March 16, 2010Caucus Nite!In addition to Cory Gardner I'll be caucusing for Ken Buck tonight: Whenever your caucus is, wherever you live ... GO. Find the grassroots candidates. Support them. Tell the McCain PAC money boys (and in Colorado's case, girls) to go home. The GOP primary is the only place you can make a real difference. By the time the general election rolls around it's just lesser-of-evils time. In Colorado, tonight's the night. 7 pm. CO GOP caucus location info here: http://www.cologop.org/
Posted by JohnGalt at 7:04 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Still not sure about Ken, I will keep an open mind. I definitely like the idea of Dan Maes over Scott McInnis. This video is not compelling. The problem is...Lobbyists? Really? Fat cat bankers in Greenwich, CT? I just don't get it. He tweets "Tonight, CO has the opportunity to stand against D.C. special interests. Please support my campaign at your..." Sounds like John Edwards! Gonna fight the drug companies for me! Posted by: jk at March 16, 2010 7:23 PM
But jk thinks:
Headed to Legacy School in Frederick by any chance? Posted by: jk at March 16, 2010 7:33 PMMarch 15, 2010"I'm Going to Pick a Fight"Those were the words of William Wallace [1:03] as he set out to meet representatives of English tyranny over Scotland. They're the same words I heard a GOP candidate for CO-4 say to a fellow debate attendee. She had asked him, "How long do you want to keep this job?" Cory's reply was, "I don't want to go to Washington to make friends, I'm going to pick a fight." There were only a few of us standing around him at the time so I don't believe it was a rehearsed line, but it sure made an impression on me: He's going to pick a fight with representatives of federal tyranny over America. Cory was the only one of the four candidates not wearing cowboy boots so I joked with dagny, "Cross him off the list!" But by the end of the debate the other three had not won me over like Gardner did. I went to meet him afterwards and that's where the quote comes from. My question for him was whether he would have a problem having any of the other three candidates on his "team" to which he said, "Not at all." I had a better question for him this morning, which you can read about below the fold. I intend to stand for election as a delegate for Cory at tomorrow's GOP caucus. I called Cory this morning and he called me back. I asked him about his 2010 plan which, for spending reform, only says we need a balanced budget amendment. He said that the 2010 plan is a sort of bare bones summary. He essentially wants to push for a Colorado style TABOR law at the national level, which includes restraints on the growth of spending. He said that neither of these things is required in order to roll back spending. I said, "You're right, if congress wanted to cut spending they could. But what are you going to say when your colleagues say 'You're asking me to vote against something that's popular in my district - what are you going to vote against that's popular in yours?'" He said he's recently gone to the well of the Colorado legislature and proposed a cut in spending by the agriculture department, and that this is a big deal for a representative from a rural district. I agreed and asked if that sentiment would extend to the federal farm bill. He said, "Absolutely." He then explained that the 1996 farm bill was written by Wayne Allard and a senator from Kansas to wean farmers off of subsidies over a 6-year period but subsequent congresses, with Republican complicity, undid the effort. We also talked briefly about government employee unions and ridiculous pension plans. He said that's a problem at the state and the federal level and it needs to be reformed at multiple levels. I asked if it is as simple as candidate McInnis' pledge to reverse the executive order allowing state employee unions. He said that Gov. Ritter's order gave state employee unions the right to bargain collectively - that's what would be reversed if McInnis or Maes is elected. He said it's an important first step but not the whole solution. (I was impressed by his inclusion of Dan Maes who I'm just learning about since he's getting zero press but is what I suppose you'd call "the TEA Party candidate.") I told him I know that he has experience resisting the pressures to go along against his principles at the state level but the pressures in Washington will be even stronger. I said that I think Senator Bunning has some regrets about his career in congress. He agreed and said he plans to spend as much time as possible with constituents in his district instead of in Washington.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:34 PM
| Comments (0)
March 11, 2010CO-4 GOP Debate Tonight in LovelandPublished in the newspaper but found on the 'net only at this left-leaning site: Brought to you by the following five groups who have united for the Great Cause: I'll be attending, vid cam in hand.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:26 PM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
Sadly, I am still stuck in CO-2, even though I escaped Boulder County. Have fun. Posted by: jk at March 11, 2010 3:41 PM
But jk thinks:
I'm sure somewhere in CO-2, a Trotsky-Lenin debate will be taking place... Posted by: jk at March 11, 2010 3:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Every time I go to one of these things I wish I had a threesources.com T-shirt. Shall we make some? It could read, TEA Anyone? Now we only need to choose a color. Hmm, red or blue? (Nobody better suggest green!) Posted by: johngalt at March 11, 2010 4:29 PM
