Post-Election Huddle - What Happened

This election drubbing for Republicans is a learning experience in the best and worst sense of the word. The losses that the Republicans had down the ballot for the most part started from the top, so it's wise to focus on the McCain/Palin v Obama/Biden race. To put it another way, Obama had coattails. Here's how the popular vote shifted from 2004 to 2008 (preliminary 2008 numbers, they may shift):

Preliminary 2004-2008 vote comparisons:

Year	Total	Republicans	Democrats
2008	118,226,000	55,543000	62,683,000
2004	121,068,000	62,040,000	59,028,000
Totals	-2,842,000	-6,497,000	3,655,000

The GOP lost 6 million votes from 2004, the Democrats gained 3 million to 62 million.

As part of the "What happened and why" we have to consider these factors:

1. The Bush legacy. How Bush performed in office - the war against terror, the economy, etc., and how it was perceived. Bush was in the past year not very popular, in a large part due to his own base having a disappointed view of him, and that translating into a drag on the ticket. It's genesis was from Katrina, Harriet Miers, Iraq war fatigue, immigration, conservative issues with spending, etc. Note to next GOP President (whenever that comes): Dont screw up a war; Dont spend like drunken sailor; Dont PO your base; Dont let a financial crisis hit 6 weeks before an election on your watch.
2. How the Republicans in power have met or not met their stated agenda items. Did we have 'agenda exhaustion' or are there agenda items left undone? A lot is tied to #1, and the view from conservatives' perspective is that Republicans didn't govern as conservatively as they promised. The faultlines are particularly sharp on elites-vs-populists items like immigration, .
   
3. John McCain - the candidate and the campaign, and Sarah Palin. I commented on a forum to this effect - "I dont think critiquing McCain would help. Given his money disadvantage and the media bias, he ran as good a campaign as you could expect. OTOH, there were serious technology deficiencies on MCCain side and advantages on Obama side that need to be corrected." I got this reply:
   "McCain ran a terrible campaign. I can personally attest to that having been a volunteer for his campaign in VA makiing telephone calls and handing out sample ballots. The Obama campaign was much more organized and prepared. I can't tell you how many times this campaign resembled the Keystone cops. We didn't have poll watchers or a presence in many places. And there was no cohesive message. Again, Obama, his experience and his associations, should have been the issue and focus from day one. In many respects, the issues were tangential. And because McCain was the candidate we couldn't go after Obama on immigration issues such as amnesty, drivers licenses, etc. and global warming. Immigration was, and continues to be a big issue in NoVA. Coal is big in SW VA. And McCain has a difficult time in debating. He is not quick on his feet." In the end, the lack of a clear message - here's why you need to vote for me and run screaming away from the other guy - doomed McCain. "Country First" was a great slogan, but it somehow got lost in the muddle of the focus on the economy, and meanwhile, Obama stuck to his "Me=change, McCain=Bush" simplistic but consistent message.
   
4. The strengths and weaknesses of Obama and the Democrat lineup. $600 million dollars and a friendly media covers up many sins. Obama was able to take advantage of his unique background (that made him a 'celeb' candidate that few first term Senators could achieve) and suffer few if any negative consequences for having radical associations. This is partly due to McCain's reticence to press the Rev Wright issue home. But a more important lacking element was Obama's left-liberal views on social issues - not put on the table.
   

One factor stands out: The financial crisis factor. Prior to the financial meltdown in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy on September 15th, McCain was leading Obama slightly. Once that happened, polls turned to Obama, and McCain never was ahead since. It was an election gift to Obama, that made the economy the #1 issue and made it easy for him to run against the status quo. (Never mind that to me, Obama is a greater threat to my 401k than anyone else out there.) But McCain's decision to support the bailout bill, as did Obama, muted differences in approach on the crisis. What might have been:

"With all due respect to Sen. McCain for his service above and beyond the call of duty to his country, he represents the GOP's past. He is well known for standing up for what he believes is right, but sometimes what he believes is best turns out to be wrong. He missed a golden opportunity of his own when he reacted to the financial storm that hit this county. Had he stood up against the taxpayer-funded bailout of the same financial houses which were part and parcel of the problem, he would have demonstrated that he really is the maverick he never failed to tell us he was. But he didn't. He opted instead for an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into the private sector. That may well have cost him the election. John McCain, God bless him, is the Republican Party's failed past. Young Turks such as Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin and LtC. Allen West aret its future." - Josh Painter, RedState

Now that the election is done, I'd like to analyze the challenges that we face on four levels:

1. The nuts-and-bolts election-level. What did the Democrats do better in candidates, campaigns, technology, outreach, organization, GOTV, messaging etc. in appealing to voters and getting them to the polls? What should we emulate or not?
   
