Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Every Race Matters

If 2010 taught us anything, it’s that in Delaware, we can’t win statewide or make headway in Dover until we change New Castle County.  Even if we won every race in Kent and Sussex County we could not control the General Assembly in Dover without New Castle County and that is why every race matters in 2012.  We have a rare opportunity to turn the tide in Delaware with almost every seat up for grabs.  What we must do is look outside of our own districts for places where we can find solid conservatives who can pick up seats that we will need to regain control of the General Assembly.

How can we affect races in districts we don’t live in?  Consider this, across the state there are 174,545 registered Republican voters.  If half of these voters contributed just $10 to each of the 51 seats up for election in 2012, each candidate would have $872,725 and each donor would spend just $510 (the max contribution limit to each race is $600 so this is 51 for the price of 1).  Even the most difficult races in Delaware should be quite winnable with those kinds of dollars.  Given the results, it’s really a small price to pay to achieve these kinds of victories in Delaware and to save our state from our current disastrous course.

So when you’re looking out at the races this year, consider spreading a little cash around to races throughout the state to make 2012 a wave election and regain control of Dover.  We can and we will make a difference in Delaware

Time to Dump the Double Dippers

Delaware is a small state but not as small as our General Assembly makeup might have you believe. Many legislators work for government, are a product of a public union or work in places that receive taxpayer funding. This is simply unacceptable. While tens of thousands of Delawareans are struggling to find work, our state General Assembly members hold two cushy government jobs paying full-time wages. Some legislators have complained about their current salaries which average over $42,750 (Plus a separate stipend of more than $7,000 added to their paychecks for constituent communications), saying that the number is not sufficient to find “decent people”. I’m not sure where these folks are working but for me, $50,000 is full time pay and I know plenty of decent people making at or below that for 12 months of work. Our General Assembly is the 12th highest paid state legislature and among the 41 states whose legislative bodies meet for part time sessions, Delaware ranks 3rd in legislative pay. They serve in Dover from Jan 8th – July 1st and during that time they are actually in Dover on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from around 2PM to 6PM (with a few exceptions when they stay later). The final days of session are usually the most hectic and legislators have been known to stay in Dover well into the night, sometimes till 1AM working on Delaware’s spending bills and budgets. Even with the gravity of their jobs and the rare late hours, I find it hard to justify ANY increase in their already over generous “part-time” pay.

Yet, after State Senator Tony DeLuca’s work records with the Department of Labor were sealed from the News Journal, a spotlight was shone on a problem that is rampant in Dover and the call for higher pay for legislators has begun to grow louder. Senator DeLuca , Representative John Viola and Representative Helene Keeley (all Democrats) are all merit employees within the Department of Labor and Attorney General Beau Biden has run cover for them by citing “national security” concerns among other wild reasons why we the public shouldn’t know what hours merit employees work at their state jobs. In total, 10 of Delaware’s 62 state legislators have jobs within the state government. More than half of our state legislators are either current or former employees of the state or have a job with an entity that relies on state dollars. Delaware is a small state but aren’t large enough that we don’t need to employ our elected officials in other areas of government? Also, how many of these “double dippers” are involved in voting for bills that provide money to their employers or their agency? This is an issue that works across party lines and something that Republicans, Democrats and Independents are and should be upset about.

Delaware is facing an employment crisis and meanwhile our legislators complain that a salary that many of the more than 30,000 unemployed would love to have is too little as a part time salary. This shows just how out of touch our legislators are with the real world, even such a small state. We can change things and we start by changing our representation. Our first stop, the double dippers, let’s tell them to pick a job or we’ll pick it for them. Finally, when I get to Dover I'll support a bill that precludes state employees from holding office or seeking reelection if they become employed by the state while in office (as Sen. DeLuca did) and I will also seek legislation that precludes legislators who represent entities that rely on state money from serving on committees that fund their employers. - Tony DeLuca's job history - Part time jobs - the issue of double dipping transcends party lines

Reduce Regulations - Create Jobs

Delaware needs jobs and we need to look no further than Texas to see how to get them, reduce regulations, lower taxes and encourage small businesses to grow and expand. There are two practical ways that the General Assembly and Governor Markell can get Delaware on the fast track to recovery: Pull out of RGGI and Obamacare. Representative Jack Peterman had a bill (H.B. 86) last year that would have accomplished the first part of this and Representative Deborah Hudson submitted a bill, the Delaware Health Freedom Act (identical to H.B. 353 from 2010) that would have allowed Delaware citizens and businesses to opt out of Obamacare.

What stopped these bills? In the case of Rep. Hudson's bill, it was killed in committee two years in a row by the House leadership. The split was along party lines with Democrats objecting and Republicans supporting. In the case of Rep. Peterman's bill, it was tabled by John Kowalko's energy committee which is made up of 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans.

The bottom line here is that in 2011, Delaware Democrats killed two bills that would have immediately ADDED jobs in Delaware and instead relegated us to massive layoffs and barely hanging on to our already too high unemployment rate. The fact is that nothing is going to change until we change it and what needs to change is the leadership in Dover. We've got too many legislators who are really nothing more than glorified lobbyists for unions, state & local governments and special interest groups. It's time to replace double dippers like John Viola (my opponent) with fresh ideas and people who aren't beholden to special interest groups.

If you help me get to Dover, I will cast my first vote for NEW leadership in Dover. I'll vote for fresh ideas and a new approach to job creation and with enough other like-minded representatives from around the state, we'll build a new leadership team and we'll work with our colleagues and with Jack Markell to make sure that these things get done and that Delaware moves forward on job creation and economic growth. Delaware needs us, let's work together to make sure that we put Delaware back to work.$file/legis.html?open – HB 86$file/legis.html?open – HB 353

Friday, August 26, 2011

CREW Under Investigation by the IRS

My how the tables have turned between O’Donnell and CREW. Only a couple of months ago, CREW was calling O’Donnell a thief and a liar and had pending investigations with the U.S. Attorney and the FEC. Now, all the charges against O’Donnell have been dismissed as false on their face and CREW is being investigated by the IRS for their violations of their 501(c)3 charter. Here is a press release from O’Donnell’s PAC detailing the latest move by the IRS:

Complaint Against Soros-Funded
CREW Moves Forward in IRS
Left-Wing Organization has Long History of Targeting Republicans
Wilmington, DE—This week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified ChristinePAC that it has referred the group’s complaint against Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to its Dallas office for further review. ChristinePAC has asked the IRS to strip CREW of its tax exempt charitable status for engaging in partisan political activities in violation of federal law.
Christine O'Donnell and ChristinePAC filed an official complaint against the organization with the IRS, asking the agency to revoke CREW's tax-exempt status. Acting as a "charitable organization," CREW is barred from intervening in political campaigns ("electioneering") as well as participating in discriminatory activities. Over a period of several election cycles, however, CREW has misused its tax-exempt status by acting on behalf of the Democratic Party as well as establishing a pattern of racially discriminatory activities.
“The justice system should not be used as a political weapon, and CREW's partisan campaign intervention in my US Senate election are well documented. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize an organization that acts in blatant violation of the law. CREW has illegally posed as a non-partisan political watchdog keeping Washington politicians in check. However, in reality, CREW has misused and abused its tax exempt status by intervening in partisan political campaigns and disproportionately targeted attacks against Republican candidates and officeholders, while outright ignoring scandals involving Democratic candidates and officeholders,” said former Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell.
ChristinePAC has also called for an investigation of CREW’s Executive Director Melanie Sloan for knowingly filing a false federal claim against Ms. O’Donnell, a claim that was later dismissed. Ms. Sloan has worked for some of the most strident liberals in Congress, including Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). She also failed to disclose using her own father, a Delaware voter and major Biden donor, as her complainant against O’Donnell in CREW’s FEC Complaint filed only days after Christine O’Donnell won the Republican nomination for the US Senate in 2010.
“The IRS must scrutinize CREW’s expenditures and will find a history of CREW’s blatant political activities, supported by its liberal sources of funding, which include George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Tides Foundation,” said Cleta Mitchell, Attorney for ChristinePAC. “There is no question that CREW has forfeited its charitable status and the IRS can draw no other conclusion.”

