Lacy vs. Russ??

Lacy Clay versus Russ Carnahan.

Think about a primary like that for a minute.  Lacy vs. Russ.  If the boundaries stay the same, we may well see this primary run off.  Political speculation says it is going to happen.  So ask yourself, which one of these two would be easier to beat.  Which one of these two would be better for MO 1st district.

This is a tough one.  Both of these two come from MO political families and both have deep contribution ties in the area.  The interesting thing is, many of the trade unions and companies that donate to Lacy also donate to Russ.  So, political donations will be split between the two.

So, let's make some assumptions here, shall we.  If the first district Democratic candidates are Lacy and Russ, the financial contributions will probably be about equal, so that is a wash.  Lacy will probably take north St. Louis City and the surrounding counties, while Russ would take south St. Louis city and areas like Bridgeton, Maryland Heights, Florissant and Hazelwood.  Looking at a rough voter turnout from the past few years and making that assumption, it could be a wash in a primary vote.

What's your point here, you may be asking.  Well, I am going to ask each of you to sit down and take a deep breath.  Now ask yourself, who would be better for first district, Russ or Lacy.  Do you go with the devil we know or the devil we don't know.  Russ may look weaker than Lacy based off of the last election, but the vote was close due to a strong showing in Jefferson County and south St. Louis County.  Russ firmly held Democratic leaning districts.  If this campaign does come to pass, it may be up to the Libertarians and Republicans to help decide this primary election.

Are you ready to vote Democrat for the next primary?  While this is no slam against Robin or Martin, getting rid of Lacy may be our best hope for removing the scum that is Lacy Clay.  This year, the odds are already against a non Democrat winning that seat.  The best way to win this seat back for the people is to play the long game and use strategy on our side.  Get rid of Lacy and get someone like a Russ who is more pliable.  Use his more moderate leanings in some areas to our advantage.  Then, when the timing is right, he can be removed from office.

If this primary campaign comes to pass, the DNC will probably favor Lacy due to his involvement with the Congressional Black Caucus and because he is the incumbent for that district.  By voting for Russ in the primary, we are helping to ensure that Lacy does not get another shot at 2 years in office.

Some of you will balk at this idea and say that we should be above that.  To that let me say this.  Sometimes you have to play dirty to win.  There is nothing illegal or wrong with what I am advocating.  All you are doing, when you go into the polling place is saying you want a Democratic ticket.  That is all.

If you agree or disagree with me, I would love to hear your thoughts and comments.

What Now for the Republicans

Since my last post I have been out of sight.  There are several reasons for this, personal and professional obligations as well as research on a story that I am hoping will pan out.  If you have read my blog before, you can guess who I am researching.

During my absence we have seen the rise and fall of the candidate I was personally rooting for Herman Cain and am sad to see this man drug through the muck the way he was.  I think Ann Coultier was on to something when she associated the allegations with David Axelrod.  You can find more on this story HERE.

With the loss of Herman Cain as a candidate, the Republican party has a tougher job of defeating Obama.  A story like Cain's could not have been better.  He has a history of standing up to politicians as he did Bill Clinton, he was a self made business man and entrepreneur.  And, he did not take crap from anyone.  Tie Herman Cain with a smart VP candidate with knowledge on foreign affairs and you had a winner of a ticket.  Well, that is not going to happen now, so, what do we do.

Let's be honest, shall we.  Obama is going to go after whomever is chosen by the electorate as his opposition.  They are going to use the candidate's personal life, they are going to dig up any past indiscretion and they are going to mis-state the facts.  This will all be done with the assistance of the media.  The candidate that is selected has to be the one that can beat Obama not only with their ideas but is likeable by moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats.

Listen, you can be as high and mighty as you want when it comes to social values, but you are not going to win a national campaign that way.  To quote James Carville, "It's the economy stupid."  If a candidate can come across with a moderate social policy, strong defense and a strong fiscal policy that promotes small government, we should rally behind him.

The minions of Obama are already starting the game plan.  They are blaming Congress, both Dems and Reps for the economy.  They are propping him up for his action overseas and as the man that killed OBL.  They are stating that he came into office under bad terms and cannot be expected to fix everything in 4 years.  If you read Andrew Sullivan's article in Newsweek, he builds the case that everything Obama has started was based upon an 8 year plan. 

The person that is chosen for the Republican Presidential Candidate has to be someone who is electable in a general election.  So, with that said, who is that person?  Is it crazy uncle Ron Paul who makes some strong fiscal sense but talks a little nutty on foreign policy?  Is it creepy step-dad Newt Gingrich that says things that make sense and what you want to hear, but you wonder if he really means it?  Is it the over achieving cousin Mitt Romney that seems a little out of touch with the day to day life?  Is it the overshadowed cousin Rick Santorum who never really got the attention that he may have deserved?