2. The challenge in the immediate political future of how to leverage what little influence the conservative and Republican side has, and how to defeat the threats they will pose to freedom. How to "Stop Obama's Socialism", and stopping the "Fairness Doctrine".
   
3. The challenge of rebuilding the Republican party, improving the brand, and getting ready for the next election cycles. How do we fix what's wrong with the party?
   
4. The challenge to the conservative movement and to conservatives in the grassroots, in the media, in the think tanks. We will have to rethink - what part of the agenda is still viable? We even have contenders for redefining what consevatism is, as well as the Reagan stalwarts who want the tried and true formula.

I separate the challenges into these four categories because I see too much analysis that mixes up the four distinct challenges. I will address them in followup posts in coming days.

No Place to Go But Up - A strategy for Victory

After the 2006 elections, I thought about what it would take to get the Travis Republican party back on track and winning elections locally. Here's what I came up. Some things have changed, but unfortunately, 2008 was a repeat of 2006 in more ways than one. Two local races lost, and Travis Republican officeholders practically extinct.

Most of these recommendations or thoughts haven't really happened yet, which may explain some of the results on Tuesday. There is a lot to be done to get back in shape. We are at the bottom of the barrel, which has one advantage - no place to go but up.

A Strategy for Victory

What we need is a strategy of Ideas and Energy - Conservative Ideas and Republican Energy.

Our grassroots base is motivated by advocating principles and ideas; the base will grow so long as the ideas and positions are not too narrow and focused to lose the swing/independent voters.

TEN THINGS WE SHOULD DO:

1. Servant-leadership
It starts with leadership. We need local leadership and elected officials that re-engage and re-energize the grassroots. These need to be servant-leaders that show the way by encouraging broad participation. The model is a ‘big tent’, but it is based on core principles as the tent poles that brings activists in and energizes them. We need to re-connect our own leaders with our own base, and need to develop new leaders out of grassroots by getting broader activist participation.

2. Develop a simple, clear, positive platform - “A compact for Travis county”
A platform give the voters something positive to vote for and enhances the Republican brand locally, as they will know what we stand for. Develop a simple, clear, positive platform and agenda - "A compact for Travis county"- it must be short enough to have clear accountability, and we will need to hold elected officials feet to fire on promises and provisions in the platform. Clear and simple enough to be part of media campaigns, e.g., printable in a one page ad. Role models for this: Harris County GOP in late 1990s; Newt Gingrich 1994, Contract with America.

"Never be against something, be for something." - Gary Polland, former Harris County GOP chairman

3. Rebuild the Republican brand in Travis
We need media campaigns to rebuild the GOP brand. We ought not do that without fixing other things (points #1, #2) but this can be a good complement to those activities. People vote based on three elements: Personality/character; competence/qualifications; vision/positions/values. A branding campaign needs to get back to having people think:

• Get people to think "I am a Republican"
• Build up local personalities tied to GOP brand. (e.g., "Dewar's Profiles", what about GOP profiles?) Defend Republicans in the media. On the other hand, the GOP should stand up to politicians (even GOP ones) when they don't live up to principles, to show our stronger commitment to character, competence and good Government.
• Identify with their values: "Your Values are Republican values" campaigns
• Competence: Focus on Government program vision/results, accountability/metrics
  and efficiency; can be tied with #2, positive agenda on accountable Government that serves the people.

4. Conduct outreach to build the base
With a positive agenda (#2), and a GOP brand awareness campaign (#3), we can use both to re-invigorate the base and expand it:

- Minority outreach, e.g., via churches and other organizations
- High-tech outreach via organizations and workplace actions
- High school / youth /College outreach
- Church outreach; "ASLAN" networks
- Neighborhood clubs outreach

Consider that all citizens out there are somewhere on a scale of ‘hostile/opponent’ to ‘generally oppose’ to ‘in the middle/uninformed/undecided’ to ‘generally supportive’ to ‘friendly but inactive’ to ‘active’. Our goal in outreach is to move all populations further from the opposing side and towards becoming active friendly participants. It requires different persuasion hooks for different groups, and “outreach” is about finding and using those various leverage points. For example, there are man socially conservative minority community members; our outreach can focus on such leverage points.

