Rogers' Rants : Rogers' Rants

Monday, November 17, 2008

Harlan Becomes First District Freak Show

Stuart Rothenberg of Roll Call recalls the bizarre story of what happened in the most recent election in the first congressional district:

Wealthy Democrat Jim Harlan was convinced he could beat Republican Rep. Steve Scalise in Louisiana’s 1st district, even though the district is the state’s most educated, most affluent and most Republican. George W. Bush drew a stunning 71 percent in the district in 2004, an even stronger showing than he had in Wyoming.
Harlan put more than $1.2 million from his own pocket into the race, and his campaign directed some of the most ridiculous attacks of the cycle against his opponent. For example, the Harlan campaign criticized Scalise for misleading voters by claiming he had a 100 percent voting record, even though he did have a perfect attendance record. “Scalise actually missed 1,453 votes in the 110th Congress before taking the seat in May,” charged a bizarre Harlan press release.

On election night when Scalise handily beat Harlan, I talked to some Scalise staffers about the race. What they told me pretty much mirrors Rothenberg's account.

Hardly anyone in the district had ever heard of Harlan. He seemingly came from nowhere, launched a series of crazy attack ads (spending millions doing it), and then vanished.

It's baffling that a Democrat would put so much cash into a race in a district that is so reliably Republican.

But he did, and he lost.

Posted By Chad At 9:16 PM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Be Careful, Bobby

Ok, it's pretty obvious Governor Bobby Jindal is campaigning for the presidency:

"As Republicans, we need to do three things to get back on track," he said on CBS' Face The Nation. "Number one, we have got to stop defending the kind of spending and out-of-control spending that we would never tolerate in the other side. You know, when voters tell us that they trust Democrats more to cut their taxes [and] control spending, that tells you something is wrong with the Republican Party. We've got to match our actions with our rhetoric.

Jindal is perceptive enough to realize that the national G.O.P. is in trouble. I hope he's perceptive enough to realize that this may not change anytime soon. If he's campaigning for a presidential run in 2012 (I think that he is), I strongly suggest he shelve his plans for now.

Why?

First of all, it's beginning to cause problems on the home front. There's grumbling among many of his would-be allies (friends of mine in talk radio) about how he's too busy angling for a spot on the national stage. So busy, in fact, that he's neglecting his duties as governor. The more presidential campaigning he does (let's just call it what it is) the more he will alienate supporters on the home front.

Let's face it: the national Republican party is in tatters. There's a sense that things are wrong, that they need to be "fixed," but no one has really identified a way to fix them. There is a question of whether there is a future for anyone in the G.O.P. at the national level, at least in the near future.

President- elect Obama is hugely popular. That's just a reality, no matter how unpleasant it may seem to some of us. Worse still for anyone in the G.O.P. with presidential ambitions, Obama's popularity may well stick.

Why do I say that? Because right now we are in an economic slump, and the economy goes in cycles. An uptick is bound to come sooner or later, and you can bet that when it does, Obama will take credit for it. He won't have done a damn thing to have caused it, but not matter. It's all about being in the right place at the right time. And Obama may well be there when it happens.

And what about the "hot button" issues like gun control and the fairness doctrine? These are issues that his most passionate supporters are fired up about. And like George W. Bush before him, Obama will throw his most passionate supporters under the bus, along with their causes.

Why are they gonna do about it? Vote Republican?

Yeah, exactly.

I can hear some of you already.

"No no no! Obama is a radical! Talk radio and gun rights are gone!"

Chances are the people saying that are the same people who told me John McCain had a chance of winning. I said he didn't: McCain lost.

In his heart, yes, Obama is radical and far-left.

But in practice, Obama will be whatever he needs to be, say whatever he needs to say to get re-elected. And he's smart enough to make sure that whatever damage he does won't be felt until he is unable to seek another presidential term.

Which may make it that much harder for a Republican to win the white house in 2012.

So let's pretend for a moment that just SOME of this will come to pass. It will make winning the presidency very difficult. If Jindal were to win the Republican nomination, then get beaten by Obama in the general election, he would have to return to his job as governor.