But jk thinks:
I'm taking tomorrow off, I'll play around on CafePress. I was playing around with some Live at the Coffeehouse.com cups. I really like how Hank's Devil Dog Brew stuff came out Shirts and mugs on video display here. Posted by: jk at March 11, 2010 5:30 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Last night's debate started with the excitement of four guys saying, "I agree" but before it was over there were a few areas of disagreement. I'd say the bombshell moment was when Tom Lucero had to defend his YES vote on Referendum C as a "time out" from Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, eliciting criticism from Madere and Gardner: "You can't take a time out from your principles" and "We can't set reasonable spending limits and take a time out when the going gets tough." It's a shame because Tom was looking very good to me up to that point. I have video of everything but the closing statements and want to put up a few highlights soon, along with more commentary. Until then if you're interested you can see the entire debate on video at People's Press Collective (a weird name for a conservative site if you ask me.) There were some good one liners: Diggs Brown: I'm 52 years old and I understand that the US Army won't let me kick down Taliban doors any more. That's fine. Now it's time to go kick down Nancy Pelosi's door. Cory Gardner: Betsy Markey and Nancy Pelosi have spent more tax dollars in just one year than Bill Clinton did in eight years. More this weekend. Posted by: johngalt at March 12, 2010 11:00 AMMarch 1, 2010More Bad News for Jane NortonAnd good news for TEA Partiers. Not only is former CO state senator Tom Wiens now running the first radio ads of the primary campaign against Norton, a national PAC has drawn a bullseye on her too. This is the first I've heard of the Declaration Alliance (as in Declaration of Independence) but for the most part, I like what I see. I definitely like the ad. They're also targeting Schwarzenneger and Crist.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:08 PM
| Comments (0)
February 23, 2010The Glenn Beck FactorWSJ's John Fund saw the Beck speech at CPAC about the same way I did: Good for the GOP. In reality, the Tea Party activists who are the core of Mr. Beck's viewing audience have made a pragmatic decision to forswear splinter-group politics and work within the Republican Party. It's true Mr. Beck's words sting and may show insufficient appreciation for recent GOP solidarity against big government. But given the powerful pressures in Washington for even conservatives to backslide when it comes to spending, the Fox News firebrand is probably doing GOP members a favor by keeping the heat on them.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:13 AM
| Comments (1)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
The Refugee must stand by JG with respect to Glenn Beck. Beck's schtick is often painful, his analogies hokie and his sky-is-falling routines sometimes over the top. He certainly does not have the sophisticated erudition, rapier wit or panache of William F. Buckley. But he tries to engage busy, working people in the concepts of individual liberty and responsibility. We have precious few pundits who try to bring these ideas to more than us pencil-heads. I suspect that more people see Beck in a day than saw Buckley in a year. I also admire his willingness to hold everyone's feet to the fire, which is the spirit of the Tea Party. I contrast Beck to Sean Hannity, whom I see as an enabler of the Republican downfall. While the Republican Congress was spending like drunken Democrats, Hannity had the likes of Tom DeLay on his show routinely to rationalize and obfuscate their behavior. The party, and the Republic, would have been better off if he had called DeLay to the carpet as Beck is now doing to the Republicans. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 24, 2010 11:01 AMFebruary 21, 2010BarnburnerI was going to make this an "Otequay of the Ayday" post but there were too many good quotes. Glenn Beck keynoted this year's CPAC conference. It was brilliant. He told Republicans it's time to say, "I'm sorry." "It is still morning in America, it just happens to be kind of a head pounding, hung over, vomiting for four hours kind of morning in America." Why? Progressivism. And it's in both parties. "I'm so sick of hearing people say, 'Oh, well, Republicans are going to solve it all.' Really? It's just Progressive Lite. (...) Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To 'progress past' the Constitution." He then played on his own battle with alcohol addiction and mocked the Republican party with the first step of the Twelve Step program: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I've got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government." Watch the video to see what he said about the Big Tent concept, and many, many other good points. Like American citizens giving ten times the charitable contributions of France ... per capita. And the depression of 1920 as compared to the "Great Depression." And Calvin Coolidge versus Woodrow Wilson. Hat tip for the vid link to a critical Ryan Witt at examiner.com. Some good comments there and he promises to "fact check" Beck's speech "later today."