5. Get involved and attuned to local issues and local races
- Have a Republican profile / visibility on the local hot-button issues, e.g., what’s our position on tolls.

- Get candidates for all local races, such as school board, city council, etc.

- Get activists to become volunteers for City of Austin (and/or Round Rock) boards and activities. Build a ‘farm team’ of involved people who will make credible candidates for larger races.

- Local Republican clubs, e.g, HCRW, ARW, CTRA, etc. can be a venue for local issue discussion.

6. Recruit for campaigns - run in every race
Why try to recruit and run a candidate in every single race possible? "90% of life is showing up" - Woody Allen. We don’t know what is possible until we try.

We are losing winnable races (e.g. HD47, HD48) because we aren’t trying and because the Democrats have less to defend when we don’t even try. 'The Forlorn Hope' strategy of running in every race is to keep Democrats tied down in their areas, so we have a better chance in our areas with better prospects. There is a concern that running in these “unwinnable” races distracts from the real races that are winnable. However, that is more properly a matter of financing and energy. Energy is not a finite sum and it is not a determined thing who is a reachable voter or not. Non-traditional candidates in traditionally “unwinnable” races is how the Democrats won some Congressional seats. We should give it a try.

7. Engage the Media and inject conservative views into the media
A focal point for this is the Travis Media project - community blog (Travis Monitor http://travismonitor.blogspot.com); letters to editor; media workshops.
- Fight media bias and make the base aware of media bias issues.

8. Wage political “guerrilla” campaigns that leverage new communications technologies
Use disruptive technologies to be disruptive. While we run every race, we will not *fund* every race. So how do we get the most out of campaigns without diverting too much money and effort from other needed races? The solution is to create a template for low-cost yet effective campaigns that leverage inexpensive communications and local activism to get the most for the least.

- Use power of internet and media-savvy to have low-cost campaigns: Media-creation of podcasts; leverage ‘free media’ i.e., local radio, cable local access, etc. Create YouTube ads that are forwarded as emails and/or shared via campaign website and other blogs. Leverage email trees; use ‘moveon.org’ type of techniques (“Forward this message”) to get the word out; Use free CMS for internet websites (e.g., McCaul campaign used Drupal for their online presence; it’s a free CMS!); shared and standard websites.

- The ‘low cost’ candidates should be trained to be as polished as possible and show up at as many forums as possible, to be brand-builders for the Republican party and our platform.

- Leverage candidates as advocates for the GOP local platform and 'compact' as the core campaign message; the consistent message will hit home and help us gain credibility as a party. Then each campaign will not be a disconnected ‘on its own’ campaign that lacks as message.

Those candidates in most races will be underdogs, but give them enough tools for at least a bare-bones campaign, and train them to be effective and attractive representatives of the party. Through this process, we can gain ground even if we lose the race.

9. Financing campaigns - coordinate campaign funding locally for best ROI
- Do not allocate money to each race, but rather ensure that key "winnable" races are fully funded
- fund based on quality of candidate, race prospects, and leverage against Democrats; it's an investment, look at ROI.

10. GOTV infrastructure for maximum grassroots effectiveness

11. Rebuild our internal cohesiveness and unity
We need to see our local party as one team, and ourselves, the local party members as part of that team that works together on a common goal. Different activists bring different views and perspectives, and we need to have the ‘politics of addition’ not the ‘politics of division’ in bringing different constituencies and views to the table. To rebuild our internal cohesion, the grassroots, the base members and the politicians in elected office need to have the same understanding of their roles and their expectations; elected officials need to live up to the promises they make and the expectations that are set. Part of the problem with the commitment and unity in the party is that elected Republicans have failed to live up to expectation, and some conservatives feel ‘burned’ by that. But what if those expectations from the base are not ‘politically possible’? Well, there needs to be a contract not just with voting public at-large, but internally with the base.

Keep up the energy: There is no down-time. Don’t stop just because there isn’t an election 30 days away.

Let's Count the Ways Local Taxes Increased Yesterday

1.  The $300 million Round Rock ISD bond package passed yesterday, increasing property taxes in Round Rock ISD.

2. The Austin ISD Prop 1 passed yesterday, giving us higher taxes to pay for increased teacher pay. Instead of budgeting for a cost-of-living adjustment, AISD put teacher pay increases on the ballot, knowing that the taxpayers would fund it so the school district can increase spending on other frivolous ventures within the existing budget.

