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 Washingtonstarring 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.
That's a big oops. It turns out that there was some funny business when it came to campaign finance in the Delaware Republican Party but it wasn't committed by Christine O'Donnell. Instead the violations were committed by none other than former Congressman Mike Castle. The Delaware GOP overtly claimed that O'Donnell used campaign funds for personal expenses in a suspicious pattern in 2009-2010. This argument is largely based on the idea that she had not filed a Statement of Candidacy (the form required by federal election law for a candidate to be official). The following is information that has recently come to light:
Yet O'Donnell's "pattern" was similar to Mike Castle's "pattern" of campaign spending, except that O'Donnell declared herself a candidate (technically, exploring a candidacy for office) in January 2009, whereas Mike Castle did not actually become a candidate until October 2009. (Actually, O'Donnell's pattern of campaign spending in early 2009 is more obviously proper than Castle's.)
The DEGOP's lies were based upon the falsehood that O'Donnell was not a candidate for office at the time the expenses were incurred. In fact, she undeniably was.
From January 2009 through June 2009, Mike Castle used campaign funds for:
$587.64 for food & beverage at CAFE GELATTO, paid on February 6, 2009. (Remember: Castle's Statement of Candidacy was filed October 19, 2009.)
$2,588.88 for food & beverage at the Capitol Hill Club restaurant in Washington, DC, paid between March and May 2009. Again, Castle filed his Statement of Candidacy in October 2009. The U.S. Senate campaign was up in Delaware, not in Washington, D.C. However, Castle was a Congressman in D.C., eating out in Washington, D.C. off of campaign contributions.
$245.77 at WHO'S COOKIN' for FOOD & BEVERAGE, paid on 3/27/2009
$594 at FLOWERS BY YUKIE between January and March 2009.
$219.80 at HAPPY HARRY'S on 1/14/2009
$13,499.35 in unspecified credit card charges, creating a "slush fund" for Mike Castle's expenses that are not identified on FEC reports.
$873.70 at the TIMBERLAKE restaurant down in Washington, D.C., not in Delaware where the campaign was, paid on 12/19/2008. Castle was of course a sitting Congressman at the time. However, his personal expenses for food down in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of his campaign funds up in Delaware. Congress was in its Christmas recess on December 19, 2008. Food related to either Castle's Congressional activities or personal living in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of campaign funds for the election up in Delaware.
$120.00 at GALLAGHER & GALLAGHER for food & beverage paid on 4/29/2009.
$1,298.67 to COMCAST cable from January 2009 through June 2009 -- again months before Mike Castle was actually a candidate.
$500 for gala tickets to the Chowder & Marching Club -- IN MARYLAND! This was not an event in Delaware.
$546.25 to AMTRAK for travel from March 2009 to May 2009 - before Castle was a candidate.
Mike Castle -- although an elected official for almost 40 years -- has somehow amassed a personal fortune worth over $3.5 million. Perhaps we've discovered part of Mike Castle's road to riches: Pocket his congressional salary, then live off of campaign donations for his personal living expenses? At least if those accusations are hurled without any foundation at O'Donnell, might we ask the same questions about Mike Castle? Or are questions about certain people off limits?
While Christine O'Donnell was clearly a candidate for U.S. Senate in January 2009, so that all of her campaign expenses are legitimate, it is Mike Castle who fails the very same test advanced by the Delaware Republican Party. The smears spread by the DEGOP were then handed to Ginger Gibson at the Delaware News Journal, who published a March 2010 hit piece smearing O'Donnell. These charges were later picked up by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a criminal complaint based on David Keegan's affidavit.
On March 20, 2009, O'Donnell filed a "Statement of Candidacy" for the 2010 U.S. Senate race with the Federal Election Commission.
In December 2008, O'Donnell posted a message on her 2008 campaign website urging volunteers to keep their campaign signs for probable use in 2010. In January 2009, O'Donnell began informing supporters privately of her status as an exploratory candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Her campaign finance reports show trips to Washington, D.C., to meet with donors and potential supporters, as well as meetings in Delaware with potential donors and supporters.
The Statement of Candidacy is normally filed only after a person has been a candidate for a while, and exceeded a $5,000 threshold of donations or expenses. So O'Donnell was a candidate prior to March 20, 2009. Castle, however, exceeded the $5,000 donation / expenditure threshold very early in 2009, but Castle did not file his Statement of Candidacy until October 2009. Therefore, Castle did not have the intent to be a candidate until October, and from January through September 2009 was using campaign funds for personal purposes. At least, that is the very same argument used by insiders in attacking Christine O'Donnell.
The Delaware Republican Party started in December 2009 -- weeks after Karl Rove's attempts failed at co-opting the tea party movement for Mike Castle -- to circulate smears, likes, and slander against Christine O'Donnell. The "DEGOP" was obligated to remain neutral among primary candidates for the Republican nomination until the State GOP endorsing convention held March 13-14, 2010, in Rehoboth Beach. Instead, the DEGOP not only launched assaults to sabotage Christine O'Donnell to help left-wing Mike Castle (a fiscal liberal and social liberal), but did so with savage personal attacks which were lies and slander.
With this kind of dishonesty by Tom Ross and the Delaware Republican leadership, it is time to start over with a fresh team of leadership for Delaware's Republican future.
With these new revelations about the 2010 Republican candidates for Senate, I hope that intelligent moderate Republicans, who were sucked in by the lies of Tom Ross, Priscilla Rakestraw and Mike Castle will hold them accountable by their own standards and call for their removal and dismissal. Ross, Rakestraw and Castle have done damage to the party that will linger for many years. Their plan appears to have been to burn the party down if they couldn't maintain control. I sincerely hope that the next chair of the Delaware GOP, whomever they may be, moves forward and brings along people Like Glen Urquhart and Christine O'Donnell who energized and revitalized the Delaware GOP in 2010. They deserve not only our thanks but our apologies for the way they were treated.
Delaware's lone statewide newspaper employs some rather strange people. One such individual, the often drunk (rumor has it he spends about 75% of his time in his favorite bar in a state close to a coma) Ron Williams falls into fits of rage and his drunken state keeps his stupid filter from working properly (read: at all).
I only bring this up now because Ron has gone and done it again. Perhaps the oddest part about this, is that the News Journal editors (yes I'm aware Ron is an assistant editor of the opinion pages...but someone should review his work), presumably sober and rational, actually print his drivel. Maybe more surprising, is that anyone still reads his column.
Well someone does, and that's why the record must now be set straight. The people of Delaware are being sold a bill of goods by an evil and corrupting old fart with a drinking problem and a lack of class. In his column called "Are Republicans just going to hand over the keys to the newbies" back on Feb. 26th our own "Uncle Ronnie" once again waded into the waters of insanity and took his readers with him. Maybe it plays to the target audience of the News Journal, mindless liberal progressive zombies but those of us with a few brain cells left are wondering about JUST a few things...
First, Ron opens his column with a couple of rather insulting remarks, one aimed at the thousands and thousands of Delawareans who have turned out for TEA Party rallies and the tens of thousands of Delaware Republicans who bucked the trend and supported O'Donnell in the 2010 Primary against RINO Mike Castle.