For more information on the case it has mounted, please visit
ChristinePAC is committed to values that strengthen our country as a whole and to empowering Americans to become more involved in the political process. It seeks to empower Americans through voter education, in which voters learn more about the election process, voter fraud, and how to harness the great responsibility we have as Americans to vote for the leaders of our country.

O’Donnell has already taken down one giant in former longtime Congressman Mike Castle and now is poised to strike a blow against the Soros funded CREW organization that has taken on every conservative from Andrew Breitbart to Sarah Palin. In fact, O’Donnell has already succeeded where no one else has. CREW has not been investigated before but now, with criminal charges pending in both the State of Delaware and at the federal level for CREW’s lies against O’Donnell and their filing of false reports, the IRS has decided to move forward on their investigation. The Capital Research Center details CREW’s left leanings in both staff and monetary support, their focus on conservatives over liberals and their ethics problems in a recent report. An excerpt from their report details the real purpose for why CREW was built:

“Sakol alerted Hillary and her staff about the newly forming group and its need for ‘Democratic progressive money,’” the book says. “The hope was that CREW would prove to be a perfect counterbalance to Judicial Watch, the corruption watchdog that had tormented the Clintons with lawsuits and press conferences throughout the 1990s.”

“CREW could do things the senators couldn’t do,” Sakol said, according to the book. “And once CREW’s charges ‘were out in the press,’ Sakol noted, other people could cite the findings of the group, which was usually portrayed as nonpartisan in news accounts.”

Its point was to be a left wing attack group and it’s certainly succeeded in that goal but it’s done so while pretending to be non-partisan. Now, they are finally being investigated and face serious ethics and criminal charges for their filing of false affidavits and their violations of their 501(C)3 charter. Even those on the right who have attacked O’Donnell should be thankful for her response to CREW and supportive of her fight against their attacks. She is once again leading the charge against a giant and once again her stones are landing.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

O’Donnell tells Piers Where to Stick it

No doubt the News Journal “reporters” are hammering away at their keyboards after Christine O’Donnell’s appearance on Piers Morgan’s CNN show. O’Donnell was on to promote her book and the interview started out fairly well. She was amiable and Piers was nice enough but throughout the interview, Morgan continued to turn the topics away from the subject matter of the book, which is a return to our founding principles and an embrace of fiscal responsibility, limited government and a breakup of the crony capitalist system. Now, CNN’s website only shows the last few minutes of the exchange but for those of us who watched the show, Piers went on and on throughout the interview about witches, masturbation and gay marriage which were simply not the topics he brought her on to discuss. Here’s the end of what was at least 15-18 mins of O’Donnell tying to redirect Piers who was acting like a lovesick teenager fresh into puberty.

I say “Good Job Christine!” Piers has a history of asking ridiculous questions of his guests, especially women:

Piers Grills Condoleeza Rice for Being Single - "Are you high maintenance?"

Piers Morgan asks English Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the “mile high club”

Piers attacks Ann Coulter with Personal Questions

So Christine, after 15 mins of deflecting the engorged Morgan from discussions about sex and witches, decided that the interview was not worth continuing as she had other engagements to attend to. I say good for her and while I know that the News Journal will print something filthy and that her political opponents will trash her over it but I say let them talk. It’s time these elitist pricks in our media system realized that they are not only replaceable but EASILY replaceable. Oh, and one more thing, why do we keep accepting the rejects from overseas? Piers Morgan, Farid Zakaria…is it really such a thought desert on the American left that our national media outlets can’t even pull from OUR pool of idiots?

*UPDATE*I recieved a quote from Christine O'Donnell on the interview with Piers:

"If you watch the full interview, you'll see I was more than a good sport with his prior inappropriate/double standard line of questions. We had already gone over our time limit and were late for a Women's National Republican Club speech being shown on C-SPAN. Piers' is a liberal host with his own agenda, so no hard feelings and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. There are major crisis in our country and in our world today. Those are the discussioins we try to address in Troublemaker and everyday Americans want to talk about, not Piers admitting he is a pro-masturbation talk show host (or something to that effect)."

Reviewing a Troublemaker

So the News Journal got their copy of Troublemaker and true to form they set out on a campaign to not only destroy the book but to destroy the author. I was mad, REALLY mad, but just moments before I started writing this post, I read the following hit piece from Chad Livengood at the News Journal. It should have made me mad. Should have…but it didn’t. As I read through the piece, through the long list of backstabbers and second guessers. Through the list of names of people who campaigned for Mike Castle, who developed the “Kill the girl” strategy that the Delaware GOP imployed in a vain attempt to stop O’Donnell from taking down the most liberal member (former) of the U.S. House of Representative, a guy who had destroyed the credibility of every candidate he’d run against and not their policies, I realized something. These are sad examples of what politics has become. Some of these people were great success stories. Some have TREMENDOUS talents. Others are just corrupt political scoundrels. None of them have escaped with their souls intact. 

I’ll tell you, I could go on and on about Maria Evans’ failed career in media (I bet most of you have never even heard of Delaware Talk Radio have you?), Priscilla Rakestraw’s record of making false allegations to the employers of candidates she doesn’t like and Tom Ross’ outright sabotage. I could go on about the failure of the Delaware GOP to hold on to their seats long before the TEA Party came along. I could point out that in politics, it’s apparent that NO ONE is trustworthy or decent. I could…but I won’t because it doesn’t matter. 

Ken Grant can enjoy his time on stage tearing down the work of one of the finest human beings I have ever met (thanks for the extra book sale), laughing it up with all of the Delaware political monsters in the crowd. Priscilla Rakestraw can live out the rest of her short time on Earth being as mean and nasty as she wants to be. Maria Evans can take solace in the fact that she’s assisted in the personal destruction of someone just trying to make a difference. Steve Grossman can sleep well tonight knowing that he stabbed a person that he supported in the General Election in the back. Chad Livengood can rest easy knowing that he has taken an impressive career and splattered it with a huge black spot. Tom Ross can smile knowing that he, as Chairman, ensured she’d never win and Mike Castle, king of Delaware kings, can sit up on his throne in Chateau Country with Chablis and some brie and be content knowing that Christine has been beaten down.

The bottom line here is that all of this, from Day 1 of her getting into the race till now was predictable. Anyone who is anyone saw this coming. The News Journal has always been just a tin can and string away from the DNC HQ and let’s face it, the Delaware GOP elites have long ago realized that “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. Nothing I can say, no evil words, no backroom truth, no startling revelations about these cats is going to undo what they’ve done. So none of these people (except Mr. Grant…again, thanks for the book sale) is going to read Christine’s book. That’s fine, she didn’t expect you to. She didn’t write it for you. She wrote it for the people who TRULY supported her, not the ones who showed up just for the paychecks. She wrote it for the people who bucked the establishment trends, not those who buckle underneath it because they were born into it. She wrote it for the people who want to CHANGE politics, not the people who are desperately trying to keep it the same. She wrote it for conservatives and independents, not for progressives and liberals. 

Truth be told, Delaware is the small town of states. Just like any small town upstart who challenges the lifelong political culture of a backwoods North Carolina town, a challenger to the Delaware establishment will be ostracized and beat up. If that North Carolina challenger wrote a book, after facing down a popular Mayor in a heated election, it’s unlikely many town members would buy their book. The same thing is happening here. I don’t believe that many people in Delaware will buy Christine’s book, not because it’s bad, but because they are too closed-minded to see beyond their own irrational hatred of a true patriot. They hate me too and I just don’t care. Because you see, I know something they don’t know. I know that for every plank they tear out from underneath our feet, we receive yet another Blessing from God. By the time they have ripped all the planks out, we’ll be able to float away.

