rounded out my Sunday show repertoire.
But I happened to catch John McCain's appearance in its entirety today. Not so surprisingly, I suppose, many of the questions, perhaps half, were about Sarah Palin's resignation. (By the way, have you noticed that Palin's decision to call it quits completely kicked Mark Sanford out of the headlines?)
Senator McCain, in no uncertain terms, made two things crystal clear. First, he defended Palin's move to step down as Governor of Alaska. The body language, as well as his actual verbiage, held nothing back from a resolute defense of what she had decided to do. Also, he reiterated that Palin is absolutely qualified to serve as the President of the United States by virtue of her existing political acumen, her experience as Mayor and Governor and her correct stances on the issues of the day.
John McCain is not my ideal politician, to say the least. I have, however, felt that he has gotten a bad rap from Glenn Beck (whom I highly admire and enjoy) and others who have implied that McCain has held back, at best, from dissuading his former aides, as well as the media, from piling on Palin ever since the campaign ended. This is not terribly fair; McCain seems to have moved on since the fighting days of 2008 and pretty much gone back to the business of being a Senator. One presumes that making a call to an erstwhile 2008 campaign assistant to ask him/her to lay off of laying into Palin is not at the top of McCain's to-do list, for starters. Additionally, having moved on, it probably just doesn't occur to him that often. And in the end, Palin will have to defend herself from her detractors, rather than waiting for her former benefactor to come to her aid. So believing the above to be true, I think John McCain was more than generous today in his defense of his 2008 running mate. I'll go further and say he showed himself a true gentleman.
On an ancillary note...David Gregory is developing some chops as MTP host. In spite of my initial instincts, I was impressed today. His questions to both McCain and Senator Chuck Schumer were tough, but even-handed and fair. He'll never be Russert, but if he can project a lack of bias by equal scrappiness with all comers, David Gregory could bump up the ratings of a network that is suffering from accusations of extreme leftism.
But I happened to catch John McCain's appearance in its entirety today. Not so surprisingly, I suppose, many of the questions, perhaps half, were about Sarah Palin's resignation. (By the way, have you noticed that Palin's decision to call it quits completely kicked Mark Sanford out of the headlines?)
Senator McCain, in no uncertain terms, made two things crystal clear. First, he defended Palin's move to step down as Governor of Alaska. The body language, as well as his actual verbiage, held nothing back from a resolute defense of what she had decided to do. Also, he reiterated that Palin is absolutely qualified to serve as the President of the United States by virtue of her existing political acumen, her experience as Mayor and Governor and her correct stances on the issues of the day.
John McCain is not my ideal politician, to say the least. I have, however, felt that he has gotten a bad rap from Glenn Beck (whom I highly admire and enjoy) and others who have implied that McCain has held back, at best, from dissuading his former aides, as well as the media, from piling on Palin ever since the campaign ended. This is not terribly fair; McCain seems to have moved on since the fighting days of 2008 and pretty much gone back to the business of being a Senator. One presumes that making a call to an erstwhile 2008 campaign assistant to ask him/her to lay off of laying into Palin is not at the top of McCain's to-do list, for starters. Additionally, having moved on, it probably just doesn't occur to him that often. And in the end, Palin will have to defend herself from her detractors, rather than waiting for her former benefactor to come to her aid. So believing the above to be true, I think John McCain was more than generous today in his defense of his 2008 running mate. I'll go further and say he showed himself a true gentleman.
On an ancillary note...David Gregory is developing some chops as MTP host. In spite of my initial instincts, I was impressed today. His questions to both McCain and Senator Chuck Schumer were tough, but even-handed and fair. He'll never be Russert, but if he can project a lack of bias by equal scrappiness with all comers, David Gregory could bump up the ratings of a network that is suffering from accusations of extreme leftism.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The case for civility
I am disturbed a lot these days. Sometimes, I'm even angry! Irate! FURIOUS! Our nation is headed down the wrong path and I have to fulfill my conservative duty, which, in William F. Buckley, Jr's immortal reference, is to "Stand athwart history, yelling 'STOP'!" And I will certainly be yelling the whole time! Louder and LOUDER!