"I've been trying to pin down a Delaware Republican or two on the question of how the party is going to deal with the tea party faction, especially in Sussex County, and the likes of dear little Miss Christine O'Donnell."
Mr. Williams, the Delaware Republican Party isn't going to "deal" with the TEA Party faction...oh it's TRYING to...but the reality is that the TEA Party is a non-partisan effort to fight the kind of corruption that leads someone like Ron Williams to suggest that the Delaware GOP is going to "deal" with anything. You see Ron, for those TEA Party folks who are registered Republicans, they ARE "Delaware Republicans" meaning that THEY will determine who runs the party, not a few elites. You see, the TEA Party has awakened the GOP electorate to the fact that the party has been controlled by a small and elite few who have incestuously kept the power of the party consolidated within their ranks. These same people have watched their fundraising base dwindle and have continuously thrust forward RINO Mike Castle despite the fact that he voted with the Democrats more often than with Republicans and despite some very odd votes (he voted to impeach President Bush and for Cap and Trade).
Further, your "dear little Miss..." statement is both condescending and ignorant. Christine O'Donnell ran back to back TOUGH races against two opponents who used the large Democrat registration advantage and every nasty, dirty and disgusting trick they could against her. They attacked her for being a woman, called her stupid and worse yet not a peep out of the so-called "women's rights" defenders. Some sources on the far left even dug up complete and total lies about Christine's "sex life". These are things you would NEVER hear about male candidates. Despite the nationwide smear campaign and millions of dollars spent trashing her, despite the fact that her own party leadership undermined her campaign at every turn and despite the fact that your paper, the News Journal, assigned their very own personal smear artist to the race, she STILL beat Mike Castle in the Primary and scared the CRAP out of Coons in the general. For that alone she deserves more respect than what you've given her. Of course, it could just be the whiskey talking...
Just a few paragraphs later, after attacking O'Donnell for the idea that she might be as rhythmically challenged as she suggests, Williams again insert his foot into his drinking hole:
"I don't completely understand how Christine O'Donnell, who lost a U.S. Senate race in Delaware by one of the widest margins in modern times, is considered a "star" by television producers. But that's why I'm not a television producer and they are."
As usual, Mr. Williams is playing fast and loose with the truth...well ok, he's pretty much completely wrong. O'Donnell lost the 2010 General election by 14 points. Now that is larger than the campaign would like but not insurmountable, it's really only a 7 point swing. With that said, the loss remains at 14% so, is Mr. Williams right? Is this one of the widest margins in modern times? 2008: Markell defeats Lee by 15% 2006: Tom Carper (D) defeats Jan Ting (R) 70.2% - 28.7% (42% GOP loss) 2004: Carney defeats Ursomarso by 26% 2002: Biden defeats Clatworthy 58.2% - 40.2% (18% GOP loss) - keep in mind that if you speak to GOP insiders like Priscilla Rakestraw...she claims that this was a tight race... 2000: Minner defeats Burris by 20%
Not to mention there are a HOST of local and state rep races with similar defeats. In fact, O'Donnell's 7 point swing in the face of overwhelming odds is rather impressive. Perhaps Ron forgot these, whiskey has a tendency to make me that way too.
In addition to mischaracterizing O'Donnell's performance in the General Election, Williams goes right for an "objective source" when he reaches out to Tom Ross, the Delaware State GOP Chair who publicly said that O'Donnell could not be elected dogcatcher, made up a story about a fake death threat in a desperate 11th hour ploy (he's done this before in tight primaries to sway public opinion) and filed a frivolous lawsuit against the campaign which remained an active stain on the campaign throughout the entire general election season. Tom Ross and the "Republican Party leadership" consistently undermined Christine and fabricated stories. Pardon me if I question whether or not Mr. Ross even RECIEVED phone calls from other GOP chairs. Much less that they used the term "that wacko from Delaware" (in the event that it did happen, how sad is it that these other state GOP parties are so weak that they rely on the smallest state in the union to get their candidates elected?)
"Because of the national publicity, state Republican Party Chairman Tom Ross was getting telephone calls from several fellow state chairs, including those in Connecticut and New Mexico, who were seeing a drop in the polls for Republican candidates in their state. They attributed it to that "wacko from Delaware" who's making all Republicans look like goofballs.
Ross also told me recently that the chances of newcomers to Delaware joining the state Republican Party had been undermined by her. People with political convictions, and money to contribute, don't want to join a party with people like her."
O'Donnell raised $7 million from all over the country in the face severe odds. Most of it was raised in just 6 weeks. From February through September, Delaware supporters were discouraged and viciously threatened for showing public support for or donating to Miss. O'Donnell. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Tom Ross isn't a lying, conniving snake in the grass capable of selling his own mother to his father and give him the benefit of the doubt that these calls actually came in. Are these claims accurate? Let's start with the raw figures:
There were more registered Democrats in 2010 than there were in 2008 in fact, since 2002, the Democrat registration has jumped 31% and just since 2006 it has increased 19%. Some of that is due to Republicans who became Democrats to vote in the primary that elected Jack Markell (how's that working out for us?) as Governor. Most of it is due to an influx of NJ, PA and NY liberals who left the states they helped destroy for the relative safety of Delaware and have begun to destroy THIS state. In addition, only 81% of Republicans supported their own nominee in 2010. This is of course because the nominee was NOT Mike Castle because had O'Donnell not won, the party faithful would be EXPECTED to fall in line.
Further numbers bare an even more incredible reality for the Delaware GOP. Since Christine O'Donnell has been a U.S. Senate nominee, the percentages have increased:
28.7% - 2006 - Jan Ting vs Tom Carper
35.3% - 2008 - O'Donnell vs Biden (other notables this year: Judge Bill Lee (Governor) 32%, John McCain 37%, Copeland 38%)
40% - 2010 - O'Donnell vs Coons
Remember, Jan Ting was SO liberal that he actually switched to the Democrat Party after he lost handily to Carper. And lest ye think that despite the numbers above, O'Donnell caused a drop in Republican voters:
In the 2006 midterm elections, 90,176 Republicans voted. In the 2010 midterm elections, 102,225 Republicans voted. In addition, a third party firm, Viae Consulting found the following:
Christine O’Donnell’s candidacy did not drive Democrats to the polls
Christine O’Donnell drove more Republicans to the polls to vote
New Castle County Republicans jumped the party line to vote for the Democratic opponent
New Castle County Republican registration was lower in 2010, than in 2008.
O'Donnell was not the only person to recieve criticism. After Ron felt that he had sufficiently attacked the Republican Senate nominee he turned his ire on the Republican Congressional nominee and those who chose him over Michele Rollins.
"The congressional candidacy of Glen Urquhart, whose campaign was run by a renegade, off-the-reservation Vance Phillips, current member and former president of Sussex County Council, was also not conducive to raising legitimate money. Why in the world would Republicans not vote for an attractive, independently wealthy, and brainy lawyer like Michele Rollins, they would ask.