So the title of this blog said “Reviewing a Troublemaker” and we’ve spent a lot of time reviewing Chad Livengood’s predictable and sad hit piece. Now I’d like to take some time to do what a decent reporter in Chad’s shoes would have done which is to review the book. I’m not going to pluck out a sentence here or there about the most damaging parts of it though. I think Chad’s covered that, thanks Chad! What I’m going to do is tell you what you’re going to see in the other 350 pages that Chad didn’t bother to read.

“Troublemaker: Let’s do what it takes to make America great again” is a fantastic book that really brings you into the struggle that the TEA Party faces. For those of you who don’t know who the TEA Party are and what they stand for, Christine shows you who they are: They’re you. You’re frustrated by the lack of jobs, so is the TEA Party. You’re upset at the down economy, so is the TEA Party. You’re angry at the corrupt political class in Washington, so is the TEA Party. You’re worried about the future for your kids, so is the TEA Party. You’re scared that out nation is going in the wrong direction, so is the TEA Party and so is Christine O’Donnell. You see, Christine got one thing right in the infamous “Witch Ad”, she is you. We’ve all said things that we wish we hadn’t, we’ve all quoted something kooky from a story we read and we’ve all questioned authority. The difference is that the TEA Party has simply acted on that questioning and so has Christine O’Donnell. She stood up, like the TEA Party did and said “Enough is enough, we want our country back from the political elites and the special interest groups.” That’s why she took on her own party first. You see, Christine ran a write in campaign in 2006 when she was asked by some of the political establishment and some close friends (for different reasons) to do so. Her write-in candidacy was designed by the political establishment to do one thing, stop Mike Protack (another person who bucks the establishment trend and scares the crap out of the elites). For Christine, it was an eye opening look at politics in America. In 2008, she had think long and hard but she decided to seek the party’s nomination to challenge Joe Biden. Not because she liked the smears and lies and distortions from the 2006 campaign but because she loved Delaware, loved America and thought that Joe Biden was not the right answer for either one. Truth be told, most people in Delaware agree with her but elections here are more about WHO you know than WHAT you know (a simple glance through the current and recent Delaware political class will prove that). 

For a girl who grew up in a small house with a big family, Christine is surprisingly outgoing in public. Behind the scenes, as I came to know her, she’s quiet and thoughtful. She reminds of, well of me to be quite honest. She’s dealing now with what I dealt with throughout Jr. High and most of High School. She’s right on the edge of cool, right on the edge of being part of the crowd but there’s one problem, she won’t go along with their dastardly plans. She won’t drink that vodka or take that hit. She’s got one thing I didn’t have though, the willpower to see through convictions. See I eventually took that hit, drank that vodka and drove the getaway car. She won’t. I think that’s what inspires me about her. It’s what makes me want to defend her every chance I get, whether it’s using the left’s own science against them (Mice with human brain cells: Live Science & National Geographic) or calling them to task for using the same tactics against her that they rail against. The fact of the matter is that, as Christine explains in her book, she’s a Troublemaker because she won’t play ball their way. Yea, you’ll read about her childhood, her father as Bozo the Clown (and what a great guy he is) and her reversal from political liberal and pro-choice to pro-life conservative. She’ll walk you through her 2008 Senate campaign against Joe Biden and her 2010 Senate campaign against Mike Castle and Chris Coons. Sure, you’ll read a little about the infamous “Witch Ad” but you’ll also read about the real sad shame of the Widener debate when Chris Coons, a long time lawyer and a crowd of up and coming lawyers in the auditorium had trouble explaining the First Amendment to the Constitution. You’ll see how the political class will stop at nothing to derail those who it sees as obstructions to their goals and how they really just don’t care who they affect or how. I am personally well aware of this fact, their false accusations against me, labeled me a campaign finance violator and have cost me employment outside of politics. The book isn’t exclusive to political campaigning though. Christine offers some real solutions to Americas problems and many of them harken back to the original problem solvers, America’s founding fathers. While some will question these policy suggestions, those in the TEA Party and those with common sense will see them as excellent ways to move our country forward while returning our nation to the timeless principles of liberty that our founders held dear. 

Christine tells a story that many of us in the TEA Party could tell but there are so many different reasons to read this account. For TEA Party members, it will validate much of what you’ve felt over the last 10 years. For those going into politics, it really runs down the problems that you are going to face with taking on the established political class. For women, Christine shows the incredible double standard among not only the politicians but among the liberal media as well. If I had to summarize that part, I would say that the women’s lib[eration] movement only works if the woman in question is a lib[eral]. If she’s a conservative, feel free to bash away. Christine doesn’t come away whiney or downtrodden but rather stronger for the criticism she’s faced and wiser for the experience. She comes away more convinced than ever that conservatism is the right answer to America’s problems and you will too. The book is a must read for TEA Partiers, political novices and young women. It’s a snapshot of what Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and even Hillary Clinton to some extent, have faced over the years and it’s evidence that the political class is running in abject fear of the TEA Party and conservative thought.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Chad Livengood: Lies Packed In with More Lies

If you've been reading over the last few days, it's not secret that Chad Livengood of the news journal is nothing more than a Democrat smear machine.  His latest blog piece, posted as though fact, is more evidence that journalism is dead.  Unfortunately, Livengood relies on the political stylings of the well travelled  Maria Evans, who, desperate to remain relevant, is writing a book about Christine O'Donnell.  It should be pointed out that Maria Evans doesn't know Christine O'Donnell and certainly doesn't know enough to write a book but if the rest of the Delaware political establishment are any means test, I imagine there will be fewer words than pictures.  The Delaware political establishment culture talking or writing about something they know nothing about is really just par for the course.

Chad Livengood, a once decent reporter whose story on timecards shed light on the dirty Democrats in Dover, now has a history of leaving facts out of stories, smearing candidates and now, flat out lying.  The crux of Livengood's latest piece is an audio tape provided by the same people who were found yesterday to have flat out LIED to the FEC about Christine O'Donnell.  I'm sure Chad didn't know that though, he takes their word for the gospel.  His argument for believing them?  Maria Evans provides audio...oh well, gee, audio has never ben doctored before, and because Maria Evans (who helped develop the failed strategy of attacking O'Donnell with lies during the 2010 election) provided it, well why not take it for the gospel right?  Well Chad might get a pass on this, he clearly doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.  In his blog, he cites a blog as "conservative" but for those of us who know "Hube", we know he is anything BUT conservative.  He's one of the Maria Evans, Mike Castle, Tom Ross RINO's.  In fact, here's video of one of their buddies, Mike Stafford, who was discredited during the 2010 campaign for being a liar and one of the most corrupt people in the party, siding with the liberal progressives.  For someone who calls themselves "conservative" I think this is pretty radically leftist.  I guess we should be wary of allowing people to define themselves huh?

The reality is that I would trust Christine O'Donnell's version of events over the establishment Republicans version 7 days a week and twice on Sunday but I don't have to do that.  Why?  Well because Haley Barbour's own words in print, back up O'Donnell's claims. 

The truth is that when O'Donnell says that it took Haley Barbour to introduce her, it's factual.  When she says she wasn't invited, DESPITE being the U.S. Senate candidate, it's TRUE.  When she says that Haley Barbour gave her accolades, well this letter proves that he's certainly done that.  Meanwhile, Maria Evans and the Delaware GOP leadership claimed that O'Donnell violated campaign finance laws and THAT was a lie, as the FEC reveals in their finding of NO WRONG DOING...I'd like to point out that I have not seen this reported by Mr. Chad Livengood at the News Journal.  Wonder why that is, maybe I should ask Maria Evans to send it to him.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Where do I go to get my Reputation Back?