But I wonder...is this really the most effective way to persuade the culture of the efficacy of my values? The old adage about catching more flies with honey is not a particularly appealing mental image, but there is a lot of truth in it, nonetheless.
I am bothered, especially in the blogosphere, but in the political arena at large, by the lack of civility that I observe at times. I refuse to read the Daily Kos, for instance; the venom that is spewed there is unconscionable. But let's face it; I probably wouldn't be posting about this if these problems were limited to the liberals, the Democrats, the socialists...the other side, in essence.
There is no one who will mount a stronger argument than I will for the absolute necessity of standing with unflinching strength for the principles of liberty, for Judeo-Christian values in the public square and for government in the mould of the Founding Fathers. When either side, Democrat or Republican, strays from these ideals, we need to call them on it with clarion resonance.
But as we demand an accounting from our government and the media, let us do so with a forthright sense of compassion and justice. It is, for instance, not slanderous, inappropriate or dishonest to refer to President Obama's policies as socialist. That is description, not an attack. It is cruel and mean-spirited, however, to label the President as a "dirty, Muslim pig", a smear I have seen from at least one conservative. (For my fellow Christian believers out there, the un-Biblical essence of such verbiage is also worthy of discussion, but we'll save that for another time.)
As he has in so many ways, Indiana's own Congressman Mike Pence has led the way in making this very argument and in living it out in his own political career. No one exemplifies conservative leadership more than Mike Pence does and no one exceeds his articulate abilities. At times, his vigorous displeasure is manifestly apparent. Yet, the raised voices and unpleasantness that characterize a certain aspect of political debate today are never exhibited by the Congressman from Indiana's 6th District.
I can guarantee I'll be writing more about this later, possibly very soon. In the meantime, I am determined to engage in more contemplation about espousing my convictions and philosophy with determination, but with evenness and empathy.
But I wonder...is this really the most effective way to persuade the culture of the efficacy of my values? The old adage about catching more flies with honey is not a particularly appealing mental image, but there is a lot of truth in it, nonetheless.
I am bothered, especially in the blogosphere, but in the political arena at large, by the lack of civility that I observe at times. I refuse to read the Daily Kos, for instance; the venom that is spewed there is unconscionable. But let's face it; I probably wouldn't be posting about this if these problems were limited to the liberals, the Democrats, the socialists...the other side, in essence.
There is no one who will mount a stronger argument than I will for the absolute necessity of standing with unflinching strength for the principles of liberty, for Judeo-Christian values in the public square and for government in the mould of the Founding Fathers. When either side, Democrat or Republican, strays from these ideals, we need to call them on it with clarion resonance.
But as we demand an accounting from our government and the media, let us do so with a forthright sense of compassion and justice. It is, for instance, not slanderous, inappropriate or dishonest to refer to President Obama's policies as socialist. That is description, not an attack. It is cruel and mean-spirited, however, to label the President as a "dirty, Muslim pig", a smear I have seen from at least one conservative. (For my fellow Christian believers out there, the un-Biblical essence of such verbiage is also worthy of discussion, but we'll save that for another time.)
As he has in so many ways, Indiana's own Congressman Mike Pence has led the way in making this very argument and in living it out in his own political career. No one exemplifies conservative leadership more than Mike Pence does and no one exceeds his articulate abilities. At times, his vigorous displeasure is manifestly apparent. Yet, the raised voices and unpleasantness that characterize a certain aspect of political debate today are never exhibited by the Congressman from Indiana's 6th District.
I can guarantee I'll be writing more about this later, possibly very soon. In the meantime, I am determined to engage in more contemplation about espousing my convictions and philosophy with determination, but with evenness and empathy.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
"Audit the Fed" is dead
When I was at CPAC in February, Congressman Ron Paul announced to the capacity crowd at the Omni Shoreham that he had introduced a bill in the House that would (from my understanding), for the first time ever, audit the books of the Federal Reserve. This came as no shock to any of us who have followed Dr. Paul since his 2007-08 Presidential run. Later developments did induce some surprise, however; not only did many other Congressmen, including my own (Dan Burton) sign on as co-sponsors, but the bill passed the House last month.