But in order to do that, he has to win a second term as governor. Inciting resentment by continually basking in the national spotlight (and ostensibly ignoring his duties at home) will make this difficult.

It's something to consider.

Posted By Chad At 7:53 PM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Friday, November 07, 2008

A Strange Post- Mortem

It feels really strange to be writing a post-mortem on the presidential race. It's as if I wrote it before John McCain won the Republican nomination, and before Obama won the Democratic nomination. And it's not because I'm a genius (I'm far from it). It was just obvious.

My endorsement of Ron Paul reads as a post-mortem of sorts, though it was written many hours before the first polling place closed. But I digress.

When people asked me who the next president was going to be, even before the Democratic nominee was chosen, my answer was succinct: "The next president will be whoever wins the the Democratic nomination."

No, it doesn't matter that Hillary is a Clinton, or that Obama is black (or radical, or whatever you think people will have against him.) It has nothing to do with voter apathy and/ or how stupid people are.

There were two major reasons for Obama's victory. The first is the historical reality of election trends: one party seldom maintains control of the White House for more than eight years. Reality is what it is: not what you or I would like it to be.

The second problem is the current state of the Republican party. The GOP was once described by Abraham Lincoln as a party of "strange, discordant, and even hostile elements." That doesn't appear to be the case today. The party seems to be dominated by the neoconservative philopsophy of big government and big, utopian foreign policy.

Sure, a loose aggregate of talk radio hosts rant about the importance of fiscal restraint and limited government. In her debate with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin talked about how important it was for government to "just stay out of the way."

In the same debate, she talked about how great it was that our government was building schools in the middle east (rather than making them build their own schools with their own money).

The going trend in the GOP and its surrogates is to speak fondly about feeding and educating people in foreign countries that we have invaded. This is being done with U.S. tax dollars. In short, the GOP and its allies have taken the strange position of praising entitlement spending overseas, while condemning it at home.

Senator Obama is consistent, if nothing else. He intends to bankrupt us by "spreading the wealth," as he said to Joe the plumber.

Meanwhile, those of us who condemn entitlement spending at home and abroad are largely friendless.

Welcome to the new America- it looks a lot like the old one.

Posted By Chad At 9:15 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

An Interesting Letter from a Reader

First off, let me respond to the allegation that my vote for Ron Paul was a vote for Obama.

Well, no, not in Louisiana. McCain won Louisiana, and he did so without my help as I knew he could. Frankly though, the results of last night's election leave me feeling vindicated.

And now, an interesting letter from a fellow Ron Paul supporter.

Mr. Rogers,

After reading your two recent editorials on your reasons for voting for Dr. Paul, I feel compelled to write you. I am also a Ron Paul Republican; a Conservative with certain Libertarian leanings. I'm writing you in regards to why Mr. Obama has been elected President, or more specifically, where the Republican Party failed.

Sir, you hit the nail on the head with your Nov. 4th article and I'd like to elaborate on the point that the Conservative base has been abandoned by the Republican Party. First, I'd like to describe to you what I think made the difference this time, the youth and the Independents of America.

Across this nation, Third Party candidates attracted, on average, only one percent of the vote. I would not take that to mean that only one percent are Independents. No, Independents are just that, persuaded by neither party all of the time. For example, Sir, I am a Conservative before I am a Republican and often consider voting for candidates of other parties, and do so rather frequently if I feel they better represent my views than do their Republican opponents. It is a matter of principle.

I often read large, diverse forums, specifically digg.com and slashdot.com. As this election season dragged on, I noticed that many Obama supporters, most of them first or second time voters, were indeed former Paul supporters, who, not unlike most Independents, just wanted change; something other than what the Neo-Cons and their Republican collaborators have given America for the past eight years. Sir, it was these motivated young people, like the ones who registered Republicans for the first time in their lives, just to vote in the primaries for a real Conservative they could believe in, Ron Paul, that made the difference. The Republican Party turned them away. So, they voted for Obama instead. The Republicans had forgotten the Conservative values they once stood for as they threw Dr. Paul under the bus and that made all the difference in the world.