Today I recieved some news that is just, well vindication that the Truth shall set us free. After being publicly smeared as a campaign finance violator by the Delaware Republican Party simply for supporting Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle. The FEC had previously reached a split decision on the matter but the investigative committee found no reason to believe that the O'Donnell campaign nor I had done anything wrong. Here is a link to the entire report and here is the excerpt that vindicates me.
Finally, the complainant alleges that the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary stated on his Facebook page that he speaks to TPAC "daily. The complainant also states that TPAC was planning a radiothon during which O'Donnell would make an appearance. OGC recommended finding reason to believe that violations of the Act occurred based on those facts. We disagreed.

We note again that "opening an investigation to determine whether we could discover a basis for those suspicions runs counter to the statutory constraints imposed on the Commission. That "reason to believe" requires more than mere speculation has been established in prior enforcement matters. For example, in MUR 4960 (Hillary Clinton), the Commission summarized the requirements as follows:
The Commission may find "reason to believe" only if a complaint sets forth sufficient specific facts, which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the FECA. Complaints not based upon personal knowledge must identify a source of information that reasonably gives rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented...

Unwarranted legal conclusions firom asserted facts, see SOR in MUR 4869 (American Postal Workers Union), or mere speculation, see SOR of Chairman Wold and Commissioners Mason and Thomas in MUR 4850 (Fossella), will not be accepted as true. In addition,... a complaint may jbe dismissed if it consists of factual allegations that are refiited with sufficiently compelling evidence provided in the response to the complaint...

Similarly, in MUR S467 (Michael Moore), the Commission stated that "[purely speculative charges, especially when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate basis to find a reason to believe that a violation of the FECA has occurred." Therefore, under the Act, before making a reason-to-believe determination, the Commission must assess both the law and the credibility of the facts alleged. To do so, the Commission must identify the sources of information and examine the facts and reliability of those sources to determine whether they 'reasonably [give] rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented." Only if this standard is met may the Commission investigate whether a violation occurred. These requirements are not met here.

Assuming that the radiothon was paid for by TPAC, mentioned the candidate, and was broadcast shortly before the primary election, the available information, including the Facebook posts at issue, provides insufficient basis for a reason-to-believe finding. First, the Facebook posting for the event does not indicate whether or not O'Donnell was set to appear. While a Facebook post by Evan Queitsch, apparently directed to a WDEL radio station employee, reads "@Jensen 1150 WDEL let me know if you want to know about the Tea Party Express as I speak w/them daily," OCiC states that the posts on their face do not satisfy the conduct prong. We agree. And even if TPAC and the O'DonnellConmiittee were in daily contact, such contacts would not be sufficient to meet the conduct threshold. More specific information is necessary.

Our unwillingness to find reason to believe a violation occurred based on the O'Donnell Committee's original response is bolstered by later confirmation that Mr. Queitsch was not a member of the O'Donnell campaign during the primary campaign. Therefore, the complainant's accusations in this matter, including one of which was based on tiie incorrect factual implication that Evan Queitsch was the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary, provide insufficient basis to find reason to believe.
My question is, where do I go to get my reputation back? When do I get to repair the damage that this false complaint has done to my career and potential political aspirations?   Mr. Tom Ross, do you even care that you've destroyed the career of an innocent person?  What about you Michael Toner?  Do you care that your false allegations have impacted my career? 

Also, to the media, you were quick to print my name in your articles alledging that there was wrong doing involved here.  Now that Christine, TEA Party Express and I have been cleared of wrong doing, will you print your retraction and apology on page A-1? 

More Shoddy Reporting at the News Journal (yea, again)

Fresh off his enlightening piece about links on’s website that lead to porn when Christine O’Donnell is searched, the News Journal’s intrepid reporter Chad Livengood enlightens us with his review of the first few pages of Christine O’Donnell’s book.  Chad has apparently gotten the Gannett memo “Kill the girl, kill the girl, yes master, yes master, tee hee, tee hee, tee hee hee hee hee.” (Thanks to Bill Cosby for that quote by the way).  One could ask (and I have) why Chad chose to focus his last blog posting on research surrounding her store instead of say, the partisanship of CREW who has literally a more than 3-1 bias of attacking conservatives and Republicans vs. Democrats OR the fact that CREW violated their 501(c)3 mandate to remain apolitical when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign season.  Agree or disagree with their (lies) position, the fact is that they broke the law.  He’s not yet provided an answer.  I assume he was busy with his latest concoction.  This Sunday he released his review of O’Donnell’s book (or at least the first few pages) and WOW are there factual errors.  I’m going to go through his piece (you can read the full piece here) and tackle some of the more egregious errors.
“Just like in her campaign, the impact of the witch ad is a central theme of her 358-page book, which combines O'Donnell's life story with reflections on her three failed Senate campaigns in Delaware and a tea-party-inspired manifesto for changing the country's direction.”
The ad is discussed in the book on a few pages but it’s not what one would consider a “central theme”.  The “Witch Ad” as it is known, is so well known, to leave out the story surrounding it would have been disingenuous. 

“O'Donnell claims someone from Hollywood-based television producer Fred Davis' staff "leaked" the "I'm not a witch" ad to the press and Internet without her permission.
"Within one day, it became the most-watched video on the Internet ... all before I'd seen any footage, let alone approved the final cut," O'Donnell wrote…

…O'Donnell's version of events that transpired last fall are already being disputed by Republican consultants who dealt with the campaign and contradicted by emails her own campaign manager sent to Davis and his staff.”
If I may, I was a campaign worker after the Primary election (clarified for legal reasons) for Christine O’Donnell and I performed many duties.  On the day of the commercial shoot, one of the things I was asked to do was to help track down supporters who would like to be in ads for O’Donnell.  I knew that the campaign had been directed by the NRSC to utilize Fred Davis, a famous and highly touted Hollywood producer as their campaign ad man.  Given Davis’ endorsements, I thought it was odd to be getting a call the day of the shoot and not sooner to allow us time to find people.  Fortunately, Christine had a lot of VERY good supporters and we were able to find a number of people.  Another staffer and I rode with the participants to a Philadelphia studio that was apparently once a warehouse of some sort.  After some snacks and some time spent in the Green Room while Christine shot her portions of the ad we were called in.  Only later did I find out why we were called so late.  Oh I had heard the rumblings that they were concerned with the potential content of the ad Davis had planned to create but I had so many other duties to attend to that I didn’t delve further into that.  I figured that this guy was a professional (and he is) and that it would all work out in the end.  Like Christine, I was a little concerned that going with a high end Hollywood producer was a little over the top but I was just a regular guy and what did I know.  I should have spoken up, I should have said something.  I feel like part of this is my fault for not confirming Christine’s own thoughts.  Of course, I couldn’t know what she was thinking but still, I could have said something.  When we finally entered the studio, Mr. Davis had each participant sit and answer some basic questions like why they supported Christine and what they thought of her and Mr. Coons.  Mr. Davis and his staff were nice but there was something weird, they were almost TOO nice.  After now having been around politicians and media types, I know the feeling for what it is a divine warning that the person talking to you is a slime ball.  The supporters that had come to be in the commercial were impressive and their words were powerful.  I felt uplifted hearing Bob, Melissa, Councilman Brown and Mike (a lifelong Democrat) speak and I remember saying to myself that given Fred’s talent and the supporters words, this was going to be an incredible set of ads.  It was raining out and so after chatting with Christine, the supporters and some of the crew from the shoot I pulled the campaign truck (talk about grassroots, the “campaign truck” was my 1997 GMC Sierra 1500 which I had decked out with yard signs taped on the back and sides…we were truly “grassroots” and yet, we’d just hobnobbed with people from Hollywood) around to the door and loaded up the gear.   I noticed a person I hadn’t seen earlier and I asked who they were.  I was told that the person was a New York Times reporter and that they’d wanted to do a story about Fred working with Christine but that the content of the commercials was still unknown to them.