Well, good question. You'll have to ask the tea partiers and right-wing extremists like Vance Phillips and his ilk."
So it seems that Mr. Williams just hates conservatives. Vance Phillips is a respected member of the Sussex County Republican Party, former Sussex County Council President and current Sussex County Council member. He has a long history of community involvement and in 2007 he was the state Vice Chairman of the Republican Party. Like his friend Al Mascitti, Williams seems to think that anyone who believes in God, believes in being fiscally responsible or supports a small government is "an extremist". Ron, Michele lost for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because the people of the Delaware Republican Party are TIRED of being told who to vote for and of supporting candidates like Mike Castle who do not represent them. Rollins stood with Castle, she aligned herself with him and THAT is why she lost.
Williams then goes on to attack Mike Protack who is a constant source of ire from the Delaware political establishment.
"And now you've got Mike Protack, another perennial loser who has never garnered a legitimate party following, running for state party chairman."
It should be pointed out that, as someone who is plugged into Republican politics, Mike Protack has not said he wants to be Party Chairman, he hasn't announced an intention to run for that office. The only names I have heard officially in the ring for state chair are Tom Ross (the current mistake) and Don Ayotte who is a Sussex County favorite with limited support in Kent and New Castle County. This is laughably wrong and it serves to show that both the News Journal AND the Delaware GOP leadership are TOTALLY lost when it comes to what is going on within the GOP. Later in the story Williams mentions John Siglar, the former NRA President who supported Christine O'Donnell as a potential candidate for Republican Party chair. The problem is that he names Siglar as a party leadership favorite when in reality Siglar is being courted by the conservative wing of the GOP.
"Finally, Ron Williams ends his rather aweful column but before he does he says this:
I finally received an answer that at first I thought was simply flip and sarcastic. But the more I thought about it, it might not be a bad idea, at least in the short run. 'We're just going to give them the keys and let them run the show. See ya later.'"
This might be the best idea I've heard yet. Under the leadership of Ross, Rakestraw and Castle the Delaware GOP has become irrelevant. They've resorted to cutting deals with the Democrat Party in order to retain a semblance of power in the state. Turning over the keys to the "newbies" who were able to rally together and defeat one of the 3 most powerful politicians in Delaware might actually help the cause. In fact, I can almost guarantee that we would do a better job than the current crop of cronies who gave continuously depleted funds, been ineffective at raising money, have no real message and absolutely no leadership.
Tom Ross is a an abject failure as Chariman. I had misplaced hope after the election that he would be able to rally the troops under the banner of freedom and liberty but he's squandered every bit of political capital he had with the majority of Republicans who voted against Mike Castle and the establishment status quo.
Priscilla Rakestraw is a little like legacy computer games. It's old, doesn't really work right but man it was cool back in the day. She's the longest serving National Committeewoman in the entire GOP...cool...ok I'm over it. She's also quite vidictive and as you can see in this video, a little out of touch:
Laird Stabler is a good guy and fortunately he has stayed above the fray. Unfortunately he has not been able to fight against the other party leaders.
Mike Castle is finally gone as the party figurehead but there is noone who stepped right in to take his place. That has caused a bit of a problem as the party transitions and the GOP chair flops like a freshly caught fish on the floor of the boat. Castle has 10 years of service in the Congress to give people an opinion on where the Delaware GOP stands, which is just left of the majority of the country. Apparently that doesn't play as well in Delaware as they thought. As the party ideology moved left, their numbers of representation plummeted. Since the early 80's when Pres Reagan and then Gov. Pete DuPont led America out of the dismal 70's, the Delaware GOP has drifted to the left and moved so far that it has alienated it's base and blurred the lines between the GOP and Democrat Party to the point that people no longer even see a difference. A fresh conservative approach would actually FIX the Delaware GOP but that isn't Williams' goal. His only plan here is to demonize conservatives, attack Republicans and assinate the character of everyone in the process. It's my sincere desire to see Ron Williams unemployed but I hold out no hope of the News Journal doing the right thing and firing this lunatic drunkard. It's more likely that the Delaware GOP actually hand over the keys to the newbies than the News Journal do the right thing here.
Written by Evan Queitsch - I Evan Queitsch hereby certify that I am stone cold sober and have not touched a drop of alcohol in 24 hours.
Maybe Williams could end his columns with the above line...naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Regular readers of this blog will recall that I laid out a compelling case for why I think Tom Kovach deserves a look when we go to the polls on Jan 13th to vote for a new New Castle County President. Most importantly, Tom's opponent, Tim Sheldon, is a former VP of the AFL-CIO (I mean, can you GET anymore Progressive than that?). Some folks have gotten hung up on the fact that Kovach has been labeled as the "hand picked candidate" of former Congressman Mike Castle. C'est la vie folks and we have to deal with it. We could stay home, protest our vote and say we won't vote for Castle's guy. We could vote for the Libertarian candidate James Christina and he might get just under 10% of the vote. In the end that does one thing, it ensures that Tim Sheldon, former VP of the AFL/CIO has a smooth road to NCC President.
Sure, Kovach went on with Glen Urquhart on WILM today and espoused the wonders of the RGGI that has continuously depressed jobs, shrunk the economy and driven up the price of energy but he didn't sound real confident in those statements so I think we can still talk him down from the regional cap and trade ledge. Look, the fact is that we tried the whole "elect the radicals to prove a point" thing in 2008 and we got Universal Healthcare....you put Tim Sheldon in the Presidents seat and you might as well call us the New Castle Socialist County. Besides, if Tim Sheldon were to beat Mike Castle's hand picked candidate for Council President, that would leave the DE GOP leadership looking...well worse than it already does and we can't have that now can we? C.R. also has a pretty compelling reason why Kovach is the choice over at Resolute Determination.
I'm going to throw out my opinions of the top stories this year in different categories. Let me know what you think.
Top Political Story Christine O'Donnell defeats Mike Castle - This is my top political story of 2010 not because I was a part of it but because there is no other political story in the entire region that comes close. Christie in New Jersey was in 2009 and the PA Republican conversion didn't catch enough steam. Christine was THE story for the better part of a month after her defeat of Mike Castle and CNN even hosted a DE Senate debate live and broadcast it nationally (well, most of it anyway). It was moderated by Wolf Blitzer! Christine's upset of Castle made the political leadership in DE shit bricks. She beat a 41 yr career politician who had never lost an election before and who was a 17 yr incumbent Congressman. She beat him despite him having the backing of the Republican elites and despite a HUGE financial disparity. She also beat him despite the fact that he refused to debate her and instead spent the entire primary smearing her and trying to destroy her character but staying totally away from any issue.
Runner Ups
GOP wave retakes House and almost nets Senate - Huge national story on November 3rd but not entirely unexpected except by the status quo political establishment. Plus it missed Delaware BADLY.
PA goes Republican - Pennsylvania handed many elected offices to Republicans including U.S. Senator (formerly held by Democrat/Republican Arlen Specter) Pat Toomey, Governor Tom Corbitt and 12 of the state's 19 House seats.
