Tag: candidates

The lefties are in charge, their EPA is destroying business, the justice department is destroying our borders, the president is destroying our world standing as a super power, the treasury and fed destroying our currency, the previous congress has set the timer for self destruct on healthcare, and the current and presumably 'better' congress cannot even show the skills needed to stop the fiscal bleeding. Michigan's own congressmen have been stitching their fingers together ala super committees, and even the good doctor Dan has wrapped the gauze a little too tightly choking off the air that provides for common sense.

How important is 2012 to you?

Think death-star-about-to-blow-up-the-planet kind of important.

"It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters. "

An article by John Hawkins on 7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability Is A Myth was a reminder that there are people who are more motivated by charisma, charm, and I might dare say 'gravitas', than by substantive policy concern. Hawkins starts off:

"1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

Let's be perfectly honest; Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin. To everybody else, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama is a "lesser of two evils" election where we'll grudgingly back Mitt because we won't lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets anyone fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards. "

Each political event happening daily, further embellished by speculation or commentary of the trained pundits of pop culture.  Each misstep of the character of the day amplified by the 24 hour news cycle stacking opinion for a better view of the tragedy that is sometimes humanity.  Not in that we fail, but rather that we titillate and secret our joy about the failures that bring about a new player in the game of the day.  Somehow our darkened souls must find comfort in the perpetual failings that only a well oiled machinery of media attention can accentuate.

We have reached the bottom.

I do not intend to remain at there however.  I will not sit idly by while the character of good folk continues to be sacrificed to create the drama for next week's lust for tragedy.

I ask each of you to consider what happens if the Marxist in the white house is allowed to desecrate our great country beyond 2012.  Between his utter disregard for the Congress, our constitution, or private property, a term fully hardened by a "mandate" of a win, would mean the end of the US as we know it.

Imagine if everyone was a Republican.  Imagine if everyone who occupied an office in government was a Republican party member.

Would all of our problems be solved?  Does it mean we have to stop worrying about what they do? Would we be satisfied to allow those individuals to manage the affairs continuously, even if they voted frequently to do things not consistent with the party platform? How about decisions made are not consistent with our core beliefs?

Think about this as you read through.

We should start with the question of why is it we elect people in the first place?  Is it not simply to have someone speak for us?

We all come with a certain amount of predisposed opinions, thoughts, ideas, based on our experiences, our education, and in large part our faith (or lack thereof).  We draw from our life's preceding acts and mold our conclusions about how things should be from the outcomes we either witness, or experience personally.  And over time we can make certain assumptions based on the lessons of time. We are the sum of our experiences, ideas, and environment, as well as observations of other experiences and others' ideas.

And when we select someone to speak for us, to represent our views, to be our surrogate, we entrust them with all of that experience.  We give to them the unique ability to present our case on social issues and speak to the manner in which we will provide for those issues.  Our values should be handed over carefully to only those who would respect them.  Our voice should be heard through them.

This does not mean a person who is elected should have to go back on every decision and poll those supporters for the appropriate answer.  It simply means that we (as voters)  have an obligation before putting someone in office, to determine that they represent us best in their ideas, their natural instincts, or their character.

I present to you a compelling piece I found by Gary Glenn on the choices available to Michiganders as we look to the next year of selecting our US Senate Candidate, a primary race of which Glenn is a part. It highlights differences between Hoekstra and Glenn on issues that should be important to not only conservatives but even those moderates within the Republican party of Michigan.

Glenn, one of several candidates looking to be the challenger to Stabenow in 2012 tends to speak to the Tea Party concerns more clearly in my opinion than Pete Hoekstra, and possibly one or two others vying for the same chance.  In fact the only candidates who come close (as I have observed during speeches and presentations) would be Roscommon businessman Peter Konetchy, and former Kent County Probate Judge Randy Hekman.   I have not yet had the opportunity to vett Clark Durant, who is being heavily pushed by National Popular Vote advocate Saul Anuzis.

I should note that candidates who wish to air their opinions here are more than welcome to publish at will, subject to reformatting to fit the front page.

No wonder the Democrats receive such strong support from Hollywood.  Its a matter of employment..

Aside from that..

The make-up of the court, and the addition of Alton Davis, currently has it looking at past decisions for reconsideration. They want to change history.  The "Best State Supreme Court In the nation may well see a bit of revisionist justice.

And the loss of Justice Young would make it a sure thing.  

It matters only if it matters to you.

At least that is the way some cases have been ended.  If you have no compelling interest, why might you bring a suit?  What does the ACLU do when it wants to prove a point? It shops out for a plaintiff, the "victim" of some particular law or abrogation of what the ACLU might perceive to be rights, either real or imagined.

Roger Buchholtz of the MIFairtax provided the following report, and AFP has graciously provided the forum and video of our three best candidates:

Mike Bouchard, Mike Cox and Pete Hoekstra debated before a crowd of over 1,500 people that attended an Americans For Prosperity (AFP) Summit in Clarkston last Saturday.  The debate was polite but at times spirited as moderator Phil Kerpen, VP of Policy at AFP asked the candidates a wide range of questions in the 90 minute debate.