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:10 AM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Like a good joke, I enjoyed it the FIRST time (comment on post above). But this thing kicks off once every hour. No wonder liberals hate Glenn Beck -- he won't shut up!!! Without objection, tomorrow I will replace the embed with a link.
But johngalt thinks:
Hey, have you heard that Tiger Woods plans to legally change his name? From now on he'll be known as Cheatah Woods. (Sorry if it's not the first time for that either. I attempted to fix the vid.) Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 2:58 PM
But jk thinks:
And my brother in law told me that Michelle Obama is pregnant! -- of course, they're blaming George W. Bush! Sad to say that crazy man once again tried taking over my workday. Jeez! No wonder everybody hates him... Posted by: jk at February 22, 2010 4:51 PMFebruary 18, 2010NRSC AdHat-tip: Don Luskin: "I didn't know the GOP had this kind of style. Very fun and cool."
Posted by John Kranz at 1:56 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Nice! They even used AC's "epic fail" but this time for the stimulus bill. Posted by: johngalt at February 18, 2010 3:33 PMJanuary 27, 2010I was wrr.. wrro.. wrooon..Last week I cast our friend McCain as a RINO. That was not quite precise. A better description would be Progressive. McCain was best described as a progressive - like Teddy Roosevelt, whom he cited constantly. McCain tended to see politics as a contest between the national interest and the selfishness of private agendas, and he favored a role for government in counterbalancing the excesses of organized wealth. But that's not all. He's also a flip-flip-flopper. This is the consensus: McCain's basically a right-winger, but at least you know where he stands. I wasn't wrr..ong only about RINO vs. Progressive, but also when I parenthetically noted, "I'm even OK with it" [McCain winning re-election on Tea Party coattails.] While consciously aware of the fact that personality often distracts voters from a politician's policies, I was subconsciously taken in. Just as our government needs massive structural reform to rescue the nation economically, the GOP can no longer include Progressives in its Big Tent. They don't help us, you see, they neuter us. There's a place for those people and it's called the DNC, as lap dogs to The One. And it's not just McCain, to whom I had ascribed Chait's "unwavering authenticity" whose personality clouded my judgement, but Palin as well. These people are right - "Time to pick a side, Sarah - Are you with the people, or against them?" I'll reiterate my willingness to kick her to the curb if she ever strays from the small-government playbook, and if she follows through on plans to campaign for McCain that's either a massive miscalculation or an admission of guilt. Either way, it'll be tough to recover.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:33 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
I suspect you're rrrr....right. He does aspire to TRism. Question is: does a big tent GOP have room for progressives? This pragmatist has to say yes. Posted by: jk at January 27, 2010 5:07 PM
But Keith thinks:
Progressive in TR's day didn't mean the same as it does today - or for that matter, what it did in Lincoln's day. Ask today's self-styled "progressives," and you're talking about central-planning, tax-raising former listeners of Air America. Perhaps the problem is that, in both parties, people run for office and seek to get into government because they believe government can fix the problems. Not much future for, or much appeal to, someone hopinge to dismantle large parts of government. Among the Dems, that attracts lefty statists to swell the nannystate; among the Reps, it still attracts people who want to fiddle with the levers of government. We'd vote for someone who wanted to assume office because he promised to dismantle the EPA, the Dept. of Education, the Dept. af Agriculture, and dozens of others - but why would that guy ever want to run? Posted by: Keith at January 27, 2010 7:07 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Surprise! We disagree: "Just as our government needs massive structural reform to rescue the nation economically, the GOP can no longer include Progressives in its Big Tent." Posted by: johngalt at January 28, 2010 1:55 AMA Link, an AnalogyRepublicans (and Tea Partiers) could and likely will do worse than to adopt Rep Paul Ryan's GOP Road Map for America's Future. Ryan lays out outstanding alternatives to Democrats' health care, taxation, and spending policies. I'll suggest you read the whole thing before the SOTU speech extravaganza this evening. I promised an analogy. I read this and thought "like a broken clock, the GOP is right twice a day." The Democrat Clock is not broken. It provides -- on request -- a perfectly random time value. It's not ever right in a predictable matter. Call me mean spirited, but that captures my mood these days. I can't go on about the swellness of the GOP -- but when I look at the other guys...