Top Sports Story Michael Vick's resurgence - Vick gave ME a reason to watch the Eagles this year. I was going to spend the football season with Sundays free but Vick ruined that for my family. When the Eagles announced that Kevin Kolb would be the starter and Vick the backup before the season I knew it wasn't worth carving out that time to watch the Birds go 6-10 at best. But when Vick filled in for Kolb after an injury and was playing out of his mind, it made me change my mind about watching the games. Vick's comeback from 18 months in Ft. Leavenworth prison for dog fighting has been nothing short of amazing. Morally, Vick has shown real remorse and a change in his behavior that in itself warrants applause. In football sense, Vick has come back from 2 years off an blossomed into arguably the leagues best QB. He is a Pro-Bowl starter, has the 2nd highest QB rating in the NFC and leads NFL QB's in rushing in addition to leading the Eagles to a 10-5 record and making them one of the most feared offenses in the NFL.
Runner Ups
Phils sign Cliff Lee (again) - The creation of perhaps the most feared regular season pitching rotation in the history of baseball comes in a VERY close second to Vick. The formation of R2C2 (Halladay, Oswald, Lee, Hamels) is almost incomprehensible. I almost feel sorry for the Mets, Nats and Marlins (not the Braves, they had a similar rotation in the 90's so here is some payback) but then again, I'm excited because the Phillies are (barring injuries) virtually assured of another consecutive NL East title. 100 wins? 4 20 game winners? What kind of records can these 4 set this year? Time will tell.
Washington gets Philly leftovers - First they got McNabb in a trade many thought could send the Skins to the Super Bowl and the Birds to the basement and that became a bust and then some when McNabb was benched in week 14 in favor of Rex Grossman of all people. Then the Nats scored Free Agent Jayson Werth from the Phils (which will net the Phils a high compensatory pick, thanks Washington!) and freed the Phils up in the salary market to sign Cliff Lee while replacing Werth's right handed bat with Ben Francisco.
Person of the Year The American People - Since TIME won't recognize you for your efforts, I will. You stood up and made your voices heard. Yes, even the liberals and progressives among us, stood up in record numbers (in Delaware especially) to vote. Most of us, voted our principles and more now than ever before, you voted with real knowledge of the candidates. Locally there are more asleep than awake but the numbers are switching. This is a state where Castle, Carper and Biden have gotten themselves elected year after year so it's really a surprise that common sense candidates like O'Donnell and Urquhart won their primaries. Yes, the people of America resoundingly awoke in 2010 and all appearances are that it will continue.
Runner Ups Glenn Beck - Beck organized the Restoring Honor 8/28 event that drew between 500,000 and 700,000 people from across the world to Washington, D.C. He has inspired millions of Americans to stand up for what they believe in and has been an educational resource for even more. With that said, Mr. Beck would agree that without YOU the people, he the entertainer, radio/TV host, educator and author is nothing.
Sarah Palin - Sarah Palin has written books, appeared on Fox News, spoken at events around the country, had her own reality show and picked winners and losers in political races around the country. She's been a force for the limited government conservative movement. She too would point out you all as the real people of the year.
Christine O'Donnell - Christine inspired many regular Delawareans (and Americans across the country) who otherwise would have stayed uninvolved and gave voice to the conservative base of Delaware's Republican Party. She brought out a record number of Republican voters to vote for (and against) her in September and made a national name for herself by pointing out that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution. In the end, it took YOU to make Christine a household name.
Angela Merkel - Angela set the European world on fire but her words were hardly covered in the American press. She announced to the EU that indeed, multiculturalism is dead in Germany. She took a stand against ceding anymore of Germany's national identity to radical Islam and the terrorists who seek to alter and abolish all that makes Germany...well Germany. She also had the gall to point out that the Obama administration is spending FAR too much money and is devaluing out own currency. Now if only Obama could sit down with her for a while.
Chris Christie - Gov. Christie was elected in 2009 and that is why he didn't get closer to the top. In 2010 he challenged the powerful unions in New Jersey and won. He went after the public employee unions and is especially feared/hated by the servants of Satan themselves (the NJ teachers union). This alone makes me want to put him higher on the list and maybe he should be but the others are pretty damn good too.
Top Video Game Released World of Warcraft: Cataclysm - I own it, which gives it higher marks and let's be honest, Blizzard has cornered the market on MMO's. People can whine and bitch about Star Wars and other such games but since the days of Diablo and Warcraft, Blizzard has been making top flight games. Cataclysm adds a new design to Azeroth and I don't even mind the fact that I basically had to throw away all of the old "Epic" gear that I had for Greens and Blues.
Runner Ups Call of Duty: Black Ops - I don't have it but DAMN i want it. I'm not big into the whole zombie Nazi angle but I really want it more for the multi player. Everyone that I know who has played it is loving it.
Medal of Honor: Limited Edition - Also known as the other FPS (1st person shooter) next to Call of Duty. MoH was released first and it gave FPS fiends a few months of multi player madness. The story mode was a cakewalk but the multi player mode takes some skill.Awesome game.
Madden 10 - Madden is ALWAYS on the list. It's cornered the NFL market and come on, every year it gets more like you're moving ACTUAL people on the screen instead of bits and bytes. Another solid offering from the industry masters.
Need for Speed - Need for Speed's latest edition was really a remake of the original with a twist. Instead of just driving exotic cars like Lamborghini's and Macleran's (as if that where bottom barrel) now you can drive them as the police. Yes, that's right, now you aren't just being chased by the cops, you can BE the cops.
Pick a "news source" (are there any real ones left? I'm not sure there are any locally in Delaware anymore...maybe The Blaze nationally) this week and you'll see stories about Christine O'Donnell being investigated by the FBI, the FEC and perhaps even MI:6. There are two things that I gather from this:
1.) The so-called media is OBSESSED with anything that can make conservative women look kooky, insane or fringe.
2.) The last week of the year is a VERY slow news time.
The "investigation" is nothing more than following up on the FEC filing by CREW. CREW is a Soros funded left wing "ethics group" who has levied charges against Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel (two obvious Democrat "crooks") to prove it's non-partisan roots. However, roots are often found in funding sources and group leadership so let's look at those two pieces.
Likewise, a Democracy Alliance blessing effectively jump-started Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). It bills itself as a nonpartisan watchdog group committed to targeting "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests." Alliance officials see CREW as a possible counterweight to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, which filed numerous lawsuits against Clinton administration officials in the 1990s. A CREW spokesman declined to comment.
Although CREW denies any ties to George Soros, they indeed receive funds from the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation, as well as the Open Society Institute – all Soros front groups.
So, CREW has received money from almost every Soros front group on the map including the Democracy Alliance which takes money from rich Progressives and spreads it around to deserving progressive groups.
From their website:
We are a first-of-its-kind partnership of changemakers who are committed to a stronger democracy and a more progressive America.
Launched in 2005, the Democracy Alliance (DA) was created to build progressive infrastructure that could help counter the well-funded and sophisticated conservative apparatus in the areas of civic engagement, leadership, media, and ideas.
