A Rudy 08 event held in New Hampshire was aired today on C-Span as a part of their Campaign 2008 series. There was one part of the event that was particularly interesting, as it showed a side of Rudy that should make nervous conservatives feel better about a Giuliani nomination.
A college student pressed Rudy with, "I actually have been looking for a job every day since graduation and can't find one. My student loans are coming up soon and I was wondering what your plans about student loans, forgiveness programs, deferment programs, things like Americorp, the industry of student loans is outrageous and that whole package".
The politically correct answer would've been something about a federal program of assistance, to promise to lower interest rates, etc, but that's not what Rudy did.
In a kind and pleasant way, Rudy basically told her to get a job.
"Why don't you give us your resume and we'll help you get a job. Honestly, that would be the best thing... *applause*"
"...that's what I did very successfully as mayor of New York City, and that's find jobs for people".
The woman laughed and smiled as the crowd applauded Rudy's answer, even though he didn't answer the question! This was a sign of Rudy's brilliance and ability to woo over frustrated voters who seem to buy in to the Democrat agenda of the nanny-state.
Especially if the nominee is Hillary, women will be highly influential in 2008. Rudy has already shown he can get votes from mothers concerned about terrorism, but now he is beginning to show her can win on people concerned about their children's economic security.
This kind of answer would also work on the youth vote, who overwhelmingly support Barack Obama (1).
All of this ties into something that continues to amaze me about Rudy. He's disagrees with the Republican Party on a lot of key issues, but yet still gets relatively positive ratings from the base. John McCain, legislatively, is clearly more conservative, but yet he's losing support from the base- and they're going to Rudy.
1) At a straw poll at St. John's University in April 2007, Barack Obama won over 80% of the vote among people who identified themselves as Democrats
Friday, August 31, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Democrats and The Iraq Study Group Report
Perhaps this response is a tish late, but I'm going to make it anyways.
Democrats have been constantly citing The Iraq Study Group for what it says about there not being a "military solution to Iraq". All their talk prompted me to purchase the book and read it- cover to cover.
Below are a few points that the report makes that fly directly in the face of the Democrats who cite it:
The report states that the war has not been lost and that "all options have not been exhausted (pg x)". It warns that if change does not occur, "the consequences are severe (pg ix)". The consequences are described in further detail, "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations (pg xiv)".
While the report states that the "United States must not make an open ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq (pg xvi)", it also says "the United States should significantly increase the number of US military personnel, including combat troops, embedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units (pg xvi, and repeated again in different terms on pg 70, 73)".
Further commenting on the issue of Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world (pg 34)". Also, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return (pg 38)".
As for their plans after a US withdrawal, they will attempt to "spread the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq (pg 34)".
Even moderate proposals for timetables are rejected, "the point is not for the United States to set time tables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose (pg 67)".
The group clarifies that they "believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support (pg 37)".
The book definitely describes some very difficult problems that we are facing in the country, but it definitely points us in a direction towards victory.
If only Democrats wanted us to win, maybe then they would recognize the numerous facts in the report that they continue to cite.
Democrats have been constantly citing The Iraq Study Group for what it says about there not being a "military solution to Iraq". All their talk prompted me to purchase the book and read it- cover to cover.
Below are a few points that the report makes that fly directly in the face of the Democrats who cite it:
The report states that the war has not been lost and that "all options have not been exhausted (pg x)". It warns that if change does not occur, "the consequences are severe (pg ix)". The consequences are described in further detail, "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations (pg xiv)".
While the report states that the "United States must not make an open ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq (pg xvi)", it also says "the United States should significantly increase the number of US military personnel, including combat troops, embedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units (pg xvi, and repeated again in different terms on pg 70, 73)".
Further commenting on the issue of Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world (pg 34)". Also, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return (pg 38)".
As for their plans after a US withdrawal, they will attempt to "spread the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq (pg 34)".