That the Federal Reserve exists at all is a testament not only to how far we have strayed from the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but how much control we have ceded to the centralized State. (More on that in a future blog post, which I hope to have up very soon.) That it has never once been audited by either the government or an independent agency and that it operates as much in secret as it does is nothing short of a travesty, unworthy of our heritage.
Ron Paul is a true patriot, exemplified by so many of his stances over the years, among them sounding the alarm on the machinations of the Federal Reserve the whole time. This bill was argued and passed with complete transparency, in contradistinction to the stimulus package and Cap & Trade debates. One other interesting factotum: the text of the bill (HR 1207) runs about a page and a half, as opposed to the gargantuan 1,000+ page affairs that comprised the Porkulus and Cap & Trade debacles. You can read it here.
Well, HR 1207 is DOA in the Senate. Not to say that it will never be resurrected; Ron Paul doesn't give up that easily, but it was awarded a swift demise. Senator Jim DeMint (God bless his valiant heart) did his best and has publicized it to the extent that he could; in fact, he was on Glenn Beck's TV show tonight spreading the word. And I have to take my hat off to Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent, but in reality, a card-carrying Socialist, for co-sponsoring the Senate version with DeMint. I don't know what Sanders' reasons were, nor do I particularly care; we'll take allies where we can when we fight for right. (Someone far wiser than I once said, "He who is not against us is for us", right?)
It would be one thing if Audit the Fed had been sent to the chopping block by the Democrats, but it wasn't. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama did the dirty work on this, making sure it got blocked on a procedural tactic so they could continue to fight for business as usual in Washington, rather than allow the taxpayers of the United States to see what is being done with the revenue they generate that is force-cycled through Washington.
If this is the best the Republican Party can do, it doesn't deserve to survive and I speak as a Republican. If the default position of the GOP is to advocate secrecy for the Federal Reserve and block attempts to shine delight the Fed's deliberations with arcane parliamentary maneuvers, then we can do better. Career politicians, regardless of party, had better get ready for an accounting on this and other matters.
If I sound mad, then all I can say is, "Great deduction, Sherlock." The Fed exists to regulate (read, manipulate and inflate) the currency and has done a spectacular job of it over the last century. It is a Woodrow Wilson brainchild, created with the intent of obscuring the real meaning of currency and financial assets from the vast majority of the population at large. Chalk another point up for the elite at the expense of the regular folks. And don't tell me that Grassley and Shelby don't know it. If they don't, then they don't belong in the halls of Congress. But they do. And they know the spoils system all too well, which they are determined to protect.
Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives' Fund are looking better all the time.
That the Federal Reserve exists at all is a testament not only to how far we have strayed from the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but how much control we have ceded to the centralized State. (More on that in a future blog post, which I hope to have up very soon.) That it has never once been audited by either the government or an independent agency and that it operates as much in secret as it does is nothing short of a travesty, unworthy of our heritage.
Ron Paul is a true patriot, exemplified by so many of his stances over the years, among them sounding the alarm on the machinations of the Federal Reserve the whole time. This bill was argued and passed with complete transparency, in contradistinction to the stimulus package and Cap & Trade debates. One other interesting factotum: the text of the bill (HR 1207) runs about a page and a half, as opposed to the gargantuan 1,000+ page affairs that comprised the Porkulus and Cap & Trade debacles. You can read it here.
Well, HR 1207 is DOA in the Senate. Not to say that it will never be resurrected; Ron Paul doesn't give up that easily, but it was awarded a swift demise. Senator Jim DeMint (God bless his valiant heart) did his best and has publicized it to the extent that he could; in fact, he was on Glenn Beck's TV show tonight spreading the word. And I have to take my hat off to Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent, but in reality, a card-carrying Socialist, for co-sponsoring the Senate version with DeMint. I don't know what Sanders' reasons were, nor do I particularly care; we'll take allies where we can when we fight for right. (Someone far wiser than I once said, "He who is not against us is for us", right?)