Today the DA provides an innovative opportunity for individuals to leverage their progressive philanthropy by connecting their own efforts with those of other investors/donors, high-impact organizations, and visionary political strategists and leaders.
We play a leadership role in building the movement infrastructure needed to execute and advance a progressive agenda. Our network helps form a more integrated and cohesive progressive community creating greater impact as a result of our collaborative giving strategy.
So let's look at the CREW leadership starting at the top with Executive Director Melanie Sloan. Sloan is a former federal prosecutor who made news representing Valerie Plame and Joseph C. Wilson in a civil suit against the Bush Administration (which the Obama Administration threw out on it's face). She was publicly admonished by a judge int he Scooter Libby trial for attempting to try the case in the media (playing on public opinion is a tactic many liberal lawyers like to use).
Melanie has another hiccup when it comes to bringing this complaint against O'Donnell. Sloan also worked for Joe Biden whose former seat was being contested by O'Donnell and Coons. In fact, the CREW suit came after Vice President Biden had called and spoken with Congressman Castle after the September primary. Congressman Castle and the DEGOP had filed complaints with the FEC to look into slanderous allegations of the misuse of campaign funds in a last ditch effort to entangle O'Donnell in a scandal and steal the Republican Primary election. Fortunately the Republican voters in Delaware are not the stupid sheep that Castle and the DEGOP leadership must have believed they were. (In fairness to the Delaware GOP, Chairman Tom Ross has stated that the FEC complaint lodged by attorney Michael Toner was on behalf of the national Republican Party and that he was FORCED to sign the document by party insiders.) The DEGOP tried to pull back their complaint when they found the claims unsubstantiated and when O'Donnell became the GOP nominee but were told that ALL FEC complaints are investigated.
O'Donnell won the primary on September 15th, Biden spoke with Castle on September 16th and CREW filed their complaint on September 20th. The complaint was practically identical to that of the DEGOP complaint and contained testimony from two questionable sources.
The first source was a disgruntled former campaign volunteer (a family member of O'Donnell's former boyfriend) with a grudge and a chip on his shoulder (apparently his complaint was over a reimbursement of $150 for which no paperwork was ever filed). The other source is another disgruntled former campaign staffer who was replaced after just a week and a half due to incompetence.
U.S. Senator Conrad Burns of Montana charged that CREW was "maliciously false" and "partisan hacks" in calling him corrupt in 2005. The Billings Gazette reported that CREW defended itself:[8]
"We are progressive," said Naomi Seligman, the group's deputy director... "We do work within a larger progressive infrastructure." Seligman suggested her group is the progressive counterweight to Judicial Watch, a group from the right that calls itself "a non-profit, public interest law firm dedicated to fighting government corruption"... "We've gone after a fair number of Democrats, even in this study," Seligman said, [and Burns] "should be answering the charges, not slinging charges."
In reality, CREW has "called out" some of the more obviously criminal Democrats (Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel) but they have not sunk their teeth into them the way they have Republicans. Apparently “a fair number of Democrats” is subjective….in 2005 the numbers were 10 R’s and 3 D’s although the GOP WAS in control then and so were more likely to be corrupt. In 2010, with a Democrat leadership in place, 16 R’s and 10 D’s were targeted. The self described "Progressive" group has also targeted Sarah Palin and just about every candidate that Palin endorses.
At least, that is how it would appear when one looks at the exit polling from the Delaware U.S. Senate race. O'Donnell struggled with women(36% for 61% against) and with black voters(93% against) in the state. It's been long understood that those groups are the most important blocs to win in Delaware. Details of the exit poll breakdown show that O'Donnell tied Coons among white women (48% each) but lost black women 95% - 4% which accounts for nearly the entire 25 point swing in female voters. What appears to have done O'Donnell in is the 18% of Republicans who abandoned the more conservative O'Donnell as opposed to the 9% of Democrats who crossed over to vote against Coons.
So what does all this mean? Republicans down ticket SHOULD have benefited from the increases in Republicans and Independent voters over the registration totals. Remember, the registration gap at election time was:
Democrats: 47 %.
Republicans: 29.4%.
"Other" & Independents: 23.5%
Yet the exit polling shows that Democrats made up only 44% of actual voters in November: Democrats: 44 %.
Republicans: 30%.
"Other" & Independents: 27%
So in theory, this should have HELPED candidates down ticket, not hurt them as has been suggested by the GOP elite. There is one explanation for why those candidates may have lost their races....the 18% of Republicans who voted against O'Donnell. It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.
As usual, the media flubs it. Linda Killian has a piece running on in the AOL political section today on No Labels, a new progressive front group founded by some of the top progressive establishment types in America (and Canada). Sadly, her piece misses the mark on so many levels. For one thing, she claims that there are “nearly 40 percent of American voters who consider themselves Independents”. Now, in reality, about 18% of Americans are registered Republicans, 23% are registered Democrats and about 14% are registered independents. Those who consider themselves “Independent” who are not registered, registered as another third party or even registered under one of the major parties bumps the number up to about 33%. However, a closer inspection of the American ideological spectrum through actual data shows a stark contrast between her context and the political realities. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt in claiming that 40% of the nation is “Independent”, the ideological breakdown done by Gallup way back in June of this year (2010 for you progressives out there) shows that the number of people calling themselves “Conservative” or “Very Conservative” has actually risen 2% from this time last year and the number stands at 42%. Another 20% consider themselves liberal or very liberal and political moderates are down to 35%. Additionally, of those registered Independents, 36% consider themselves politically conservative and disenfranchised with the parties while 41% consider themselves politically moderate.
None of this means that moderates aren’t important mind you. The TEA Party groups that sprang up across the nation tapped into the spirit of bipartisanship and reaching a MAJORITY of American voters by focusing on jobs, the economy and placing limits on the federal government. There is absolutely room for us to have discussions WELL across the political spectrum but that is not what progressive groups like No Labels see to do. These groups seek to stifle public debate and keeps the decision making process amongst an elite few. This group has been created by an army of progressive supporters of President Obama because these folks have decided that somehow America wants progressivism despite overwhelming data to the contrary. 51% now say they are worse off under Obama and 66% say the country is heading in the wrong direction under progressive leadership. Jobless claims are hovering just around the 10% mark and there is little urgency by the political class to do anything about it. The American people are not that stupid. That is why Americans rejected the founders of No Labels resoundingly in 2010. Mike Castle and Charlie Crist are founding politicians of the group and both were ousted in their own party primaries (Crist switched to the Independent line just before the primary he was clearly going to lose to Marco Rubio) and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is stepping down from the Senate because his own reelection chances were slim. Kirsten Gillibrand from New York held on to her job in Washington and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent $85 million of his own vast fortune on changing the rules to run for a 3rd term.