Even moderate proposals for timetables are rejected, "the point is not for the United States to set time tables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose (pg 67)".
The group clarifies that they "believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support (pg 37)".
The book definitely describes some very difficult problems that we are facing in the country, but it definitely points us in a direction towards victory.
If only Democrats wanted us to win, maybe then they would recognize the numerous facts in the report that they continue to cite.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Cannibalistic Democrats
Recently, Hillary Clinton made a comment that a terrorist attack would likely help the Republican Party and that she would be best qualified to confront the political implications of that in 2008.
She was quickly criticized by John Edwards who said that if a terrorist attack occurred, the last thing we should be is "engaged in a political calculation". Similar comments were issued by Richardson and Dodd.
What these critics are ignoring is that their Party's Senate Majority leader has already stated that Democrats are "going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war". Where's the criticism of Harry Reid? His comment was equally, if not more offensive, and yet these candidates are mum about their out-of-control leadership.
A few posts ago, I described how Howard Dean played the politics of fear and yet every Democratic Presidential candidate layed low on the topic.
Finally a couple Democrats have turned the focus on their own Party in these difficult topics in which Democrats regularly fumble words and confuse ideology.
If only Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were doing it out of a genuine care for the political process, rather than political calculations of their own.
Maybe then there would be some political backlash for what Obama said about US forces in Afghanistan.
She was quickly criticized by John Edwards who said that if a terrorist attack occurred, the last thing we should be is "engaged in a political calculation". Similar comments were issued by Richardson and Dodd.
What these critics are ignoring is that their Party's Senate Majority leader has already stated that Democrats are "going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war". Where's the criticism of Harry Reid? His comment was equally, if not more offensive, and yet these candidates are mum about their out-of-control leadership.
A few posts ago, I described how Howard Dean played the politics of fear and yet every Democratic Presidential candidate layed low on the topic.
Finally a couple Democrats have turned the focus on their own Party in these difficult topics in which Democrats regularly fumble words and confuse ideology.
If only Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were doing it out of a genuine care for the political process, rather than political calculations of their own.
Maybe then there would be some political backlash for what Obama said about US forces in Afghanistan.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Jackels Among Lions
Today, Republican John Warner went public with his thoughts that President Bush should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq "by Christmas". Even with that statement, he rejects demands for Congressional timetables, saying that timetables should be set by the President, not Congress.
So what has Warner really accomplished here? He's graced national headlines for a day, but his comments have little teeth from a legislative point of view. The only thing his comments have done is embolden the Democrats and the insurgents simultaneously.
The political pressure has increased on Bush because of this, but most Republicans will still stand by the surge. It has dramatically decreased the amount of violence in the region, and only when security is achieved can real political progress occur. The General's report will soon reaffirm this and grant unprecedented public support for the change in strategy.
If Warner, and the other Republicans who have wavered in the War on Terror, gain political points, they could likely be temporary.
Republicans who continue to stand up for victory could be recognized in 2008 if a conservative nominee is able to communicate effectively the consequences of defeat. Otherwise, if more Republicans abandon this part of the War on Terror, we could have a party without an identity.
And that's much worse than any Clinton or Obama.
So what has Warner really accomplished here? He's graced national headlines for a day, but his comments have little teeth from a legislative point of view. The only thing his comments have done is embolden the Democrats and the insurgents simultaneously.
The political pressure has increased on Bush because of this, but most Republicans will still stand by the surge. It has dramatically decreased the amount of violence in the region, and only when security is achieved can real political progress occur. The General's report will soon reaffirm this and grant unprecedented public support for the change in strategy.
If Warner, and the other Republicans who have wavered in the War on Terror, gain political points, they could likely be temporary.
Republicans who continue to stand up for victory could be recognized in 2008 if a conservative nominee is able to communicate effectively the consequences of defeat. Otherwise, if more Republicans abandon this part of the War on Terror, we could have a party without an identity.
And that's much worse than any Clinton or Obama.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
What Would Please Obama?