Posted by John Kranz at 12:22 PM
| Comments (0)
January 23, 2010Draft Kudlowjk, brace yourself. There is a movement about to draft Larry Kudlow to run against Chuck Schumer. Kudlow hasn't denied interest and has said that, "defeating Senator Schumer would be a noble cause."
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 3:15 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Signed it yesteday, hb -- but thanks for thinking of me! Prosperitarians Unite! Posted by: jk at January 23, 2010 5:06 PMJanuary 21, 2010The Black Vote and the Party of LincolnThomas Sowell wants to know why Republicans haven't given more thought to winning the black vote. "If they get 20 percent of the black vote, the Democrats are in trouble-- and if they get 30 percent, the Democrats have had it in the general election." Many of the key constituencies of the Democratic Party-- the teachers' unions, the trial lawyers, and the environmentalists, for example-- have agendas whose net effect is to inflict damage on blacks. Urban Renewal destroys mostly minority neighborhoods and environmentalist restrictions on building homes make housing prices skyrocket, forcing blacks out of many communities. The number of blacks in San Francisco has been cut in half since 1970. He has some good practical advice. "The teachers' unions are going to be against the Republicans, whether Republicans hammer them or keep timidly quiet. Why not talk straight to black voters... Blacks have been lied to so much that straight talk can gain their respect, even if they don't agree with everything you say." Come to think of it, that last part applies to voters of any race. Just ask Scott Brown.
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:07 PM
| Comments (0)
One for Brother Keith!The impact of Tuesday's Senate election in Massachusetts hit California within hours, as Republican office- seekers moved to grab opportunities and nervous Democrats scrambled to assess how vulnerable their party's largest stronghold may have become.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:31 PM
| Comments (2)
But Keith thinks:
Just remember, you heard it here first. ThreeSources has scooped the LA Times. Sweet. Posted by: Keith at January 21, 2010 5:44 PM
But jk thinks:
The "layers and layers of fact checkers" at a profession Journo shop like the LA Times has to introduce a certain latency, Keith. I really don't want to make a big deal of it. By the way, though, Rielle Hunter's kid is actually John Edwards's... Posted by: jk at January 21, 2010 6:36 PMJanuary 20, 2010Unaffiliateds MatterMuch was made of Massachusetts Democrats' 3-to-1 registration advantage over Republicans, but the raw numbers are roughly - 11% Republican, 36% Democrat and 51% Unaffiliated About one in four Democrats went for Brown but independents were for him three to one. Wondering how things might fall in the "Replace Bennet" race in Colorado I looked up the statistics: 35% Republican, 34% Democrat, 31% Unaffiliated Bennet can have all of the Dems here too and it will do him about as much good as it did for Coakley. Keith dreamed aloud of a threat to his two lovely senators in California. So what are the registration numbers out there brother?
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:12 PM
| Comments (4)
But Keith thinks:
The most recent figures (dated 5/4/2009) are 44.6% Dem, 31.1% Rep, 4.4% Other, 20.0% none-of-your-damn-business. Given a candidate with Scott Brown's coalition appeal to conservatives and independents, a win for the good guys could happen. Barb "Ma'am" Boxer continues to poll under 50% with strong negatives; Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina, and Tom Campbell are all within striking distance. If anti-Obama polling stays high, California could be very much in play. Here's Rasmussen's take: Posted by: Keith at January 20, 2010 3:58 PM
But johngalt thinks:
The idea behind this post was to show how Democrats are vulnerable in state after state come November but I didn't find an easy reference for registration numbers in all fifty states. Brother Keith showed us that Kal-e-fourn-ya is even more Democrat ridden than Massachusetts but many more Republicans to go along with them. I think I'll just save myself a bunch of work and analysis and wrap this up with an observation by Lindsey Graham. "We could win Obama's seat in Illinois and Biden's seat in Delaware this November, to go along with Ted Kennedy's seat we won last night." Sounds good to me! Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 12:02 AM
But Keith thinks:
Ted's Kennedy's seat, jg? It's the peoples' seat! If it were Ted Kennedy's seat, it would be upside-down, and under five feet of water. D'oh! Posted by: Keith at January 21, 2010 1:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Speaking of Ted Kennedy, the sound we've been hearing may not be Democrats whistling past the graveyard - it might be Uncle Teddy spinning in his grave. I'll not speak ill of the dead but it's quite ironic that passage of the healthcare bill that Kennedy's colleagues once considered naming after him has been derailed by his successor in office. Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 5:26 PMJanuary 18, 2010The Democrats are DoomedOverblown rhetoric no doubt, but it ain't mine. It's the sub-head of a TNR article that tries to argue in favor of passing the cap-and-trade bill this year. So what's their definition of "Democrats are doomed?" "Worst of all, Democrats are likely to lose at least a few seats in November--and with them, their chances of overcoming a GOP filibuster--so this may be their last chance for some time to set limits on greenhouse gases." With "doomed" now wasted, what superlative will TNR use if Democrats actually lose the majority too?