All of this begs the question, If such an overwhelming majority of Americans want bi-partisanship and efficient government, why did they oust candidates like Castle and Crist who have a lengthy record of crossing the aisle to work with increasingly liberal Democrats? The answer may lie in a recent survey that was pointed out in The Hill back in April of this year (2010). The study found that 4 in 10 TEA Party members was either a Democrat or an Independent. 57% of the TEA Party members were Republicans while 41% were Democrat or Independent. With the media having spent a great deal of time painting the TEA Party as a vast right wing conspiracy and a group of far right wingnuts, you would expect the numbers to be a little more weighted than that right? Further evidence that political moderates by and large actually find the TEA Party more than palatable is found in the same study which saw 2/3rds of the TEA Party considering themselves conservatives, 26% moderate and 8% liberal. So, No Labels considers itself a counter to the TEA Party and a moderate progressive voice for a majority of Americans yet, 26% of moderates agree with the TEA Party and consider themselves a part of the movement? That makes no sense.
So who is No Labels really out to support? The political class (these are big government, progressive, establishment types). This group is out to support a full 14% of the American population. They see power slipping from their grasp and they won’t let it go gently into that good night. They see their backroom deals in smoke filled rooms dissipating before their eyes and it scares them because if they lose this, what else do they have? It’s sad to see people who began their careers with the best of intentions, slip into such dark and lonely places. Thank God the majority of the American people are too smart to fall for these kinds of tricks.
Fans of this blog will recall that yesterdays post examined a new progressive group launched by Mike Castle and a host of other establishment political types.For those of you who might be reading this blog for the first time and who may not be familiar with the term “Progressive” in politics, please begin your study here.The term sounds benign, even wonderful, moving the country forward and progressing sounds appealing.The problem is that along the way, as you evolve the government, individuals lose their personality and individuality.You will need to understand Progressivism to understand the rest of this post.
Today we will focus on some of the founders of No Labels and their affiliations.No Labels lists 11 founding members on their website and while each of these founding leaders is indeed linked to Progressive or liberal causes, we’ll examine 6 of them in total and 2 in this post.
David Frum
American progressives (as you know from the history lesson above) have learned that in America’s political structure, it is imperative that you work within BOTH major parties if you are going to accomplish any REAL lasting changes.In a Republic built to allow laws to be written, removed and reinstated depending on how the people feel, it is increasingly difficult (and rightfully so) to fundamentally transform America.That is why progressives cannot be pigeon-holed into only the Democrat Party.Look at Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps the biggest Progressive to every become President, who was a Republican!In fact, today, the Republican Party is nearly as progressive as the Democrat Party.John McCain, Mike Castle, Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski are just a few examples of Republican progressives serving in Washington, D.C. right now.
Progressives also understand the need to make their views appear mainstream and accepted across the political spectrum in order to build support on both sides of the issues.That is why modern progressive Republicans have attempted to call themselves conservatives in order to provide a “conservative voice” who can champion their causes.Frum is a so called “conservative voice” who is frequently called upon by liberal sources like the New York Times, MSNBC and the Washington Post to provide opinions from “the other side”.
Frum grew up in Ontario, Canada and his first real political move at age 14 was to volunteer for a member of the Canadian “New Democrat Party”. After attending Yale and working for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes he did work at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (a conservative think tank in NYC).Once President Bush was elected in 2000, the Canadian citizen (he received his U.S. citizenship on 9-11-07) was appointed as a speechwriter for economics in the White House where he worked from 2001 to 2002. Beginning in 2003 he worked at the American Enterprise Institute but was let go in March of this year amid his criticism of Fox News and the conservative opposition to Obamacare.
This is not the first time Frum had been discharged amid controversy.In 2008, Frum broke with National Review Online when he started The New Majority which has become a centrist funding arm.Frum has also categorized younger readers as “a generation often repelled by today's mainstream conservatism” and he has consistently attacked conservative positions that conflict with President Obama’s agenda.Frum has supported Obama and progressives in feuds with other more conservative columnists like Stanley Kurtz.In fact, Frum has increasingly bucked the ideas of conservatism in favor of more populist and progressive positions even to the point of being widely considered to be a progressive plant in the media who practices “pragmatic conservatism” which is little more than slower progressivism.He has also consistently attacked the TEA Party as being “too conservative” or “lacking pragmatism”.He has joined a slew of progressive Republicans who have rejected the ideas of reducing the deficit by using the principles of Reagan who lowered taxes to drive up revenue and cut spending to balance the budget.
Frums conservative credentials are weak when viewed in the overall context of his writing and political viewpoints.It certainly doesn’t help his cause that his wife, author Danielle Crittenden, is a long time Huffington Post contributor.In the end it’s pretty clear that Frum is little more than a shill for the progressive movement in general and specifically for the Republican Establishment progressives who value remaining in power far more than retaining freedom and liberty for the people.
Holly Page
Holly Page’s credentials from the No Labels website describe her as having spent 13 years at the Democratic Leadership Council (with the last 5 spent as Executive VP).The site glosses over her real job which is as a lobbyist with Fontheim International.Let’s go back just a moment and introduce you to the DLC.It was started in 1985 by Will Marshall and Al From in response to the dramatic losses by Democrats in the 1984 General election when Reagan conservatism paved the way for Republicans.Reagan’s natural conservatism reached out to the American middle class, a group that had long been courted by and been loyal to the Democrat Party.Democrats had lost the popular vote badly and From and Marshall founded the DLC and it’s think tank the “Progressive Policy Institute” in order to discover ways to win back the American middle class.DLC, PPI and their latest initiative “The Third Way” are aimed at using the moderates and the concept of bi-partisanship to push through the progressive agenda and encourage an ever growing, ever more powerful government.
Mrs. Page has played a key role with the DLC and is responsible for “The National Conversation” which is the largest gathering of Democratic elected officials outside of the DNC.She brokered a deal with Harvard and the Aspen Institute to provide leadership development training to progressive elected officials.Holly is also responsible for setting up the first ever online town hall with President Clinton in 1998 and a World Leaders Summit for the Third Way.She is a dedicated progressive who has worked for progressive political candidates for almost two decades.
This concludes today’s look at the leaders of “No Labels” and gives you an idea of what you will find in the weeks to come as we begin to peel back the label on the people behind the organization.You will see the progressive roots in each leader and the connections to other progressive organizations.The media has called this group “MSNBC’s TEA Party” and to prove its effectiveness the leaders spent the last 12 months preparing a launch event that drew 1,100 people to Columbia University in NYC.By contrast, the 1st ever April 15th TEA Party in Wilmington, Delaware drew nearly 1,500 in the cold and driving rain.Outdoor events across the state drew nearly 2,500 participants.New York City is 9 times the size of Delaware in terms of population.I’m just sayin’.
Congressman Mike Castle has once again displayed the reason he was soundly rejected by the Delaware GOP electorate in his primary bid for U.S. Senate this past September. He has joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh from Indiana, former Florida Governor (and Republican turned Independent) Senate candidate Charlie Crist and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in helping to form the new activist group “No Labels”. The group is said to be “a counter to the T.E.A. Party movement” and the motto is “Not left. Not right. Forward”. The idea of the motto is to portray the group as a mixture of many different ideological perspectives all seeking the common goal of “doing what’s right for the people”. The group seeks to fill a perceived void between MoveOn.org on the left and the T.E.A. Party groups on the right. Sadly, the fact is that the group is built on the idea that THEY know what is best for “the people” and that THEY in turn need to make the decisions. It’s entire concept of a perceived void speaks to its roots in Progressivism and not a real need for Centrist movement.