Presidential candidates have been speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars about the ongoing conflict in Iraq, trying to garner up support and establish credibility to become the next Commander-In-Chief. Hillary took this opportunity to look tough, while Obama used his time to dismiss reports of success coming home regarding the troop surge.
Now that the surge that many Democratic leaders doubted would work, some even declared it had failed after a few days, the party's presidential candidates are finding themselves in a tough situation.
Hillary came out and commented on the success of our troops- and was bashed by fellow candidate Bill Richardson (we'll get into that later).
Obama admitted that the surge is working to reduce violence, but then declared victory was not possible (this one will be covered too).
But the underlying theme in all of this is that President Bush's strategy is working dramatically better than what any possible Democratic Commander-In-Chief ever imagined. Yet Obama is still not happy. One must wonder if there is any level of success that would garner an approval from the Senator from Illinois.
Obama isn't alone in this political dilemma. If Democrats are speaking out against policies, then admitting they are working, but promise they will be incredibly different than President Bush, is it understandable for average Americans to be confused and even worried?
It's common knowledge that our next President is going to win on a campaign of change and optimism, but how can one be optimistic when they declare the war lost? How can they run on change (for the better), when they let politics come in the way of what's best for our troops?
While I'd never vote for Richardson, at least he has the right idea with regards to our troops. If the war is truly lost, and no reasonable amount of money, resources, and life can harvest a victory from that country, then why would we allow us to lose one more soldier's life? If the situation is as dire as the Democrats would like us to believe, and they will so long Bush is in office, then why would we allow them to take control? If they are quick to back-stab our Commander-In-Chief, even when he is right, can we trust them with our troops?
Perhaps if the Democrats swallowed their pride and followed the path of Lieberman in regards to Iraq, the country could unite and win in that country. But until then, Americans with a desire for security and victory will be forced to vote Republican.
Now that the surge that many Democratic leaders doubted would work, some even declared it had failed after a few days, the party's presidential candidates are finding themselves in a tough situation.
Hillary came out and commented on the success of our troops- and was bashed by fellow candidate Bill Richardson (we'll get into that later).
Obama admitted that the surge is working to reduce violence, but then declared victory was not possible (this one will be covered too).
But the underlying theme in all of this is that President Bush's strategy is working dramatically better than what any possible Democratic Commander-In-Chief ever imagined. Yet Obama is still not happy. One must wonder if there is any level of success that would garner an approval from the Senator from Illinois.
Obama isn't alone in this political dilemma. If Democrats are speaking out against policies, then admitting they are working, but promise they will be incredibly different than President Bush, is it understandable for average Americans to be confused and even worried?
It's common knowledge that our next President is going to win on a campaign of change and optimism, but how can one be optimistic when they declare the war lost? How can they run on change (for the better), when they let politics come in the way of what's best for our troops?
While I'd never vote for Richardson, at least he has the right idea with regards to our troops. If the war is truly lost, and no reasonable amount of money, resources, and life can harvest a victory from that country, then why would we allow us to lose one more soldier's life? If the situation is as dire as the Democrats would like us to believe, and they will so long Bush is in office, then why would we allow them to take control? If they are quick to back-stab our Commander-In-Chief, even when he is right, can we trust them with our troops?
Perhaps if the Democrats swallowed their pride and followed the path of Lieberman in regards to Iraq, the country could unite and win in that country. But until then, Americans with a desire for security and victory will be forced to vote Republican.
Monday, August 13, 2007
McCain's His Own Worst Enemy
Last year, it was assumed the John McCain was a shoe-in for the Republican nomination in 2008. After all, Republicans tend to nominate "the next in line" and it would seem like Bush's low approval ratings would play right into the hands of the man who ran against him in 2000.
It's almost as though something dramatic happened. Now McCain seems to be slipping out of the top-tier of Republican candidates in recent polls and his staffers are fleeing faster than anyone could have expected.