What’s weird is on the way back, the tension in the truck was such that you could literally feel the air being sucked out.  We lightened it with some discussions about faith (yea, it was THAT tight) and some small talk.  Later, as I was in and out of what I called “The War Room” where the review of the ads was taking place, I found out that
the NYT reporter had apparently been leaked a copy of the “Witch Ad” which to that point had not been approved or even SEEN by the candidate.

“Kyle Roberts, a media buyer from Alexandria, Va., who purchased O'Donnell's TV time, said "proper procedure was followed for all advertisements aired on behalf of the campaign."

"This includes creative approval by campaign officials," Roberts said in a statement.”
Unfortunately, Chad’s reporting here is shoddy and to be honest, he knows it.  I’ve seen the emails sent by Campaign Manager Matt Moran to Chad about this exact issue and the fact is that Kyle, the media buyer did follow procedure.  However, Kyle had NOTHING to do with the creative side.  He had nothing to do with which ad ran.  THAT is the crux of the issue.  Of all the ads that were shot that night, Fred Davis and his team only prepared the ad that Christine had specifically told him that she did NOT want to run.  The problem was that there was no time to wait for the other ads, the ones she’d specifically said she wanted to run with, to be delivered.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in media buys had already been spent and there was a deadline.  The campaign was up against the wall and with Christine on the campaign trail; Matt was forced to pull the trigger on an ad he knew was trouble.  The alternative was to literally piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Chad Livengood was made acutely aware of these facts but somehow they didn’t make it in.  Then again, there’s a lot that Chad knows that isn’t in the piece.
“Emails obtained by The News Journal show O’Donnell’s campaign manager, Matt Moran, approved the witch ad, telling Davis “solid message Fred … well scripted and delivered despite the horrible hair (assume that was intentional to help reverse her negatives with women?).””
Having been in the room when some of these discussions took place, I can attest that NOONE was happy about the ad and that of all the people involved, *I* was the most positive about it.  I thought if nothing else, it addressed the issue and that if there were other, stronger ads backing it up, like those cut by her supporters that fateful night, that it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal.  Of course then I realized it had gone viral on the internet.  I can attest to the sarcasm in Matt’s voice and emails.  He was FAR from even content with the situation but he had no choice.  Even the AP’s Randall Chase reported Matt’s sarcasm while Chad decided to leave that part out.
"No media company is going to leak the ad on behalf of a campaign," said one Republican consultant, who declined to be named because of what he said was O'Donnell's history of retaliating against critics. "If that actually happened, Fred's firm would no longer be working with O'Donnell…
... Moran and O'Donnell would not explain why Davis' firm continued to work for the campaign if they felt sabotaged by the airing of the witch ad as O'Donnell claims in the book."
Anyone else a little tired of reading about anonymous sources that more times than not, don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about?  Chad seems to take issue with the fact that Christine paid Davis despite this problem and that she continued to work with him.  Moran explained in his email to Chad that the situation around “The Witch Ad” was not good and they there were backed into a corner.  Remember also that Christine O’Donnell had been all but TOLD to use Fred Davis by the NRSC and she was between a rock and a hard place.  To put it simply, she was the Republican nominee and she needed the support of the party.  She was rebuilding her name within the party and doing all she could to repair bridges that had been burned during the contentious primary with RINO Mike Castle.  So Christine took some advice that he gut told her was flat out wrong.  She took a few thing on “hope” and given the money on the line, she really didn’t have a ton of choices.  Moran went on to explain to Chad that after that initial disagreement on strategy, Davis’ firm worked quite well with the campaign and created some really great ads like “Principles”, “Tax Man”, “Shame on You Chris” and “What I’m Made Of”.  Emails obtained by this blogger show that Chad Livengood was made ACUTELY aware of these facts and these ads before he published his piece.  Why didn’t they make it into the story Chad?
“Throughout the book, O'Donnell continues to show her distrust of the media and what she calls "unscrupulous reporters," though she doesn't take any to task by name.”
Christine didn’t take them to task by name but I will.  One is Randall Chase at the AP who has a history of leaving facts out of stories, another is Ginger Gibson whose reporting during the campaign was shoddy at best and flat out hit pieces and Democrat propaganda at worst and another is Mr. Livengood himself.  Between his report on porn while ignoring CREW’s political bias and their violation of the law and his seriously flawed “book review”, Chad is more than making the case for his inclusion as an “unscrupulous reporter”.  That’s really a shame too because his tenacity on the timecards of Tony DeLuca and other double dippers was much appreciated.  I’m disappointed in such tabloid journalism.
“With some of her campaign apparatus still intact, O'Donnell also has continued to deal with allegations from her past two campaigns that she used donations for personal expenses. At the same time, O'Donnell's campaign has gone after her accusers, filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney's Office and District of Columbia Bar Association against attorneys and a political watchdog who have called into question her campaign ethics.”
Actually Chad, as you are WELL aware, the U.S. Attorney in Delaware has cleared O’Donnell of any wrong doing and the FEC has found no anomalies with her campaign finances.   O’Donnell has launched investigations into the outright lies by her accusers and asked the IRS to look at CREW’s blatant violation of their 501(C)3 charter.  She’s also filed complaints to have CREW Executive Director and bar member Melanie Sloan investigated for her role in filing knowingly false affidavits on behalf of admitted liar David Keegan.  The so called “watchdog group” has a more than 8-1 record of accusing Republicans over Democrats while historically, more Democrats have been investigated for ethics violations than have Republicans.
“O'Donnell uses the book to settle a few scores with her political adversaries in the Delaware political establishment, claiming "the state party didn't lift a finger to help our campaign" in 2008 and sabotaged her bid for the seat long held by Joe Biden in 2010…
"…It shows how ill-informed Christine O'Donnell is about the history of our party, its leadership and the pro-life candidates in Delaware," said Rakestraw, who added that she doesn't plan to buy O'Donnell's book.”
The reality is that O’Donnell is right.  In 2008, O’Donnell was “endorsed” by the state party but the party did not feel confident that anyone could beat Joe Biden.  That has been the MO of the Delaware GOP for 10 years now since the Democrats took control of Dover.  The Delaware GOP has been running defeatist campaigns ever since and to be quite honest, I have questioned the dedication of the Delaware GOP leadership.  The fact is that the following video more than sums up what the Delaware elites think.  In the video, National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw is very candid about Christine O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart:

Christine raised a reported $7 million during her campaign however, she beat Mike Castle by raising far less than $2 million.  Perhaps this video shows you a little bit more about who Priscilla Rakestraw is:

The bottom line here is that the leadership in the Delaware GOP is not committed to winning.  It’s my SINCERE desire to see John Sigler change things but let’s call a spade what it is.  The Delaware GOP leadership simply has not been committed to winning.  The folly of the 2010 election really needs no recount but to remind you, former Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross, who was in fact the active chair at the time, said that Christine O’Donnell could not be elected dogcatcher and as you can see above, Priscilla sure had some strong words about Christine O’Donnell as well.  In fact, it’s well known inside party circles that Priscilla Rakestraw orchestrated the smear campaign against O’Donnell.  Rakestraw has also been implicated in a smear campaign against State Party chair candidate and Delta Airlines Pilot Mike Protack that resulted in trouble with Protack’s private market employer.  Protack is considering taking legal action against those who used their influence to attack him with unfounded allegations. 
“O'Donnell also alleges that Biden and Castle personally warned a supporter of the "consequences" of raising money for her in the 2008 Senate race against Biden. Like many of O'Donnell's allegations of campaign dirty tricks detailed in the book, the individual involved is not named.
Castle said O'Donnell's claim is "wholly inaccurate" and "the figment of somebody's imagination."
"I don't remember doing anything of that nature," Castle said Saturday.”
First of all, the “I don’t remember” line is not exactly smacking of surety of his statements.  The fact is that evidence suggests that Mike Castle did actively work to sabotage her campaign, that Karl Rove (a key advisor to Castle) actively worked to sabotage her campaign and that there is a long held understanding that Castle, Biden and Carper are thick as thieves. 
“She accuses Ross of abusing party funds by paying for robo phone calls against her in the primary.
Ross said there was nothing illegal about spending state party funds to help elect Castle, who won the party's backing at the state convention last May before losing the primary to O'Donnell.”
Sure is odd that the RNC’s position has been to stay out of primary races while Tom Ross and the rest of his leadership decided to inject themselves into this one in an UNPRECEDENTED manner.  It may not be illegal to spend the money on those robo-calls but it sure is an abuse of party funds especially now that we know if they’d saved that money, they would have had more to spend on electing Republicans.
“After GOP delegates endorsed Castle, the party decided to launch a negative campaign against O'Donnell because it seemed the best option for helping Castle breeze to victory for the U.S. Senate seat and make gains in the state Legislature, Ross said.
"While my dogcatcher statement may have been a little harsh, the truth of the matter remains, Christine O'Donnell is not a viable statewide candidate in the state of Delaware," Ross said in an interview. "We had the biggest Republican year in a hundred years, and she lost by a very, very wide margin, while bringing down the rest of the ticket."”
Well Mr. Ross is continuing to double down on his stupidity from the 2010 campaign.  This is a guy who named ME as Christine O’Donnell’s Press Secretary when I wasn’t even part of the campaign until AFTER the primary campaign was over.  Also, this is apparently a guy who ignores the facts.  You see, Ross claims that O’Donnell brought down the rest of the party but the facts actually bear out the OPPOSITE as the case.  You see exit polling from the Delaware Senate race shows that O’Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans.  You see O’Donnell drew more Republicans and Independents to the polls and fewer Democrats by percentage than the registration gap bore out.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.  I wonder if THAT is the reason those Republicans down ticket lost…because of Tom Ross’ failure to put together a Republican Party that represents Republican values.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

TEA Party leaders to debate progressives on "Community Crossfire" with Norman Oliver

Founders Values leaders Evan Queitsch and Lee Tirado are proud to have been asked by Mr. Norman Oliver to appear on his television show "Community Crossfire" again this Sunday August 14th at 9PM. The show will be broadcast on Comcast Cable channel 22 (or perhaps 28 depending on where you live) and will stream live on

Norman Oliver (right) and his son Norman Oliver Jr.
FV on TV

Delaware Today has a great piece on Mr. Norman Oliver, a self made man in every sense of the word.

When he was in eighth grade, Norman and his younger brother, Alonzo, rounded the corner of their block in Southbridge one day to find their mother in the street, surrounded by their belongings. They had been evicted. "But we persevered," he says. "We were a strong-knit family."

Oliver has not only persevered, he has prevailed, overcoming a childhood of poverty and steering a precarious course through Wilmington politics to become a successful entrepreneur and leader in the black community. His years as a city councilman-from 1992 to 2003-were especially controversial. Back then, Oliver, a man who has an affinity for the spotlight, stopped taking calls from reporters after making headlines for the wrong reasons.

I urge you to read the entire story of "Stormin Norman". You'll see his ups and downs and his brush with corruption. I see Mr. Oliver as a triumph of conservatism and capitalism and as a stark reminder of how close corruption is to everyone in the government. A single bad choice or misjudgment can result in epic consequences.

Our last appearance on the show went a long way in beginning a dialogue in inner city communities about the true intentions of the TEA Party. There were callers concerned about TEA Party racism, about education in Delaware and about how we can improve America. We addressed all of those concerns and we showed that the TEA Party has nothing to do with race and is concerned about the long term welfare of both Delaware and the United States. This time, we hope that the debate will focus on specific steps that we can take to restore America and policy ideas from a TEA Party perspective. I hope you will all tune in as well to hear the dialogue and to get a better understanding of where we stand and what we can do to clear up misconceptions about the TEA Party - 9/12 - Patriot movement.

Time: 9PM
Date: Sunday 8/14/11
Channel: 22 - WITN in the city and surrounding area. The program MAY be available in other parts of NCC on channel 22 or it may not. If it is not, you can stream it live from Update: The show may also be broadcast on channel 28 on Comcast cable outside the city. In Newark for instance, the program can be seen on Local Channel 28.

Mr. Oliver has informed us that progressive Nancy Willing, author of The Delaware Way will be debating us and we are sure that Norman will be opening up the show to calls and he would like you to call in as well. Please call in and show support for our mission to return to Constitutional values! We hope to hear from all of you during the show. Thank you for your support!


Evan Queitsch
Founders Values

Friday, August 12, 2011

Republicans Outshine Preseason Opener

Some of you may know, I’m a HUGE Philly sports fan and so I was in a quandary when I realized that the Eagles Preseason opener and the Ames Debate in Iowa were the same night. My plan was to record the debate and come back to it after the game but to my surprise, my WIFE decided at halftime that the 4th and 5th string Eagles didn’t matter. Boy was she right. It was well worth watching the Ames Debate live, especially with my new HTC EVO Shift 4G by my side and Tweetdeck feeding me the live stream of tweets to the hashtag #AmesDebate (not that I could read most of them as the stream was flying by, it must have been 100 tweets per second). The pulse of the Twitter verse centered on two candidates who have really utilized Social Media and it’s multiplying force to its advantage. Both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann got A LOT of attention on the streams as the debate went on. Gingrich and Romney each shared some space among the Twitterverse while most of the Ron Paul and T-Paw mentions were at best backhanded compliments and at worst pimp hand smacks. I know Rick Santorum participated but I don’t think I even saw his name mentioned on the Social Media landscape. I know that Frank Luntz, “Lord of the Dials” as I call him, is doing his own focus groups and word testing and he knows far more than I do about the pulse of the people I am sure but I wanted to break down what WE saw from each candidate and what our mood was here at home. As young(er) parents of 4 children we have a unique and different perspective on life but yet it straddles that line between the young, just out of college kid making it on their own and the worldly parent of young children trying to help them grow up right. I think our experience, youthfulness and wisdom will translate well to many people. You be the judge.

I’ll first cover each candidate from our perspective (in no particular order), pro’s, con’s and memorable zingers. Then I will tell you who we thought stood out and finally rank them in our current leaderboard with one line as to why they are where they are. Here we go:

Mitt Romney

Romney came into the debate with a lot of questions. Now I will admit, that I already had a slightly inflated opinion of Romney after watching his handling of hecklers during a rally in Iowa that was posted on TheBlaze earlier that day but my wife was under no such delusions and in the interest of fairness, we’ll weight this toward her opinion. Romney was the frontrunner in many polls but for us, he wasn’t our first choice (despite my recent discovery that he is a VERY distant uncle of mine…hey Uncle Mitt…share that wealth over here partner!). He’s polished, he doesn’t make many mistakes and he’s got a good business sense which makes him formidable when talking about the economy. I thought he also did a good job of talking about the need to restrain the growth of government. He did not appear to WOW or impress my wife much except in that he knows what he wants to do with the job and he didn’t dance around too many questions. The line that I think stood out for me was in response to an attack by Tim Pawlenty on Romney’s signing of a universal healthcare bill in Massachussetts. Pawlenty was once again asked about a statement he made earlier in the campaign season about Romney’s plan in Mass. and comparing it to Obamacare, he called it Obamneycare. Tim Pawlenty had previously ducked the question at another debate but this time doubled down on his answer to which Mitt responded “I think I’ liked Tim’s answer in the last debate better” then he proceeded to defend his actions in Mass. as follows, “There’s some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there’s some big differences,” Romney said. “We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law. It’s bad constitutional law. It’s bad medicine.” He also promised to grant all 50 states (not 57 states) waivers to Obamacare on his first day in office to give Congress a chance to repeal the bill and allow the states to opt out if they chose to. All in all, I think Romney sounded Presidential (as did Frank Luntz) and so did my wife but we expected that. This is not his first rodeo and so I think he could have been a little more substantive in his answers. We did like the fact that he spent more time comparing himself to Obama than to the other candidates which I feel shows leadership and an ability to run on ones record rather than personal attacks. We thought Mitt did well in the debate.