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:46 PM
| Comments (0)
January 16, 2010The Backlash is Coming! The Backlash is Coming!Before I'm chided for overconfidence, the title comes from the linked article by Boston political analyst Jon Keller, who has standing to make a Paul Revere analogy. He makes some interesting points. Independents are breaking for Mr. Brown by a three-to-one margin, Rasmussen finds. And many people do not realize that independents outnumber Democrats—51% of registered voters in the state are not affiliated with a party, while 37% are registered as Democrats and 11% as Republicans. Keller enumerates some of the extremes as being civilian legal rights for terror suspects, tax hikes both locally and nationally, crashing poll numbers for Governor Duvall Patrick who was prototypical in many ways for the Obama presidency, and of course - Obamacare. Support for the state's universal health-care law, close to 70% in 2008, is also in free fall; only 32% of state residents told Rasmussen earlier this month that they'd call it a success, with 36% labeling it a failure. The rest were unsure. Massachusetts families pay the country's highest health insurance premiums, with costs soaring at a rate 7% ahead of the national average, according to a recent report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund. JK worried that Brown may be "peaking too soon." I have to wonder when would be better - Monday afternoon? But according to Keller, Boston Democrat consultants are still in denial. If Coakley makes a comeback I predict it will be by chicanery, not by heavier turnout among the 37% Dems and 12% pro-Coakley independents.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:34 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Better to peak too soon than not at all. I just hate to give them the chance to rebound. They're busing in union thugs, pulling in the big guns. To answer your question, yeah Monday afternoon would rock! Posted by: jk at January 16, 2010 7:16 PM
But Keith thinks:
And if that Chicago chicanery (got a nice ring to it, doesn't it?) comes to pass, like a couple of thousand previously unnoticed Coakley votes suddenly get discovered in the back seat of somebody's Volvo, f'rinstance, one might expect even higher turnout - with pitchforks, and flaming torches. Would it not be delicious for Mr. Obama to wake up on the morning of his admistration's anniversary, knowing that he'd lost his filibuster-proof Senate supermajority? Now THAT would be Morning In America. Posted by: Keith at January 17, 2010 11:31 AMJanuary 14, 2010GOP faceoff in COJK recently shared Ten Tips for the GOP in 2010 and before that cheered when cold water was poured on an official Tea Party to compete with the GOP. Both posts came to mind as I compared and contrasted the leading GOP candidates for JK's $1000 contribution next fall. Colorado Republicans will choose between former Lt. Governor Jane Norton and Current Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck as replacements for the ignominious Michael Bennet. Despite being our Lieutenant Governor I know little about Mrs. Norton other than her self-described Issue positions. (I did write her about one of them. Read below the fold.) My brother seems to have a better sense of things, however, encouraging me to attend the March caucuses to support Buck over Norton because "she is the establishment candidate - read: RINO." Well, I have to say I did see Ken Buck at the 4/15 TEA Party. If Norton was there I didn't see her. Dear Jane, I'm a 46 year-old pro-choice Republican and Tea Partier. I've just read your Issues page and have just one objection - to your belief that "abortion should be outlawed" with limited exceptions. I agree that life begins at conception. However, your exception for the "life" of the mother must include the mother's freedom to direct her own life. THIS protection IS provided in the Constitution. (Amendments 4, 5, 9 and 10.) I agree that the unborn should be valued but I disagree that it is moral or possible for the State to coerce individuals to do so. Instead advocacy, counseling, and good role models can change women's hearts. I have no objection to your personal opposition to abortion - only to your desire to use the power of the State to enforce your will on others. I think many Colorado voters would agree with me.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:00 PM
| Comments (6)
But jk thinks:
I am uncommitted but met Ms. Norton at a rally for Governor Owens reelection. Associating her with Owens starts her out pretty high for me. If we're demanding a prochoice GOP candidate, I think we might be in for six more years of Senator Bennet. Posted by: jk at January 14, 2010 4:49 PM
But kevinallen thinks:
I would encourage you to support Ken Buck above all others, because he is the candidate that has, and will, do the right thing regardless of the political consequences. Ken Buck doesn't pander in talking points, he isn't trying to convince you he is a good republican, he walks the walk every day.