The main-stream media have blamed it on his unpopular positions on Iraq and immigration. While the latter is likely true, the former is incredibly false. Winning in Iraq still remains very popular with the base, the block of voters McCain seems to be losing the fastest.
So if McCain is the most qualified candidate to lead America to victory in Iraq, and McCain has walked the thin line of supporting victory while criticizing the strategy, then why is he being associated with Bush and his falling support?
They both share a sense of stubbornness that is growing increasingly unpopular.
When questioned about why his immigration bill failed, McCain was quick to blame the "small minority of anti-immigration Republicans". Not only is this incredibly alienating with the group of people McCain is practically begging for the nomination, but it's just dead wrong. It was the vast majority of the base, along with many moderates, who became incredibly upset with his immigration bill.
This isn't the move of a maverick- it's the move of someone completely out of touch with the American people.
In a presidential debate, Gov. Romney made negative remarks on McCain-Feingold and McCain responded with a low defense, blabbing about "getting rid of the money in politics".
After years of implementation, McCain-Feingold has not reduced money in politics and it has been detrimental to the Republican Party. McCain simply ignores these facts and parades on old themes that just don't resonate.
Recently when he was asked about his dismal numbers at the Iowa Straw Poll due to his snubbing of the event, he called the event "worthless". He did something similar back in March when skipped CPAC, citing a "scheduling conflict" while every other candidate spoke to thousands of attendees.
After examining the record, in the end, McCain can only blame himself for his demise.
Rudy can take unpopular positions with the base and remain high in the polls-because he doesn't alienate the base. McCain has taken less important unpopular positions (in relation to Giuliani), and yet seems plagued by them.
And this has lead the people to see the Maverick as someone who really isn't an independent thinker at all. Because of his fall, Republicans in search of an electable moderate will bypass McCain- and turn to the pro-choice, pro-civil union, and pro-gun control Mayor Giuliani.
It's almost as though something dramatic happened. Now McCain seems to be slipping out of the top-tier of Republican candidates in recent polls and his staffers are fleeing faster than anyone could have expected.
The main-stream media have blamed it on his unpopular positions on Iraq and immigration. While the latter is likely true, the former is incredibly false. Winning in Iraq still remains very popular with the base, the block of voters McCain seems to be losing the fastest.
So if McCain is the most qualified candidate to lead America to victory in Iraq, and McCain has walked the thin line of supporting victory while criticizing the strategy, then why is he being associated with Bush and his falling support?
They both share a sense of stubbornness that is growing increasingly unpopular.
When questioned about why his immigration bill failed, McCain was quick to blame the "small minority of anti-immigration Republicans". Not only is this incredibly alienating with the group of people McCain is practically begging for the nomination, but it's just dead wrong. It was the vast majority of the base, along with many moderates, who became incredibly upset with his immigration bill.
This isn't the move of a maverick- it's the move of someone completely out of touch with the American people.
In a presidential debate, Gov. Romney made negative remarks on McCain-Feingold and McCain responded with a low defense, blabbing about "getting rid of the money in politics".
After years of implementation, McCain-Feingold has not reduced money in politics and it has been detrimental to the Republican Party. McCain simply ignores these facts and parades on old themes that just don't resonate.
Recently when he was asked about his dismal numbers at the Iowa Straw Poll due to his snubbing of the event, he called the event "worthless". He did something similar back in March when skipped CPAC, citing a "scheduling conflict" while every other candidate spoke to thousands of attendees.
After examining the record, in the end, McCain can only blame himself for his demise.
Rudy can take unpopular positions with the base and remain high in the polls-because he doesn't alienate the base. McCain has taken less important unpopular positions (in relation to Giuliani), and yet seems plagued by them.