It would be one thing if Audit the Fed had been sent to the chopping block by the Democrats, but it wasn't. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama did the dirty work on this, making sure it got blocked on a procedural tactic so they could continue to fight for business as usual in Washington, rather than allow the taxpayers of the United States to see what is being done with the revenue they generate that is force-cycled through Washington.
If this is the best the Republican Party can do, it doesn't deserve to survive and I speak as a Republican. If the default position of the GOP is to advocate secrecy for the Federal Reserve and block attempts to shine delight the Fed's deliberations with arcane parliamentary maneuvers, then we can do better. Career politicians, regardless of party, had better get ready for an accounting on this and other matters.
If I sound mad, then all I can say is, "Great deduction, Sherlock." The Fed exists to regulate (read, manipulate and inflate) the currency and has done a spectacular job of it over the last century. It is a Woodrow Wilson brainchild, created with the intent of obscuring the real meaning of currency and financial assets from the vast majority of the population at large. Chalk another point up for the elite at the expense of the regular folks. And don't tell me that Grassley and Shelby don't know it. If they don't, then they don't belong in the halls of Congress. But they do. And they know the spoils system all too well, which they are determined to protect.
Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives' Fund are looking better all the time.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Gosh, I'll miss Sarah...or will I?
Wow, Sarah...way to hijack a holiday!!! Anderson Cooper was muttering last night on AC360 that normally, he would be spending July 3 talking about being careful with fireworks and watching out for heavy traffic. Said Anderson, by the way, was as caustic and bitter last night as I have ever seen him. I usually like Anderson Cooper and feel he is about as evenhanded as anyone in the mainstream media, but not in his Palin coverage last night. He was snide and peevish...it was hard to watch. I suspect that he probably wouldn't even have normally been on the air and would have been home with his family, but was called in by the big guns to anchor the news. So sorry, Anderson; it must be tough to get paid heftily (New York Magazine reports his salary as $2 million per year, which I cannot substantiate or deny) and in return, occasionally have to respond to the summons to work a few extra hours to cover late-breaking stories.
OK, now that we have Anderson out of the way...
I don't believe Sarah Palin stepped down to start running for President. She may eventually do just that, but 2012 is too far off for that and if that were her key reason, she could have at least served out her term. In that respect, I don't think her decision to step down will look very wise in hindsight.
But I like Sarah Palin, and I genuinely believe that she simply felt this was the best move for her at this time in her life. Her family has been through a media wringer this last year like no other family in the country. I told my brother (a Palmer, Alaska resident) on the phone yesterday that every time a few weeks went by without any Palin news, inevitably some sort of media hit piece or snarky comment would emerge, bringing her back into the news again. Justifiable or not, this is how American "news" works these days, which is why most of us just gravitate to opinion journalism, since at least we have honest admission there about what we can expect from the commentators. Who wouldn't jump at a chance to move into a role where they could respond to all of these attacks in immediacy without having to worry about governing a state at the same time?
In all candor, I do think Sarah Palin is ambitious. I don't know how far that fact alone will take her, but I know she never dreamed she would attain the status she already has.
Palin is not my candidate for 2012. Mitt Romney possesses the cred we need to get this country away from the economic roller coaster. I believe Palin's values are right on target; social conservatism is her key strength, but we have to focus on keeping the country from sliding into complete ruin across the board and I don't think she is the best one for that role.
We haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin; I have no doubt that in fact, those of us in the lower 48 will see even more of her than we have for the last 6 months. She recently keynoted a Right to Life event in Evansville (in my state) to a sold out crowd; many more of those features await, as well as other opportunities. So I'm sure there are pecuniary advantages here, as well; let us be honest about that, especially since there is nothing wrong about it and it would be a factor for any of us who were in the position of facing the legal costs she is and a future where capitalizing on a built-in "fan base" was a genuine option.
OK, now that we have Anderson out of the way...