I do not know who the right candidate is for the country.  None of these guys were my first choice.  I respect Jim Talent and he has good things to say about Mitt.  I respect Sarah Palin and she seems to lean towards Newt.  Mark Levin, who I think is both smart and entertaining, has endorsed Rick Santorum.  The very smart Judge Andrew Napolitana, from Fox News, has endorsed Ron Paul. 

All I can say is this.  We can bicker about who best represents what we want, but in the end, we need to elect someone that can win.  There is no way on God's green Earth that Obama is going to agree to a series of debates, Lincoln-Douglas style or otherwise with Newt.  We will be lucky to get 3 out of Obama and no more.  Without the debates, I do not think Newt is electable.  The debates are what is helping him out now.  Ron Paul, comes across as detached from foreign affairs as compared to Obama, so he would be eaten alive in the debates when it comes to foreign policy.  This lives Rick and Mitt.  I believe that of the available candidates, these two are our best choice. 

That said, no matter who the candidate is, we still have another issue.  If Obama is still down in the polls come time for the conventions, then this election will be made into a race issue.  No matter who the nominee is, we must have someone as the VP who can offset any claims of racism.  If it is true that Condi Rice wants to get back into the political game, it would be smart to look long and hard at her as a VP candidate.  For either Rick or Mitt, it would add much needed foreign policy experience.  Condi being a single, black professional woman can help offset racist and sexist Republican stereotypes.  All that and in the end she would be a damn fine VP who has a ton of experience and can go mano y mano agains a Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton should Joe step down as VP as some rumors suggest.

Republicans and Minorities

I thought I would share a couple of youtube videos that I found interesting and profound.  As we go into the next election cycle, there are some intersting things here to consider and think about as we work on campaigns and such.

This is the trailer for a movie that is profound and insightful.  I would suggest that everyone watch this.

and then, let us not foget the words of the great Ronald Reagan in a speech that I find many people are not aware of.  It is interesting to see how timeless his words are, although with Reagan that seemed to always be the case.

I may get flamed for this but I am ok with that.  I bring this up because I am a realist.  In Missouri's first district, we have a large black and a growing hispanic population.  That combined with our large union base does not bode well for Republicans.  If we are to ever get a Republican or a right leaning Libertarian in office, we have to listen to these people.  We have to learn that this is a different audience than we are used to and reach out to them.  Too often we assume that we cannot reach this audience and that is not the case.  As many people stated in these clips and in the movie, many blacks and latinos are social conservatives.  They have just been brainwashed to think that they have to vote Democrat.  We all know that is not he case.

Obama Admits to NOT Enforcing the Laws and The Press Says Nothing

As I am going through my normal reading patterns, I stumbled upon this article in the Washington Examiner (HERE).

In it, Obama talks about how he wants to work around Congress until he can get his lapdog Nancy Pelosi back in charge.  Work around Congress.  If George Bush or any Republican said that the MSM would be screaming from rooftops about dictatorship.  Trolling through the cable news channels, I have yet to hear anyone mention this.  Drudge has it up on his website, but that is about it.

On top of that, Obama all but admits that he is not enforcing the laws on the books as his way of circumventing immagration law.  Once again, the main street media is not saying anyting about this.  Obama is all but bragging that he is choosing to not enforce the laws and not a peep.

Of course, Obama makes remarks to say that while he tempted to do his own thing, that is not how our rule of law works. 

So in one side we have Obama saying he cannot override the rule of law, but on the other side he is saying I can do what I want by deciding how and when I am going to enforce the laws.   Bush was called a dictator for his actions in Iraq even after receiving Congressional approval.

The corruption and arrogance of this administration is appaling.  They will go after Gibson Guitars for what they see is illegal purchase of wood (story found HERE) but they will not legally deport illegal aliens.  What's worse is in this example, Obama's admin would rather shut down a company based upon their interpretation of a foreign law rather than enforce the laws that are on the books.

This is what we get when we elect a community organizer for President of the United States.  A community organizer that said in 2001..

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

While Obama is speaking in the context of the civil rights movement, he is talking about redistribution of wealth and the government being granted rights.  This is a man who does not understand the Founding Fathers' concepts of individual freedoms.  This is why he believes that it is ok to not enforce the laws on the books and instead shutdown companies that may not be doing anything illegal.

If this does not explain why we need a change in 2012, nothing will.