And this has lead the people to see the Maverick as someone who really isn't an independent thinker at all. Because of his fall, Republicans in search of an electable moderate will bypass McCain- and turn to the pro-choice, pro-civil union, and pro-gun control Mayor Giuliani.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Democrats and the Politics of Fear
As mentioned in my last post, Howard Dean made it clear that the only way to end the Iraq War is by electing a Democrat. Is this not the same "politics of fear" that they have accused Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans of partaking in? Despite this obvious truth, no Democratic Presidential candidate has been asked this hardball question, despite how the media reports the Democrats have been asked "very tough questions" at the debates.
If this was the only thing the Democrats were exploiting fears on, I could dismiss their actions as cowardly and self-interested. Unfortunately, these same dirty tactics have been used in the recent 35-W bridge collapse.
The Star Tribune published a cartoon in which the Lt. Governor of Minnesota was blamed for the bridge collapse. Also, an editorial alluded that Pawlenty's gas-tax veto stifled revenue that could have gone towards roads. If that wasn't enough, one Minnesota state legislator went as far as to blame global warming for the weakened bridge condition.
Although I am disgusted with all of this, I can't say I am surprised. I've seen these methods before.
In the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, a clear failure of government on all levels, the majority of the blame fell on President Bush as the Democratic Mayor and Governor escaped relatively unharmed (politically). In this bridge tragedy, the Democratic Mayor and the state legislators of the area have not taken a political hit regarding the infrastructure of Minnesota bridges.
It's almost like Democrats, and the media, travel along the chain of command searching for a Republican to blame.
Then it was Bush, now it's Pawlenty.
If this was the only thing the Democrats were exploiting fears on, I could dismiss their actions as cowardly and self-interested. Unfortunately, these same dirty tactics have been used in the recent 35-W bridge collapse.
The Star Tribune published a cartoon in which the Lt. Governor of Minnesota was blamed for the bridge collapse. Also, an editorial alluded that Pawlenty's gas-tax veto stifled revenue that could have gone towards roads. If that wasn't enough, one Minnesota state legislator went as far as to blame global warming for the weakened bridge condition.
Although I am disgusted with all of this, I can't say I am surprised. I've seen these methods before.
In the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, a clear failure of government on all levels, the majority of the blame fell on President Bush as the Democratic Mayor and Governor escaped relatively unharmed (politically). In this bridge tragedy, the Democratic Mayor and the state legislators of the area have not taken a political hit regarding the infrastructure of Minnesota bridges.
It's almost like Democrats, and the media, travel along the chain of command searching for a Republican to blame.
Then it was Bush, now it's Pawlenty.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Democrats-The Real War Mongers
Howard Dean has told voters that electing a Democrat is the only way to end the War in Iraq, but he fails to mention is his party's candidates have other places on their "Countries to Invade" list. Of all the Democrats running for President, two have mentioned two respective nations they would like to see the United States involved in.
After being called inexperienced because of his comments on meeting foreign leaders, Sen. Barack Obama fought that criticism by saying he would send American troops across the borders of the nuclear power Pakistan. That comment really shrugged off that whole "inexperienced" image now didn't it? Oh and I even forgot to mention Pakistan is a close ally in the War on Terror.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Joseph Biden promised to send US troops in to the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide where U.S. security is not threatened whatsoever.
However, not a single GOP candidate has recommended entering in to another conflict, especially another Middle Eastern one. Yet the GOP is being labeled as the Party of War by the same liberals who desperately want an Obama Presidency.
With the exception of Ron Paul, every Republican candidate is pushing for finishing the job in Iraq and rebuilding our military strength.
The Democrats seem to be uninterested in either of those goals, opting to stretch our military (even further) and finding a new war for which they can cut funding.
You may not see us Republicans turning in to hippies with our own brand of peace songs, but lets consider which political party will promote the safest foreign policy.
After being called inexperienced because of his comments on meeting foreign leaders, Sen. Barack Obama fought that criticism by saying he would send American troops across the borders of the nuclear power Pakistan. That comment really shrugged off that whole "inexperienced" image now didn't it? Oh and I even forgot to mention Pakistan is a close ally in the War on Terror.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Joseph Biden promised to send US troops in to the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide where U.S. security is not threatened whatsoever.