3. Gerald Daugherty lost his re-election bid for County Commissioner in Travis County. Gerald is the only County Commissioner who consistently voted for tax and budget cuts in Travis County. We will miss him dearly.

4. Proposition 2 passed in Travis County. $65 million of our tax money will be given to a developer instead of going to pay for our city services. The City of Austin is faced with a $27 million "short-fall" this fiscal year. That $65 million check that taxpayers will give to Simon Malls really could have made a difference in keeping our city financially solvent without having to borrow more money through another bond package.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm going to stop there. I do not want to hear Austinites complain about high taxes...they keep voting to increase them!

Where do we go now?

The question I hear from Texas Republicans is "Where do we go now?" We witnessed today some brilliant tactical moves from President-Elect Obama and State Representative Jim Dunnam in turning Texas blue, a fear I expressed after the March Primary. What now?

There are many excuses that can be made, but none that matter now. The Republicans were beaten by a better message and a more charismatic messenger. The Democrats energized their base and, with the perceived lack of leadership by the Republicans, there was little chance of GOP victory at the top or bottom of the ticket.

For years now, Republicans have forgotten to field candidates that support the Republican Party Platform. Our base is angry and our grassroots have decided to allow the GOP to go through a purge cycle. While this is not the most effective strategy, it does ensure that Republicans can start over in many areas.

(More...)

Off to the Vet

I think it is fitting that I need to take my dog to the veterinarian this morning for his routine checkup, because after watching the Travis County results come in last night, I feel like somebody kicked my dog. I think it is time for Republicans to get a check-up as well.

There are many ways to break this down, but in the end, Republican candidates in Travis County lost by a margin of 2-1 county-wide. The Republican Party in Travis County is only represented by Barbara Bembry, the Justice of the Peace in Precinct 2, who was not up for re-election yesterday.

The GOP needs to take ourselves to the vet to find out what ails us. Is it something we ate or simply did a more charismatic and younger dog run us off of the playground? I think it is a combination of both.

The Texas House is in the Balance

Another election cycle, another loss of seats for Republicans in the Texas House. Once again, the Texas House is in the balance.

Currently, Republicans hold an eight vote majority in the Texas House and thus control the major committee chair positions. If five seats change in this year's election, the Texas House will be held be the Democrat Party which means a new Speaker and a new agenda.

If the Democrats take control of the Texas House, the new Speaker will be Representative Sylvester Turner, a long-time Representative from Houston. While a new Speakership will be refreshing for many Republicans like Jim Keffer, Delwin Jones, Tommy Merritt, Byron Cook, and Charlie Geren, the agenda that will be upheld through the Democrat leadership will not be refreshing for the Republican base.

This is not the same Democrat Party of our parents' generation. The Democrat Party, as it currently stands, no longer stands up for taxpayer interests. The Democrat Party, even in Texas, supports increasing government control and spending on our daily lives. They oppose laws such as the voter ID bill that will promote integrity in our elections. The elected officials of the Democratic Party are rabid pro-choice. The rural Democrats and common sense Democrats that opposed a state-wide income tax in Texas twenty years ago have been long-purged in the Democrat Primary or by Republican victories in the last twenty years.

The Democrat Party in the Texas House will govern to the left of center, increasing government spending, social spending, and therefore taxes on the citizens of Texas. Texas was rated as having the best economy in the country during the current economic downturn. With Democrats in charge of the appropriations and tax process, that may change in Texas.

Mark Twain once said, "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." This will definitely be true if the current form of the Democrat Party takes control of the Texas House.

Polls are Open in Travis County

The polls are open in Travis County as of 45 minutes ago. Callers are reporting to KLBJ 590 that there are already some long lines in West Austin, but lighter lines in eastern and rural precincts.

Stay tuned...

Unearthing Obama's Coal Duplicity

The Obamedia has been covering up for Obama so much that multiple statements of Obama's have been left 'out there', unexplained yet contradicting Obama's latest promises. Last week it was The LA Times is Hiding an Incriminating Video of Barack Obama at a Party with Radical Palestinian Activists and Bill Ayers.

The outrage du jour? Coal.

“If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” - Barack Obama, in a January intervew with San Fransisco Chronicle - YouTube video here

Obama is promising to bankrupt the coal generation plants and thus the coal industry itself, in the name of CO2 caps - which conservatives have correctly argued would destroy a lot of jobs. Obama's policies are extreme and would be a disaster for our economy.

Ohio Coal Association responds: "The Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it."