But johngalt thinks:
I don't demand a pro-choice GOP candidate. My intention was to shape the position of this particular candidate. I think it would help her in the general election. Come to think of it, I didn't even ask her to become pro-choice. Just don't use law to enforce her view on others. Have you forgiven Governor Owens for supporting the tax and spend referenda C and D? Posted by: johngalt at January 14, 2010 8:43 PM
But jk thinks:
Yup! A few years with Governor Ritter and it's "Come Home Bill, We Need You!!!" I know where you're going and I completely agree with you, jg. I just think you are playing with fire. (Perhaps I don't agree, LtGov Norton is not wrong on the law, but I do join you in wishing she would not choose to use the coercive power of government.) How-double-ever, if she chooses to make that a plank, I am ready to overlook it.
But johngalt thinks:
As am I, but it definitely factors in to my decision of whom to support in the caucus. Ken Buck is looking better every day. Let's not make Norton the presumptive candidate. Posted by: johngalt at January 15, 2010 1:03 PM
But jk thinks:
Eminently fair. It strikes me that a perfect function of Internet-blog-new media-whatever would be to communicate candidate's positions in lower races and primaries. The CO GOP page (oh, I do crack myself up sometime) should have an online debate, or questionnaire responses. Right now, you really have to choose a candidate based on the skill of their web team. Is this something we should be doing? January 11, 2010Ten Tips the GOP will Ignore in 2010Why so gloomy, jk? Well, Michael Steele was on FOX News Sunday and... I don't think anybody at GOP HQ will read this, but ThreeSourcers should. Clark Judge lays out "10 Tips for the GOP in 2010." I don't know that it would match any of our individual list, but I don't think there's a thing on there anybody around here would disagree with. We could do much worse for an agenda -- and, of course, we will.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:37 AM
| Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:
I'm not so pessimistic to think the party leadership will fail to read the tea leaves. It's taken the last 12 months for the current mood to homogenize (heh - he said homo) and it's not unreasonable if the party only starts to adopt it now and over the next 12, errr, 11 months. Speaking of eleven... 11. Inspire the American underclass to get off the "have-not" track and become of the "haves." - Trade your welfare check for a paycheck, which actually has a potential for growth.
But jk thinks:
How can you blather on about reliance and job creation, jg? Leader Reid made a comment about President Obama's RACE! We have a lot more important things to do in the Republican party than compile a list of core beliefs and legislative priorities. I was very pleased when LtGov Steele took the post (the guy is clean, articulate, light skinned, and has no Negro accent!) No, seriously he is a bright guy and I was sorry to see him lose the Senate race in MD. But I am exasperated with trivial politics and name calling when important concerns are afoot. I see no sign that anybody in GOP leadership has "got" any message.