The group is a concept hatched by political strategists Nancy Jacobson (Hillary Clinton campaign veteran) and Mark MicKinnon (John McCain/George Bush) and touted by MSNBC hosts. In fact, the launch event was moderated by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. Politicians like Crist and Castle jumped on the chance to get behind this new reincarnation of the Soros “Mainstreet Republicans”. Looking through the leadership of the group, it’s easy to spot the real purpose behind the facade. It’s a group intended to promote Progressive policies by using whatever direction the wind blows. Their idea of bipartisanship is little more than moving the country further to the left incrementally instead of all at one time.
Their cause sounds noble. Seeking to make government more efficient and more fluid sounds great but we have to stop and look at what our founders gave us. Is our government meant to be efficient and solve all of our problems? Well, let’s look at the quotes our founders gave us to find that answer:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry
“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." - James Madison
It’s quite clear from these quotes that the founders intended a limited government based on rights possessed by the people and lent to government. It is a government rooted in individual liberty and natural law. What does that mean? Natural law is a law of nature that every person is entitled to from birth such as the right to self defence, the right to pursue happiness and the right to live. Ask yourself this question next time you read about a law the government wants to pass: “Do I have the natural right to do that?” If you don’t have the natural right to do it, government cannot do it either. Yes, that means that a great many of the laws government has created extend beyond the intended reach of government at many levels. Let’s look at an example:
If your friend Tom does not buy health insurance, do you have the power to force him to buy it? Of course not! Neither does the government.
So the Founders intended government to be restrained by the Constitution. There is little doubt of that. But what about the political class we have today? The founders intended the people to be involved in the process and in fact to control government. The founders themselves were not aristocrats; they were farmers, merchants, lawyers (not nearly the lucrative profession it is today), doctors and writers. George Washington is an example of the idea of the founders for government, he was elected President unanimously and could easily have been King for life but he chose to leave office after only 2 terms. The founders even built wording into America’s first laws “Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) and Thomas Jefferson was quite clear when he said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The American government is meant to be small, limited to a few powers defined in our founding document and controlled by the people.
Lastly, let’s talk about the founders intentions for efficiency of government. Washington called government “force” and said “Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” This is a common feeling throughout the origins of our nation. The founders distrusted a powerful government that was able to give the citizens everything they wanted. Ben Franklin said as much, when he intimated that a government large enough to give us all that we desire is large enough to take everything we have. A cursory look over the Constitution itself shows you that the document is meant to be a series of checks and balances. No branch of the federal government has complete control or can even accomplish anything without the others. The President may set the agenda but Congress must pass it and the Supreme Court can overturn it. Congress may control the writing of the budget but the President must sign it and the Supreme Court may strike portions that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a law but they are restricted from writing it or setting policy. Finally we have the issue of the people and the states. They are the final arbiters of federal law. The states were intended to retain more powers than the federal government and the people were left with the bulk of the power. The states, in conjunction with Congress, even have the ability to alter the Constitution which is a power that even Congress cannot do alone. The President has no role in this process at all. The two ways the Constitution can be amended are:
1.) Constitutional Convention (this method has never been used) called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures
2.) A proposal by Congress which is done so by obtaining 2/3rds majorities in both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.
As you can see, the process to change the Constitution and even to write and pass a law is intended to be an arduous process that is not undertaken lightly. We haven’t even touched the partisan divide and lest ye think the founders weren’t a partisan group, remember that from the very beginning there were debates and opinions. The party process has actually streamlined the legal process by uniting individual lawmakers around common party causes and even undercut the states by dividing the Senate along party lines. During the time of the founders, the factions included Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Loyalists. Imagine the gridlock that met the first Congress as the individual states, which had just fought a war against the most powerful army and government in the world, vied for their own piece of the federal pie! Gridlock in government is built into the Constitution and built into the federal government design from the founders.
Now back to our friends over at “No Labels” who claim that the TEA Party is an extremist movement that they stand to be a counter to. We’ve already discovered that their opinion that government should be efficient and solve all of our problems is not in keeping with the ideals of the founders. So let’s examine what the “No Labels” crowd has said in their own words, that they stand to counter. The Tea Party stands for:
So it begs the question, does “No Labels” stand against these things? The media and the political establishment have consistently fought to portray the TEA Party movement as a radical right wing group but I ask each of you who read this, do you see anything extreme in the points above? Do you disagree with the idea that taxes should be kept as low as possible? Do you disagree that individuals should be able to pursue the career of their choice in a market that is not controlled by the government(meaning we aren’t told what to do for a living, what to buy, how to make it and what to sell)? Do you disagree that the government should abide by the Constitution? Finally, does anyone disagree that our government should be ultimately accountable to the people? If you can’t disagree with these things, seek out a TEA Party group near you.
1.) Constitutionally Limited Government
2.) Low Taxes
3.) Free Markets
4.) Government Accountable to the people
The “No Labels” folks are little more than the Progressive political establishment who see the TEA Party movement as a threat to their current monopoly on power OVER the people. They see that it is educating more and more people and that the movement reaches across party lines while the common sense it preaches is refocusing the debate on the issues on their merits and taking nothing for granted. They’re frightened because people like Mike Castle, who long ago stopped listening to his constituents were badly beaten in primaries and general elections across the country. Charlie Crist is another example of a Progressive who was rejected by the people and who has joined “No Labels” in an effort to stick it to the citizens who had simply had enough of the failed Progressive policies. In the coming weeks and months we will look into each of the leaders of “No Labels” in an effort to find the true purpose behind the group. All appearances at this time point to a group of Progressives, largely political pundits, strategists and politicians who are turning on the people of America after being rejected by their constituents and the American public at large.
As a T.E.A. Party leader and Republican I am uniquely positioned to understand the concerns of both sides as they struggle to achieve a balance in a new political climate. The establishment has been running things for a very long time and now some new upstarts are threatening to cut in on their action. The "upstarts" happen to be the electorate as a whole which is actually the way our government was designed. The problem is that it hasn't been run that way in more than 100 years so the establishment has become complacent in their dominance.
Delaware, like New York, Chicago and most other small geographical locations has been controlled by a powerful few for many years. These powerful few come from all political affiliations and they control the most important decisions in the state. While the people retain the power to vote of course and appear to be in control of the process, it is the elite few that control who runs, how they are covered in the media and what support they get from the political parties. It's been said that the only place that plays Chicago politics as good as Chicago, is Delaware.