Newt Gingrich

Newt came into this debate as one of my least favorites based on his ability (or lack thereof) to beat Obama and his lack of commitment to the race. I’m also not a huge fan of some of his potential policy ideas but as debates go, he really had some zingers last night and he took on a media that focuses too much on personal destruction and less on policy. Gingrich said what a lot of us have been thinking over the last few years (decades in some cases). He also had some unflattering words for a Congress hell bent on NOT making a decision until the final minutes of a deal and then making a bad one. His overall performance wasn’t bad, as former Speaker of the House, I expect him to be able to think on his feet but I was really impressed with the fight he took to the current Congress. When asked about the debt reduction deal, and after zinging the press corps (and moderators Brett Bair, Byron York, Susan Ferrechio and Chris Wallace) for their focus on “campaign minutiae” over substantive policy arguments, Gingrich called the Super Committee “as dumb an idea as Washington has come up with,” and many of us would agree with that assessment. In this house we sure did. Gingrich was able to raise his stock a bit during the debate by not being afraid to take on the media, the moderators, the current Congress and Obama but he has a higher climb than many others because of some of his personal issues and because of his attacks on the Ryan Plan and his previous support of TARP, Medicare Part D and others. With that said, we thought Gingrich did well and we thought he picked up a few spots on our board but he didn’t wow us.

Herman Cain

It’s no secret (take a glance to the right of the screen) that Herman Cain was at the top of my board going into the debate. Now, the entrance of Michele Bachmann into the race and some of Herman’s slip-ups in the media have given me pause and reason to consider other candidates but he still hadn’t been passed. Cain is one of those rare candidates who don’t SOUND like politicians. He sounds real and he knows what he’s talking about. His business skills were on display last night as he talked about businesses and regulations. Herman had a great line about growth when he said “I don’t know one company that sits around trying to figure out how to stand still, it’s about growth!” Likewise, he rightly tied America’s energy policy to our national security and lightened the mood when asked about a comment he made in response to Obama’s mocking of calls for border enforcement. His response was “America needs to learn to take a joke.” He also said that he thought the federal government should be out of the business of educating our children and he also pointed out that “people should be committed to the Constitution of the United States first” before they are appointed to the federal government. Cain presented a real regular persons perspective sans political correctness and he really laid things out the way they are. He didn’t get a lot of time to make his points but he capitalized on that time well. We felt like he stood above the fray in the same way that Romney did and that he utilized his shortened chances to speak well. He reacted well to questions about things he said on the campaign trail and he didn’t flame out during the debate.

Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty was one of the weaker candidates going into the debate and he did not disappoint from that perspective. He remained as one of the worst performers and really has made his name by being an attack dog on the other candidates. This time T-Paw as he’s known in the Twitterverse, found that he wasn’t just going to attack Mitt Romney for what he describes as the “Obamneycare” but he would also include fellow Minnesotan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who he described as failing in her leadership on issues like stopping Obamacare, stopping the debt ceiling increase and reducing government spending. In fact, at one point the debate between them got so heated that T-Paw actually asked Bachmann to stop leading because she was “killing us”. T-Paw’s defense of his own record as someone who not only supported but pushed through Cap and Trade and who supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance (one of the key problems with Obamacare) was shoddy, weak and he danced around those issues while throwing every dart he could at Bachmann. He looked more like a bully trying desperately to remain relevant (a la Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate race than he did like a Presidential candidate. He was off putting both to me and to my wife and he was not convincing. He did NOT increase his stock last night but I’m not exactly sure he could have given his record.

Rick Santorum

So Rick had a podium…and he spoke…and I can’t say I disagreed with most of what he said. He’s principled and he didn’t back down from Ron Paul on the Middle East. As the author of a bill sanctioning Iran, Santorum was clearly on the right side of the debate over whether to let Iran do whatever it wants with regards to its nuclear program and the threat they pose to the U.S. with terror cells working with Mexican drug cartels to setup terrorist training camps just across the border and their use of drug smuggling tunnels to transport weapons, ammo, terrorists and more into the U.S. Paul could muster little more than calling Santorum nothing short of a war propagandist and called for us to talk to the Iranians who have consistently said that they desire both the United States and Israel to be destroyed. Santorum stung Paul with the following comments, “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.” He followed with this, “He sees it exactly as Barack Obama sees it. That we have to go around and apologize for the fact that we've gone out and exerted our influence to create freedom around the world. I don't apologize for that. I don't apologize for the Iranian people being free for a long time, and now they're under a mullahcracy [sic] that tramples the rights of women, tramples the rights of gays, tramples the rights of people all throughout their society and is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world — and — is setting up training camps and is working with Venezuela and other countries south of our border to threaten us.” He also had a good call on political compromise and how you can do it without losing your principles.

His biggest slip in our home was on the abortion issue. My wife and I are STAUNCHLY pro-life but we recognize the care and attention that MUST be paid in the cases of rape and incest specifically. Personally our positions are in favor of life at every turn but we struggle with how it’s our right to decide that for a woman who’s been raped or who’s body has been violated by a relative. In our opinon, if the baby will be healthy then we should look to adoption over abortion but that is a VERY tense situation. So Santorum’s principled stand even on those rough issues is both refreshing on the one hand and potentially over the top on the other. We like Santorum but can he transfer to those in America who are less conservative than we are? My argument is that he was once a PA Senator, a large state with two large cities (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) but my wife argues that it would be similar to the O’Donnell race in Delaware where the media smeared everything and made every issue relate to these contentious issues. I can’t disagree with her position entirely.

Ron Paul

Dr. Paul is a traditional Libertarian and when it comes to monetary policy there is none better in my opinion. My concerns with him are and have always been with regards to foreign policy and domestic social issues. His open support of the legalization of drugs is dangerous to American society and to the American way of life. He touched on that issue during the debate although it was not a major focus. I thought Paul LOOKED a little frail and shaky and didn’t get a ton of time to talk (as usual for the lower tier candidates) but his fiscal policy was strong as always. Where Paul completely lost the debate (and in my opinion all chance of winning the nomination) was in his exchange with Santorum (from above) and Bachmann. Paul is flat out wrong to discount Iran and to blame America for the hatred of the Iranian regime. He misses the deep seeded hatred of the Iranian leaders for the freedoms and liberties that we have in the U.S. and his policy suggestions with regards to Iran are scary bad. I thought last night was a bad night for him and he certainly dropped a spot or two because of it.

Michele Bachmann

Michele was the subject of ire from Ron Paul and from Tim Pawlenty and she weathered the storm. She even handled perhaps the most disrespectful question asked of a candidate since the 2010 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware. Byron York from the Washington Examiner, presumably in an attempt to prepare Bachmann for a run in the mainstream media (as if she doesn’t know what they are saying about her) asked Michele if she would be “submissive” to her husband if she is elected President of the United States which implied, of course, that her HUSBAND would somehow be running the country instead of her simply because she believes in the Bible. Bachmann handled the situation well and responded after a long pause (to allow the boo’s to cascade down on Mr. York). The clip below illustrates the nights most uncomfortable moment:

Now Bachmann also had some exchanges with Tim Pawlenty (as mentioned above) and while Pawlenty came across as obtuse, abrasive and rude; Bachmann was cool and measured in her responses. She challenged Pawlenty on his support and push for a Cap and Trade law in Minnesota as well as his support for an individual mandate for healthcare like what’s in Obamacare. Her blows landed sharply and Pawlenty had no real defense for his positions. Meanwhile, Bachmann showed herself to be a leader on key issues that matter to the American people and someone willing to fight for principle even against dramatically high odds. She came out of the debate really unmarred and better for it in our opinion. She didn’t dance around the questions and she defended herself well. She did get bogged down in combat with Pawlenty who was clearly beneath her but we thought she handled it well and zinged him right back.