However, not a single GOP candidate has recommended entering in to another conflict, especially another Middle Eastern one. Yet the GOP is being labeled as the Party of War by the same liberals who desperately want an Obama Presidency.
With the exception of Ron Paul, every Republican candidate is pushing for finishing the job in Iraq and rebuilding our military strength.
The Democrats seem to be uninterested in either of those goals, opting to stretch our military (even further) and finding a new war for which they can cut funding.
You may not see us Republicans turning in to hippies with our own brand of peace songs, but lets consider which political party will promote the safest foreign policy.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Rejoice Republicans! (for once...)
Yesterday, voters in the MN district 28B went out in record numbers to vote in the special election to replace former Republican leader Steve Sviggum.
Despite the fact that:
- Republicans were pummeled in 2006
- Drazkowski, the Republican candidate, had been charged with beating his daughter and had issues with child support
- State Senator Dick Day had a record of speaking out against Drazkowski
- The Democrat most likely outspent the Republican
- The Star Tribune endorsed the Democrat two days before the election
Drazkowski won the election with nearly 53% of the vote overall, and a demanding lead of 15 points in Goodhue county.
Although the Democrats are claiming they gained ground because Drazkowski did not gain as many votes as Sviggum had in 2006, there are important signs of optimism for Republicans from this race:
Conservatism is alive and well- Steve Drazkowski took conservative stands on most issues, and because this election was the only item on the ballot (with the exception of Kenyon), it shows a mandate for conservative reform in St. Paul.
Democrats can no longer count on negative campaigning to win elections- Democrat nominee Linda Pfeilsticker ran a mostly negative campaign, focusing on Draz's rough divorce and dropped charges of child abuse. In the end, voters looked past his baggage and entrusted him to succeed Sviggum because he was willing to take stands on issues while Pfeilsticker avoided giving direct answers to most questions.
The tide is turning- and it's coming back to the right. Focusing on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex health benefits, this race showed that the Iraq War is not going to ultimately destroy the Republican Party. People in this area are increasingly anti-Iraq War and yet they still came out to elect a Republican. Although the war is not an issue in state politics, surely a good deal of the anti-Republican sentiment comes from troubles overseas. Just ask all the MN House Republicans that lost their seats in 2006 if they think the war hurt them in the election.
As long as Drazkowski avoids scandal and continues the conservative voting record of Sviggum, his numbers can only go up- With very little time to prepare for the election, Drazkowski had very little time to make his case to the voters. Every one of his ads and newspaper interviews showed exceptional communication skills and let the people knew who the real Drazkowski was. With time, voters will increasingly begin to forget his baggage and recognize him for the stands he makes in St. Paul.
I just hope State Party leadership is smart enough to see this victory for what it is- a blueprint for victory for other MN House Republicans in 2008.
Despite the fact that:
- Republicans were pummeled in 2006
- Drazkowski, the Republican candidate, had been charged with beating his daughter and had issues with child support
- State Senator Dick Day had a record of speaking out against Drazkowski
- The Democrat most likely outspent the Republican
- The Star Tribune endorsed the Democrat two days before the election
Drazkowski won the election with nearly 53% of the vote overall, and a demanding lead of 15 points in Goodhue county.
Although the Democrats are claiming they gained ground because Drazkowski did not gain as many votes as Sviggum had in 2006, there are important signs of optimism for Republicans from this race:
Conservatism is alive and well- Steve Drazkowski took conservative stands on most issues, and because this election was the only item on the ballot (with the exception of Kenyon), it shows a mandate for conservative reform in St. Paul.
Democrats can no longer count on negative campaigning to win elections- Democrat nominee Linda Pfeilsticker ran a mostly negative campaign, focusing on Draz's rough divorce and dropped charges of child abuse. In the end, voters looked past his baggage and entrusted him to succeed Sviggum because he was willing to take stands on issues while Pfeilsticker avoided giving direct answers to most questions.