His statement was made on tape back in January, and yet the media glossed over this bold and dangerous statement. They never 'fact checked' Obama when he made contradictory promises. Obama has criticized 'clean coal' to environmental groups, and yet touts that same clean coal in ads in states like Illinois. What gives? These comments have exposed Obama as ONCE AGAIN RUNNING A DISHONEST CAMPAIGN. The San Fransisco left-liberal Primary Obama has been far different in his statements than pander-to-middle general election Obama. Once again, we see that Obama is too extreme to be a good leader, and once again the Obamedia has covered up for Obama and protected him from a real investigation or understanding of who he really is and what his agenda will really bring. Both deserve to lose bigtime tomorrow.

Will Obama's Remarks Prove Costly in Coal Country? One reporter thinks it may.

McCain Honest On Coal Policy (unlike Obama)

Sarah Palin Connects With Attack on the Liberal Media (Coal Plant Issue)

Texas Early Voting and the "Operation Chaos" Effect

Do Texas Early Vote Totals Belie Low Republican Enthusiasm Meme?

One of the popular themes in the Austin local media last week was the high early vote turnout in Travis County, the academic, uberliberal county of Texas. Thunders Saturday's Austin American Statesman:

"Almost half of Travis County's 609,224 registered voters had cast their ballots by the time early voting ended Friday, easily shattering previous records. "

So how are the early votes breaking?

"When a list of general-election voters is released, political analysts, such as [Leland] Beatty, match the names to the roster of Democratic and Republican primary voters, thereby predicting how many votes will fall to one party or the other.

In Travis County, Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republicans nearly 4-to-1 in early voting as of Wednesday, when the most recent statistics were available, Beatty said....

"We've never seen anything like this election," Beatty said, adding that he thinks Democrats will make gains throughout the state. "

Combine this story with a recent hilarious AP pyschoanalysis claiming Obama supporters are "enthusiastic" and McCain supporters "glum", you might think that Texas Republican voters are just going through the motions in anticipation of an Dem landslide.

But what do the statewide early vote turnout numbers really show?

(more...)

Not Every Liberal is Optimistic

I got to talking to a co-worker of mine yesterday when we were on a short job trip together. He is a 22-year old college student, a self-described liberal, and lives in a rural area outside of Austin and commutes into town daily because the cost of living is cheaper outside of Austin. I'm going to keep his name anonymous.

My co-worker was one of the most excited people I met for Senator Obama in the primary. He was feeling the hope and optimism and was wearing it on his sleeve everyday. At some point over the last two months, he began to really read into what Senator Obama believes and who he associates with and it made him scared.

My co-worker refuses to vote for McCain as he sees him as an angry old man who just runs negative campaign ads. My co-worker also refuses to vote for Obama now because of the message of socialism that Obama is preaching to the world.

In talking to my co-worker, he listed out his main issue as paying too much for tuition and paying too much in property taxes. To that end, I convinced him to at least vote against his local school bond election (his local tax increase) and to support Tim Kleinschmidt who has pledge to work to lower property taxes and appraisal creep.

I consider my co-worker a fairly mainstream voter. He's intelligent and independent-minded and he gives me a great reality check most days. Senator Obama is counting on the 18-35 year old demographic to swing the election his way. The more I talk to people of that age bracket (I am in there, too), the more I realize that either that age bracket will not vote or is not as enthralled with Senator Obama as the campaign thinks, at least in Texas.

Not every liberal is optimistic and not every liberal believes in the change that Senator Obama preaches.

Freedom Ain't Free: Michelle Ma Belle - Obama's Greatest Liability

Freedom Ain't Free: Michelle Ma Belle - Obama's Greatest Liability

What/who Obama should fear this Halloween

BOO!
Are you scare Barack?
You should be.

Obama Tax Calculator

Special props to Robert Bentley with Governor Jihndal's Facebook page for pointing out this Obama Tax Calculator.

George Allen: Start your Creative Engines!

Young Conservatives of Texas at the University of Texas hosted George Allen on Tuesday evening. George Allen, the former Governor and Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, spoke on how to use our common sense, conservative, Jeffersonian principles to address one of the biggest problems facing our generation: energy policy. George Allen's wit and outlook gave a very clear picture into what our country must do to achieve energy independence while growing our business infrastructure simultaneously.