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman ducked a few questions and that immediately turned my wife off. He’s not the traditional Republican and if we needed to see what a RINO looks like as compared to the current crop of candidates, he certainly presents that option. Frankly, it’s a bad option and one that I hope few people choose but it’s a voice for those who think that “Hey, Obama’s not such a bad guy.” He didn’t do himself any favors last night.

Ok so that’s our analysis. Winners and losers: Cain and Bachmann were big winners in our opinion, Romney was as expected and Gingrich had a few zingers so they are the winners last night. Paul, Huntsman and Pawlenty really dropped their stock and Rick Santorum did what he could.

Here’s our list to this date:

1. Herman Cain – Cain is a real pragmatic candidate who is more of a regular guy than a politician. He’s a plain talker who speaks the truth and who is unafraid of being politically incorrect but he doesn’t come across as overly abrasive.

2. Michele Bachmann – Bachmann is tough and she’s not going to take any guff from Obama or the liberal media. She’s a fighter who doesn’t get frazzled (as we saw with the York question) in the heat of battle and she’s very smart and very right on the issues.

3. Mitt Romney – Ok, so this one was close but Mitt is showing us something lately. He sounds Presidential and he’s been saying the right things and he’s doing well in the debates but that is to be expected from a guy with so much experience.

4. Rick Santorum – We like Rick. He’s conservative, he’s smart and he’s got the right thought process. The only problem we see is that his conservatism may turn off swing voters and Democrats.

5. Newt Gingrich – We had Newt at the bottom before the debate but last night he really made strides to convince us that he deserves a shot. We still feel more like he’s running for Speaker of the House than President BUT his zinger on the Super Committee and his attacks levied at the media for their focus on campaign minutiae vs. substantive issues was also great. Questions still remain about his personal ethics, support for Bush era progressive policies like Medicare Part D and TARP and his attack on Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements.

6. Tim Pawlenty – Personally I think everyone from Pawlenty down should get out of the race and look for slots in the administration but in the grand scheme of things, if we had to pick someone from the bottom, Pawlenty is the pick over Paul, Johnson and Huntsman.

7. Ron Paul – Paul has dropped below Gingrich and Pawlenty because of his foreign policy alone. Anyone that doesn’t understand the threat of IRAN is clearly incapable of leading America in 2012.

8. Gary Johnson – Pot head votes are going here. Great.

9. Jon Huntsman – If we wanted Barack Obama, we’d vote for him.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

CREW Exposed

A new website out today delves into the realm of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). You may remember CREW from previous posts on this blog as well as from the recently dismissed charges against Christine O’Donnell. Like most CREW complaints, the one against O’Donnell was dismissed by the U.S. Attorney because they were completely fabricated. As we broke here on this blog, CREW violated their IRS mandate to remain non-political when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign and they violated federal law when they filed a knowingly false affidavit signed by David Keegan whose entire smear campaign of lies was simply designed to keep Christine from running again.

The new website also delves into the partisanship of CREW. A quick look over the founders of CREW shows the partisan angle. Norm Eisen who was Deputy General Counsel to Obama’s transition team joined Daniel Berger, a massive donor to Democrat campaigns (including Christine O’Donnell’s opponent Chris Coons) and Clinton pollster Mark Penn to start CREW in 2003 as a way to compete with the conservative ethics groups that had questioned Bill Clinton’s philandering in the White House. They needed a face for the organization and so they tapped another ultra-liberal Democrat to head up CREW, Melanie Sloan. Sloan came with plenty of leftist credentials, she’d worked for Representative John “Read the bill” Conyers in the House, she then worked for Senator (now VP) Joe “Stand up Chuck” Biden and she also worked for NY Democrat Chuck “3 branches of government?” Schumer when he was in the House of Representatives. Sloan isn’t the only leftist in the mix, in fact, the website finds that “there isn't a single current or former CREW staffer with comparable experience working for a conservative organization or Republican politician.”

As if that weren’t enough, the new site exposes CREW’s record of attacks against Republicans over Democrats. The chart below clearly shows that CREW files more complaints against Republicans than Democrats and it clearly shows that the actions taken by the ethics committees lean more toward Democrats than Republicans. What does that mean? It means that CREW is either REALLY ineffective as a “watchdog” or it’s just out to be a Democrat Attackdog.

Let’s look at the Senate ethics complaints as an example. As you can see above CREW’s Senate ethics complaints are around 90% against Republicans. Meanwhile, the Senate ethics committee actions are 60% against Democrats 40% against Republicans. This is simply a perfect illustration of the reason why Christine O’Donnell’s complaints about CREW are entirely valid. They are a partisan group out to destroy Republicans, prop up Democrats and do the bidding of radical leftist donors like George Soros. Their list of donors reads like a Who’s Who of radical leftwing groups. The Open Society Institute, the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation and the Silberstein Foundation to name just a few are all major donors to CREW. Interestingly, CREW was also a MAJOR advocate for the DISCLOSE Act (written by Delaware’s own Mike Castle) which would have required groups to disclose their donors if they engaged in any political activity. However, CREW refuses to disclose its own list of donors. 

In the end, the new site shows the bias and hypocrisy of CREW at a time when their legal status has come into question. With O’Donnell fighting back against their lies, this new website exposing CREW’s left wing motivations is yet more evidence that CREW is everything O’Donnell says they are. Mean, nasty, partisan hacks doing the bidding of left wing billionaire extremists like George Soros and left wing political machines like the Democrat Party. Kudo’s to The Center for Consumer Freedom for standing up to CREW and calling them out on their hypocrisy.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

American Spectator Interviews a Troublemaker

Jeff Lord at the American Spectator recently sat down with a real troublemaker for an interview. 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell sat down with Jeff and the first copy of her new book “Troublemaker” for a chat. I’ll let you read most of Jeff’s piece over at the American Spectator but I thought that the following excerpt aptly described O’Donnell’s campaign.

THE REAL POINT HERE, as more and more Americans get with every passing day, is that this is precisely the game played with non-Establishment politicians right from the get-go. A viewing of the 1939 classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington​starring Jimmy Stewart -- this scene

 from the film gets to the guts of O'Donnell's 2010 race and then some with the exception that in the end Mr. Smith wins and O'Donnell loses -- says only in cinematic fashion what O'Donnell has lived in real life.

 O’Donnell faced down Mr. Potter and all his friends in former Congressman Mike Castle who she defeated in the 2010 Primary. They tried their best to take her down and they wounded her enough that she was unable to win the war but she made sure to take down Goliath along the way. It took dive bombs from Karl “Tokyo” Rove, smears by the Delaware Republican Party leadership, the withholding of support by the national party and constant insults from high powered magazine editors like Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard to try and stop her but still, the respectable members of Delaware’s Republican Party were undeterred and selected her as their nominee.

Still the party know-it-alls like the ancient and detestable National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw, whose reign will hopefully mercifully come to an end in 2012, refused to support O’Donnell. Likewise, the crotchety Castle refused to hold to his promise to support Christine if she did “somehow” win the nomination. Even when asked by O’Donnell’s father, to whom Castle had promised to support her, Castle refused. He claimed he was insulted by an attack on his sexuality launched by a former campaign vendor to the O’Donnell campaign but the truth is that King Castle had never lost an election and he simply didn’t know how to lose.

 O’Donnell spills the beans on this and many other Republican Party secrets in her tell-all. She explains the push to use certain vendors once she’s secured the nomination discusses the shenanigans behind the infamous “Witch Ad” and points fingers at the puppet masters who balked at a nominee whose strings they couldn’t pull. She’ll talk about a once grand old party, with names at the top like DuPont and Roth who in 2006 nominated Jan Ting to run against Tom Carper. Ting would go on to not only switch parties, but become state coordinator for the Obama campaign in 2008.

 Oh, she lays it down…and this is just the beginning. Get your copy of what is sure to be, a New York Time Bestseller (whether they like it or not) today!