The tide is turning- and it's coming back to the right. Focusing on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex health benefits, this race showed that the Iraq War is not going to ultimately destroy the Republican Party. People in this area are increasingly anti-Iraq War and yet they still came out to elect a Republican. Although the war is not an issue in state politics, surely a good deal of the anti-Republican sentiment comes from troubles overseas. Just ask all the MN House Republicans that lost their seats in 2006 if they think the war hurt them in the election.
As long as Drazkowski avoids scandal and continues the conservative voting record of Sviggum, his numbers can only go up- With very little time to prepare for the election, Drazkowski had very little time to make his case to the voters. Every one of his ads and newspaper interviews showed exceptional communication skills and let the people knew who the real Drazkowski was. With time, voters will increasingly begin to forget his baggage and recognize him for the stands he makes in St. Paul.
I just hope State Party leadership is smart enough to see this victory for what it is- a blueprint for victory for other MN House Republicans in 2008.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Pawlenty's Gas Problem
For months, Gov. Pawlenty had stated that Minnesota was not an "undertaxed state" and proudly vetoed the gas tax. After the unfortunate incident where the 35-W bridge collapsed, some legislators have sunk to new lows and have already politicized the tragedy.
Critics of the Governor have made statements that he vetoed a tax that would've brought more money in for roads, and under this new pressure, Pawlenty is contemplating passing the gas tax.
Is Minnesota undertaxed now?
After governing from the center during this term, he finds himself in a difficult place. The obvious answer is that money for roads should come from the 2.1 billion dollar surplus. The obvious scapegoat is the financial black hole that is light rail and the transportation amendment that was supposed to boost road funding.
But Pawlenty can't criticize these things- he supported them. Now he finds himself almost forced to accept a gas tax he knows is bad for Minnesotans.
He can still dig himself out of it if he just makes it clear that funding for the road will be provided-just not through an unnecessary tax. Such a move would energize the unenthusiastic conservative base and would have little ramifications on him from moderates if he were to run for a third term. After all, by 2010 the funding situation likely will have been resolved- gas tax or no gas tax.
We as conservatives need to reassure our Governor that we will defend him against the media- as long as he defends the money in our wallets.
Critics of the Governor have made statements that he vetoed a tax that would've brought more money in for roads, and under this new pressure, Pawlenty is contemplating passing the gas tax.
Is Minnesota undertaxed now?
After governing from the center during this term, he finds himself in a difficult place. The obvious answer is that money for roads should come from the 2.1 billion dollar surplus. The obvious scapegoat is the financial black hole that is light rail and the transportation amendment that was supposed to boost road funding.
But Pawlenty can't criticize these things- he supported them. Now he finds himself almost forced to accept a gas tax he knows is bad for Minnesotans.
He can still dig himself out of it if he just makes it clear that funding for the road will be provided-just not through an unnecessary tax. Such a move would energize the unenthusiastic conservative base and would have little ramifications on him from moderates if he were to run for a third term. After all, by 2010 the funding situation likely will have been resolved- gas tax or no gas tax.
We as conservatives need to reassure our Governor that we will defend him against the media- as long as he defends the money in our wallets.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
First Post
Hello all!
Welcome to Minnesota's Conservative Beacon, a blog that shines the right-wing light for all Midwesterners to see.
In the future I'll be blogging about national, state, and local politics from my home here in Minnesota. Feel free to reply with your own thoughts and get the discussion going.
Yours Truly,
Minnesota's Conservative Beacon
Welcome to Minnesota's Conservative Beacon, a blog that shines the right-wing light for all Midwesterners to see.
In the future I'll be blogging about national, state, and local politics from my home here in Minnesota. Feel free to reply with your own thoughts and get the discussion going.
Yours Truly,
Minnesota's Conservative Beacon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)