I don't believe Sarah Palin stepped down to start running for President. She may eventually do just that, but 2012 is too far off for that and if that were her key reason, she could have at least served out her term. In that respect, I don't think her decision to step down will look very wise in hindsight.
But I like Sarah Palin, and I genuinely believe that she simply felt this was the best move for her at this time in her life. Her family has been through a media wringer this last year like no other family in the country. I told my brother (a Palmer, Alaska resident) on the phone yesterday that every time a few weeks went by without any Palin news, inevitably some sort of media hit piece or snarky comment would emerge, bringing her back into the news again. Justifiable or not, this is how American "news" works these days, which is why most of us just gravitate to opinion journalism, since at least we have honest admission there about what we can expect from the commentators. Who wouldn't jump at a chance to move into a role where they could respond to all of these attacks in immediacy without having to worry about governing a state at the same time?
In all candor, I do think Sarah Palin is ambitious. I don't know how far that fact alone will take her, but I know she never dreamed she would attain the status she already has.
Palin is not my candidate for 2012. Mitt Romney possesses the cred we need to get this country away from the economic roller coaster. I believe Palin's values are right on target; social conservatism is her key strength, but we have to focus on keeping the country from sliding into complete ruin across the board and I don't think she is the best one for that role.
We haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin; I have no doubt that in fact, those of us in the lower 48 will see even more of her than we have for the last 6 months. She recently keynoted a Right to Life event in Evansville (in my state) to a sold out crowd; many more of those features await, as well as other opportunities. So I'm sure there are pecuniary advantages here, as well; let us be honest about that, especially since there is nothing wrong about it and it would be a factor for any of us who were in the position of facing the legal costs she is and a future where capitalizing on a built-in "fan base" was a genuine option.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sanford's shame, Part II
If we're talking collectively, this would actually be more like Part MM, then Part II. And yes, I know my post title is unoriginal, but what is there to say about Mark Sanford that hasn't already been uttered by someone else?
Perhaps this.
Did anyone really ask Sanford to divulge all that he has so freely confided to us? Perhaps we learn through all this that, at least in some matters, there really should be limits to full disclosure, or at least, admonitions towards self-censorship. Do none of us blush anymore? If Sanford is a reflection of the larger culture, then it seems we really are coming full circle, back to the Europe of old (and probably, of the present) where most high-profile figures had a mistress or two on the side. Some of my more cynical friends would assert that we never have been other than that, but I would beg to differ and cite Washington, Adams and Madison as exhibits. (Yes, I did skip Jefferson, hardly a moral exemplar in this area.)
I wish we could be spared the drama, but I fear we won't be unless Sanford gets off of the public stage completely. Certainly, his newest budget initiative is not high priority on the list of the media that are covering him; they would far rather hear more confessionals about "trying to fall back in love with Jenny" (his beleaguered wife) and his efforts to put the memories of his "soulmate" behind him. Oh and yes, there were other "crossings of lines" with additional women, too. How does a man have a soulmate who isn't the woman he is married to, while becoming too familiar with several others, as well? It all becomes a confusing soap opera, not to mention a disgustingly maudlin one.
Perhaps this.
Did anyone really ask Sanford to divulge all that he has so freely confided to us? Perhaps we learn through all this that, at least in some matters, there really should be limits to full disclosure, or at least, admonitions towards self-censorship. Do none of us blush anymore? If Sanford is a reflection of the larger culture, then it seems we really are coming full circle, back to the Europe of old (and probably, of the present) where most high-profile figures had a mistress or two on the side. Some of my more cynical friends would assert that we never have been other than that, but I would beg to differ and cite Washington, Adams and Madison as exhibits. (Yes, I did skip Jefferson, hardly a moral exemplar in this area.)