It is said that Democrats fall in love with their candidates, Republicans fall in line In my own Congressional District, Dist 7. Charles Boustany easily won re-election by 60% despite having voted for a bailout, three Congressional pay raises, and then arrogantly refusing to show up to two out of three debates to defend his actions. In the first debate, he was pounded by opponents Don Cravins, Jr. and Peter Vidrine. There was no contest, Boustany was utterly shamed on the stage in Lafayette. It was no wonder that he refused to show up to the next two debates.
KPLC-TV in Lake Charles went ahead with their debate anyway and I can tell you that the Democrat Cravins and the Constitutionalist Vidrine covered the issues that really mattered to Southwest Louisiana, and the Nation unlike any other debate I have seen anywhere this season. If you haven't seen this, go to kplctv.com and watch it before it is removed. It was truly incredible. Both of Mr. Boustany's challengers appeared more Conservative than he did. It really will leave you wondering why either of them lost. All of the Conservative commentators in this district, who are linked to thedeadpelican.com, supported Mr. Vidrine. Yet between the two of them Cravins and Vidrine only could gather 40% of the vote.

Why did they lose? Simple, White fear. Fear of Barack Obama won out over logic and reason and, especially, Conservativism. I say that only because of Charles Boustany's last minute sellout on the bailout and his endorsement, last year, of Rudy Giuliani. It just didn't matter, he has an (R) behind his name; it just didn't matter that his actions in Washington have not reflected the views of those who blindly voted for him as they turned out en-masse to half-heartedly support John McCain. Indeed, Mr. Rogers, how much should we be asked to tolerate as Republicans?

Despite what the naysayers will say, I'll stand by my assertion that if Ron Paul had been the Republican nominee, there would have been no contest. Dr. Paul would be headed for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. not Barack Obama. The Neo-Cons, the Federal Reserve and the Globalists would have been sent packing by the God-fearing Conservatives, the Independents and the Inspired youth who first discovered the hope of Ron Paul's message on the internet... as well as a several African Americans (dig around on YouTube, they're there). Instead, we are left with an untested leader that must guide us through what may yet end up being the worst economic downturn in American history.

What does the future bring? We can't truly say. Probably, continued economic deceleration, more war and a few added layers of stifling governance. The only bright side I can see is that maybe African Americans will finally begin to really feel American and become more interested in her well-being. Maybe then the words of Conservative African American leaders, such as Walter E. Williams and Alan Keyes will reach newly attentive African Americans. Maybe then they will hear the call of Conservativism as they discover the socialist promises of Mr. Obama to be empty and then our numbers may yet grow.

Sincerely,
Richard F. Horvath

Posted By Chad At 3:34 PM • Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

My Vote for Paul and Some Hard Questions

It's election day, and at the time of this writing, it is not known who will become the next leader of the free world.

Today, I made the decision to vote for Congressman Ron Paul for president, after publicly stating my intention to do so.

Now, that announcement has drawn criticism, with lots of talk about "compromise" and "lesser of two evils." I understand those concepts very well.

But here's a question.

Is there anything that die hard Republican voters think is too important to compromise? Is there anything at all that will make them say "no thanks" to the Republican candidate in question? Is there any line that shouldn't be crossed?

Events all throughout this election year have begged the question.

Early in the game, Senator David Vitter endorsed abortion advocate Rudy Guilliani. And the Reverend Pat Robertson joined Vitter in pledging his support. So abortion was not a high priority.

In the G.O.P. primary debates, no one (except for Paul) brought up the fact that the U.S. constitution does not grant the federal government a role in education, and that the department of education ought to be abolished.

No one questioned the compromising of American sovereignty, and handing power to the WTO.

And none of my die- hard Republican voter friends seem to care about any of this. The only important thing is "stopping Obama the socialist."

"If I had to choose between McCain and Obama, would you choose McCain or Obama? " is the question.

Maybe that's the wrong question.

The right question in the mind of this writer is, "Is there anything that you will not tolerate from a Republican candidate, no matter the circumstance? Is there any line that you think shouldn't be crossed? Is there any limit to what conservatives should put up with? Do you think there should be ramifications for crossing those lines?"

My vote for Paul, and rejection of McCain center on two main issues.

The fist is McCain's support of government getting into the banking and mortgage business.