So it's not surprising that after a divisive Primary election where establishment favorite Mike Castle was beaten by TEA Party favorite Christine O'Donnell, that the two factions would be suspicious of one another. The Democrats are riding a high after their General election victories and they are feeling confident about the Special Election for New Castle County President. They've nominated Tim Sheldon, the current 9th District County Council Representative and former Vice President of Delaware's AFL-CIO. He's still employed by the unions, now serving as the Chief Administrative Officer of the regional bricklayers union and like fellow Democrat Velda Jones-Potter, he's dipping into government resources through another level as well. While not a paid position, Sheldon serves on the board of the Delaware Solid Waste Authority. DSWA is a public/private partnership whose board is appointed by the Governor (and confirmed by the State Senate) and who controls landfill and trash removal in the state.
Councilman Sheldon is paid $27,500 per year by the New Castle County taxpayers part time to serve on County Council and also likely pulls down 6 figures from his full time union job (Not to mention the benefits!). He doesn't really need the money so it's OK that the DSWA appointment comes without pay, what it gives him is an inside track to ensure that his union gets in on the government contract action. It may not be illegal but morally, we have to wonder, is it right?
On the other hand, the Republicans have nominated former State Representative Tom Kovach who was caught on the wrong side of the wave election this year. Kovach is the hand picked candidate of Mike Castle which likely harmed him among conservative voters in his district and may have cost him the election there. This past election was unfortunate as good Republicans lost in places they never should have for various reasons. Some lost because people didn't like O'Donnell and others because of their allegiance to Castle. Whatever the case, unfortunately the good was taken out with the bad. Tom Kovach, for all his bedfellows, is one of the good ones. As a State Representative he served ably in Dover and he stood up for conservative fiscal values. He's a lawyer who specializes in corporate environmental law and intellectual property. He has experience with the land use issues that County Council will be working on and he understands the importance of fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. Tom is perceived as a moderate, "Mike Castle Republican" because he has not been overt about his views on social issues. What we do know about Tom is that he understands that we need cut spending, decrease the tax burden and get government out of the way of the free market to create jobs. These are the things that matter and these are the things that Tom will work to fix in County Council. So what if Mike Castle endorsed Tom Kovach? There has been a lot of talk about working together and uniting to ensure that our economy improves and I believe that Tom Kovach is a candidate that we can all agree will fight to make that happen. With that in mind, consider this my official endorsement of Tom Kovach for New Castle County President. I hope that the members of the Patriot Movement will join me in supporting Tom and standing up against the harmful policies of Paul Clark and Tim Sheldon. Please consider voting for Tom Kovach on Jan. 13th, 2011 in the Special Election for New Castle County Council President.
There has been much posted about how the "extreme right wing" T.E.A. Party people won't support "Mike Castle Republicans" and how that will be the downfall of the GOP in New Castle County. Much of it stems from the fact that conservative activist Christine O'Donnell defeated long time Republican Congressman Mike Castle in the recent U.S. Senate Primary. That has left a sour taste in the mouths of some moderate Republicans who have projected a race between two individuals onto an entire group of people. The fact is that the 2010 U.S. Senate Republican Primary was about Mike Castle and Christine O'Donnell. Mike had drifted too far away from his base and had lost even the mantra of a fiscal conservative by voting time and again for bailouts, spending without limits and massive government growth. Long ago Congressman Castle had shed the skin of social conservatism and alienated many in not just the southern part of the state but the north as well.
For the T.E.A. Party groups, this election was about limiting government to the boundaries of the Constitution, stopping spending and keeping markets free. Mike Castle had become someone who did not represent these values. By contrast, Christine O'Donnell offered fresh ideas, a chance to stop the Obama policies that Castle had largely supported and a set of policies that would return America to the roots of prosperity that we have consistently returned to in times of trouble. Castle also seemed to feel as though he was owed the U.S. Senate seat. He did not feel like he should be accountable to the people of Delaware and specifically, he felt no need to listen to the T.E.A. Party groups. It was clear that Congressman Castle had escaped his base in 2009 during a town hall meeting about the Obamacare legislation when he was asked a question about where in the Constitution it states that the government can be involved in health care. His answer was that the Constitution doesn't PROHIBIT the Federal Government from that activity which ignores the whole premise of the Constitution. The Constitution lays out specifically what the federal government MAY do and specifically (10th Amendment) leaves the rest to the people and to the states. Christine O'Donnell by comparison had studied Constitutional government and understood the founding document. In fact, in the General Election she would display her knowledge at a debate with the eventual winner of the General Election, Chris Coons which was held at Widener Law School. Coons asserted that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and O'Donnell smartly challenged him. As Coons backtracked, the student body of the law school showed their ignorance with laughter at Ms. O'Donnell's position. The media of course went into red alert mode and tried to paint Christine into a corner. Sadly, they showed the ignorance of their positions as the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in any of our founding documents but instead, in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist Ministers in Danbury Connecticut written in 1802 which is not formal policy but rather a reassurance to the delegation that the United States would never adopt a national religion like England did.
The fact that Mike Castle was pro-choice and Christine O'Donnell was pro-life was not an insignificant position by any means but to make the leap that the media did in claiming that it was a deciding factor for TEA Party members is flat out absurd. In fact, for all the work that the media and left wing did to paint Christine as a far right social activist, the truth bears a different story. Christine stood for a limited government approach to many social issues by calling for those decisions to be made at the local or state level and not by the federal government. She was also in favor of maintaining a healthy planet, reducing emissions and being good stewards of the land God has given us. Another myth was presented when GLBT groups began protesting against O'Donnell and asserting that she was anti-homosexual. The fact is that her staff was made up of perhaps the most diverse group of people ever assembled. Nearly every race, gender, religion and sexual orientation was represented and she even had members from every mainstream political party working for her. Christine is far from a bigot when it comes to any of these labels and looked for the best people for the job and not what they looked like, what they did in their personal lives or what religion they practiced.
So you see, this was not an election about an ideologically pure ultraconservative candidate being nominated in a state overrun with leftists the way the media and the establishment has claimed. Nor was it a referendum on all moderate Republicans. It was about Mike Castle and a set of principles that he had abandoned. It was about the base of the Republican Party standing up and being heard by the establishment that had made all of the decisions over the years and it was about busting up the backroom deals and "The Delaware Way" which was designed to keep the powerful in power and the regular citizens in the dark. Christine accomplished something that many others had failed at in the past and while she didn't accomplish the ultimate goal, she has NOTHING to be ashamed of. She's made it possible for regular people to run for office in Delaware again and she's inspired people to stand up for what they believe in. She combined the very conservative folks in southern Delaware with the TEA Party folks all across the state and created a coalition across party lines that stood on principle regardless of the outcome.
For many years, those conservatives and TEA Party folks had voted for Mike Castle and others like him under that old mantra that you vote for the most conservative candidate who can get elected. The TEA Party itself is a melting pot of individuals from hardcore conservatives to moderate Democrats who are united around 3 main principles:
A government limited by the Constitution and all of the rules it contains.
A government that is responsible with taxpayer dollars and keeps taxes low.
Markets that are free and open to the people.
This is what makes the TEA Party continue to grow and what unites people across political party lines and despite establishment claims, this is what will unite the TEA Party and conservatives with establishment Republicans in supporting people like Tom Kovach in New Castle County.