But johngalt thinks:
Well, I suggested that they are only starting to "get the message" and have 11 months to ramp it up. If putting the Democrat majority leader of the Senate on the defensive for a few cycles can help keep them from peaking too soon, so be it. I don't want Reid to resign, I just want him to be the butt of more jokes. And the Boston Herald endorsement of Scott Brown that you heralded above [couldn't help it] should make it easier for other media lemmings to venture over the cliff of politically correct orthodoxy and give individualism a try. Before you know it they may question The One himself. Posted by: johngalt at January 12, 2010 3:32 PMJanuary 1, 2010New Year ThanksThe first decade of the 21st century has come to a close. 2009 is widely regarded as a crappy year (though it did mark the birth of my third, very precious, daughter) and surpassed in crappiness in recent memory only by 2008. 2010 can only be better still, right? I'll take this opportunity to wish all Three Sourcers a happy and hopeful new year, for knowledge of what is possible is the beginning of happiness, and to invite everyone to list in the comments what you are thankful for on this memorable date. Me? I'm thankful there's only one more year for the 111th Congress.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:42 AM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
You guys wanna start the decade on a lot of Kumbaya, feel good, be-thankful nonsense, go right ahead. I'm going to pick a fight. I'm not a resolution-kinda-guy, but I liked this one from the Christian Science Monitor: "Resolve not to repeat the media's mantra of America in decline." "widely regarded as a crappy year..." perhaps, but I'm going to take a Reason-magazine style approach and ignore all the horrible things happening in government and celebrate technological and social advances. In 2k10, I am thankful that: -- Devil Dog Brew is now the official coffee of Live at the Coffeehouse dot com -- I live in America and Jimmy P enumerates "Why this may still be the American Century." -- I can look forward to another year of persiflage with the most engaging and thought provoking group of bloggers who ever found their way onto the Information Superhighway (Someone's typing, Lord...) Happy New Year!
But Sugarchuck thinks:
I am thankful for civil discourse and the times when we can agree to disagree, on everything from Rand to Clapton. I too am thankful for 2010 and the day of national house (and senate) cleaning to come. As always, I am very, very thankful for my wife and my three daughters. I am glad that George Bush was our president and that whatever faults he may have had he kept freedom's lamp trimmed and burning in a dark world. I am thankful for Ernests, Tubb and Hemingway. Thank you Lord for telecasters and please bless our Three Sources host and his lovely bride in the year to come. "kumbaya" Posted by: Sugarchuck at January 1, 2010 10:40 PMDecember 22, 2009He Hate Me
Capturing my thoughts in the wake of the Nebraska (and Louisiana and Vermont and Massachusetts and Connecticut and NEVADA) windfalls.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:17 AM
| Comments (1)
But AlexC thinks:
love it. nice XFL connection. Posted by: AlexC at December 22, 2009 5:27 PMDecember 5, 2009Freedom Nationally, Virtue LocallyHaving wished out loud here for a conservative candidate like Sarah Palin to advocate limited government in the economic AND the social spheres I was naturally pleased to hear evangelical Christian Kevin Miller talk about his new effort to "reestablish crucial commonality and shared success among social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and all freedom-cherishing Americans." (Hey, that got your attention din't it!) Christians know from the New Testament that virtue is not accomplished even by Biblical law — so how much more powerless is civil law to create virtue? No national government can achieve both freedom and virtue: neither will be accomplished ... Hat tip: Mike Rosen's second hour today [audio file].
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:20 AM
| Comments (0)
November 25, 2009Defeat PelosiBah. Impossible! It's likely that many readers have seen the following letter circulating via email. It is legitimate and has been verified by Snopes.
[Page 2 is below the fold] A friend with far better things to spend his time on than politics wrote to Mr. Guthrie: Dear Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Guthrie wrote back: In fact, Ms Pelosi has a strong opponent who I had the pleasure of having supper with a couple weeks ago named John Dennis. You can evaluate him yourself by going to johndennis2010.com. I am doing what I can for John from afar. John is a principled conservative CONSTITUTIONALIST. He needs all our help financially, endorsement wise and in merely spreading the word. Please let me know what you think after looking at his web page. I visited John Dennis' website and found this in his explanation of "why run?" It's also important that those who can effectively deliver the liberty message do it. The time has passed to pretend that "someone else will do it." I don't believe that ANY Democrat will be safe in 2010. My friend is sending a cash donation to help Defeat Pelosi. I will do the same.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:19 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
I'm in. Dennis's candidacy defines "quixotic," but I do admire his spirit. I have wasted money on worse things. Posted by: jk at November 25, 2009 4:28 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, one has to wonder if he can poll a higher percentage than Cindy Sheehan did in '08 (16.8%). It may be completely out of reach due to a gerrymandered redistricting in 1993. But his views on privacy and the Patriot Act should be popular there. Who knows, a few more public disputes with the CIA could take her down a few pegs. And making her spend at least some of her time campaigning could keep her out of the devil's workshop for a while. Posted by: johngalt at November 27, 2009 11:23 AM |