That is socialism, pure and simple.

Then, there's the McCain's opposition to drilling in ANWAR, and his leftward leaning views on climate changes.

McCain is described as "moderate," a term which I seldom understand. Why? Because people who are described as "moderate" seem to have views on important issues that are straight up liberal.

Senator McCain is no exception. He is a good man who has served his country well, but he is nowhere close to being conservative. As far as being "moderate," well,. what is that exactly?

So there you have it. My reasons for doing as I did.

For the record, I supported Bill Cassidy for congress and John Kennedy for U.S. Senate. I'm no wingnut and I'm certainly NOT moderate or liberal. I simply made what I thought to be the best choice.

Posted By Chad At 2:45 PM • Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)

Monday, November 03, 2008

Pulling a Lever for Paul, Again

Ron Paul is on the Louisiana Ballot.

For those of you who wonder, I've never considered (nor would I consider) voting for Obama.

I plan to pull a lever for Paul. He's closer to my politics than either McCain or Obama, and he's been right more often and about more things than the G.O.P. cares to admit (that's why they hate him).

Of course there's been the effort to depict the Ron Paul crowd as crazies. Sure, there's unruly elements. In this writer's opinion, that's typical of great movements in their beginning stages.

The MSM has largely worked to obscure the fact that most of the Ron Paul crowd are quite normal, even intelligent. I personally know a Spanish teacher/ dance instructor, a gas station owner, and a variety of white collar professionals.

All of them are thoughtful political observers and none of them wear tin foil hats.

Folks, I'm not happy with Obama or McCain. McCain is a nice guy and a war hero, but I don't think I can bring myself to pull a lever for him.Not at this time, and not when there's someone on the ballot who more closely aligns with my political philosophy. Eight years ago, maybe.

Obama is every bit the socialist he is made out to be.

More importantly, I think the folks who worked so hard to get Paul on the ballot deserve to be rewarded by those who share Paul's limited government philosophy.

So there it is.

I'm a Ron Paul man.

Again.

ADDENDUM:

It's funny how my endorsement of Paul has elicited expressions of disappointment.

And it's funny how voting for McCain/Palin has been presented to me as "the hard choice."

There's nothing hard about it at all.

If I had endorsed McCain, I wouldn't be getting any flak and nobody would be telling me how disappointed they are.

Endorsing McCcain would not involve sticking my neck out in any way. It would mean following along with the establishment...

Sorry, but in this writer's view, that's why we are where we are.

Posted By Chad At 12:24 PM • Comments (6) Trackbacks (0)

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Allow Me to Translate (Landrieu fan Club Crap)

Here's a little something just for fun. An anonymous email:

EMAIL: Chad I know you hate Landrieu and are in the tank for Kennedy, but come on. If that WWL poll had shown Kennedy ahead, a result not even his people can produce even though they've cooked the books enough with those bogus internals they put out, you would have had the senate race numbers as the headline. I know your not a journalist dude but come on, your better than this. You seem like a nice guy, let's be fair. -- anonymous

TRANSLATION: I'm a paid hack and/ or a fan of Mary Landrieu and I like WWL'S polls better than yours. Neither of us knows the real truth, Chad, but I'm just telling you that MY numbers are the real truth because they suit my purposes and that's what I want to believe. And if your numbers are true, Chad, it's a bit of an inconvenience.

I think you get the picture.

ADDENDUM:

Apparently the same person sent this, saying "Chaz, [sic] I know your [sic] getting anxious with ALL these polls showing your boy losing, but don't you guarantee that these things are anonymous?

Um... what did I miss? Was ANYONE'S name posted (except for Landrieu and Kennedy?). The person identified themselves as "anonymous nola blogger."

Yeah, that really narrows things down.
.
And the more sensitive the nature of the email, of course the more confidential.

Smart ass comments about stuff I post is fair game, but no, I will not use your name.

Posted By Chad At 8:51 PM • Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)

...and I Thought My Jokes Were Bad

You may have gotten one of these with your name on it... ha ha... ho ho... hee hee.. ha ha....
Posted By Chad At 10:57 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Sunday, October 26, 2008

I Don't Like Saying "I Told you So"