I wish we could be spared the drama, but I fear we won't be unless Sanford gets off of the public stage completely. Certainly, his newest budget initiative is not high priority on the list of the media that are covering him; they would far rather hear more confessionals about "trying to fall back in love with Jenny" (his beleaguered wife) and his efforts to put the memories of his "soulmate" behind him. Oh and yes, there were other "crossings of lines" with additional women, too. How does a man have a soulmate who isn't the woman he is married to, while becoming too familiar with several others, as well? It all becomes a confusing soap opera, not to mention a disgustingly maudlin one.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Senate Conservatives' Fund
Even though he is old enough to be my father, I'm adopting Jim DeMint. As my Senator, that is. Which will be difficult, because he represents South Carolina, but we'll find a way!
He has, officially, been my favorite Senator for some time now, with Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma running a very close second. Jim DeMint is the only Senator to maintain a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union. A quick glance at his website also informs us that he is rated at 100% by both the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins' organization) and National Right to Life.
Jim DeMint got a rock star reception at CPAC this year because we know this man is the real deal. His most quoted line from his speech was that "Last Tuesday night, we heard the world's best salesman for socialism make his case to the nation." (President Obama had just given his State of the Union speech earlier that week.)
DeMint was one of the first Senators to come out and endorse Mitt Romney for the 2008 Presidential nomination, which was a key reason in my own decision that root for Mitt. (Not that my backing mattered; the contest had been over for 3 months and McCain had locked up the delegates he needed for over 2 months by the time Indiana's primary transpired in May.) DeMint is also the only Senator so far to endorse Marco Rubio in Florida's Senate primary, rather than Charlie Crist, the favored candidate of the Republican establishment.
Now, this courageous man has formed an organization called the Senate Conservatives' Fund, with the stated goal of exactly what the title promises: "Electing Conservatives to the United States Senate." I received the first fundraising letter from this organization last week. I don't give money to many political groups; I have never given to the Republican National Committee, for instance, because I prefer to donate to candidates that I trust.
I will be sending some money soon to the Senate Conservatives' Fund. This is a group that puts the hard-earned donor dollars where they belong.
You can click here for the web page of the Senate Conservatives' Fund, which also contains a 2-minute introductory video by Senator DeMint. If you have been yearning for a sitting politician who will say what needs to be said, regardless of which political party's failures are accurately portrayed in the process...you need to watch this video. You will stand up and cheer! And then, I just know you'll reach for your wallet/purse and pull out that credit card and donate at least $25 so you can get Senator DeMint's new book and support an eminently worthy cause!
He has, officially, been my favorite Senator for some time now, with Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma running a very close second. Jim DeMint is the only Senator to maintain a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union. A quick glance at his website also informs us that he is rated at 100% by both the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins' organization) and National Right to Life.
Jim DeMint got a rock star reception at CPAC this year because we know this man is the real deal. His most quoted line from his speech was that "Last Tuesday night, we heard the world's best salesman for socialism make his case to the nation." (President Obama had just given his State of the Union speech earlier that week.)
DeMint was one of the first Senators to come out and endorse Mitt Romney for the 2008 Presidential nomination, which was a key reason in my own decision that root for Mitt. (Not that my backing mattered; the contest had been over for 3 months and McCain had locked up the delegates he needed for over 2 months by the time Indiana's primary transpired in May.) DeMint is also the only Senator so far to endorse Marco Rubio in Florida's Senate primary, rather than Charlie Crist, the favored candidate of the Republican establishment.
Now, this courageous man has formed an organization called the Senate Conservatives' Fund, with the stated goal of exactly what the title promises: "Electing Conservatives to the United States Senate." I received the first fundraising letter from this organization last week. I don't give money to many political groups; I have never given to the Republican National Committee, for instance, because I prefer to donate to candidates that I trust.
I will be sending some money soon to the Senate Conservatives' Fund. This is a group that puts the hard-earned donor dollars where they belong.
You can click here for the web page of the Senate Conservatives' Fund, which also contains a 2-minute introductory video by Senator DeMint. If you have been yearning for a sitting politician who will say what needs to be said, regardless of which political party's failures are accurately portrayed in the process...you need to watch this video. You will stand up and cheer! And then, I just know you'll reach for your wallet/purse and pull out that credit card and donate at least $25 so you can get Senator DeMint's new book and support an eminently worthy cause!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