As Governor of Virginia, George Allen worked with Texas and Austin area leaders to bring Motorola and Seimens microchip manufacturing to the Richmond area. Governor Allen was amazed out how well Texas handles its energy resources, even though the average cost of a kilowatt-hour in Texas is at 11 cents, which is above the national average. The split on Texas energy use is roughly 50% coal, 38% natural gas (well above the national average), 11% nuclear, and 1% hydro-electric/other. George Allen is impressed with Texans using our home-grown resources to power our state's economy and is touring the country to encourage our entire country to do the same.

America's energy woes began in the Carter Administration when President Carter imposed additional taxes on oil and natural gas production and increased environmental regulations on energy resources. Since then, America's dependence on foreign oil and resources has increased every year to the point that America consumes more energy than we produce. This trend cannot continue for America to be a viable superpower. Our economy cannot sustain the pace of the cost of energy outpacing the rate of inflation for the average American and average businessman.

George Allen's proposal is very similar to Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams' proposals, only on a national stage. Here are the main points of the plan.

• America needs affordable and reliable energy.
  
  
• Our citizens are creative and responsible. We need to give incentives to allow this creativity and entreprenuership to take hold in the energy market to develop new, reliable, and clean technologies. Innovation is the key to producing products. But, we must remove the heavy hand of government regulations and taxes to allow individuals to kick-start our creative engines.
  
  
• America needs to lift the ban on off-shore drilling production to give the individual states the option to drill in their own lands and offshore waters. Virginia wants the freedom to explore and drill for oil off of its coast; to have the same freedoms and opportunities that Texas and Louisiana do. The Virginia Legislature plans to invest the money from the offshore oil royalties into the state infrastructure to build new roads and lower the costs of higher education. With Virginia keeping 37% of the royalties, that will make a huge impact on offering citizens a better quality of life.
  
  
• Current American domestic energy keep this country in the grip of foreign dictators.
  
  
• Americans are not addicted to foreign oil. We are addicted to freedom!"
  
  
• Common sense conservation techniques need to be employed by every American. We need to lower the demand for energy while increasing supply.

George Allen inspires maximum productivity in our energy market and plans to give freedoms to individuals willing to develop new technologies that will make our country a better, cleaner, and more economical place to live. There is no reason that foreign countries should produce energy better than we do. With policies that will start our creative engines, the sky is the limit. Kudos to Young Conservatives of Texas for bringing in such an insightful and provoking speaker.

Pro-abortion money stirring up local races

Texans for Life has sent out an alarm over the large amounts of pro-abortion (Annie's List, Planned Parenthood) money pouring into Statehouse races, especially here in central Texas, including NARAL-supported Diane Maldonado for HD-52 against pro-life Bryan Daniel and NARAL-supported Valinda Bolton against Donna Keel:

Who are Abortion Advocates Pulling Out All the Stops For & Why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wendy Davis: big winner with over $100,000 in cash and inkind gifts
Fort Worth's Wendy Davis has received over $100,000 from Annie's List, and Planned Parenthood has sent mailings for her and is phoning on her behalf. Her opponent is incumbent Sen. Kim Brimer, who has a 100% pro-life voting record. According to Annie's List, "This race is of tremendous strategic importance because Democrats now hold 11 out of the 31 Texas Senate seats. Because Senate rules require a 2/3rd vote to consider legislation, Wendy's victory would mean that Democrats could block destructive Republican legislation! We must win this seat to defend against the Republicans' extremist agenda in 2009 and the inevitable redistricting battle in 2011."

Diana Maldonado in 2nd Place with over $50,000
Williamson County's Diana Maldonado has benefited from over $50,000 in gifts from Annie's List, and is also endorsed by NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), Texas Freedom Network (founded to combat the Religious Right) and Planned Parenthood, even as she touts her volunteer work at St. Williams Catholic Church. Her opponent in the race for HD 52, Bryan Daniel, is endorsed by several pro-life groups.

Kristi Thibaut Scores over $40K in cash & inkind gifts
Thibaut has received over $30,000 in cash and inkind gifts from Annie's List, and also lists Planned Parenthood and Texas Freedom Network as endorsers. Annie's List just made an additional $10,000 media buy on her behalf. Her opponent for this open seat in Houston (HD 133), Jim Murphy, is endorsed by several pro-life organizations.

Austin's Valinda Bolton (I) Scores Big (Again)
Bolton is one of Annie's List's successes, so they were happy to support her again with $40,000 plus inkind polling. A member of First Baptist, Austin, Bolton is also endorsed by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and boasts membership in Texas Freedom Network. Donna Keel, her opponent in the race for HD 47, is pro-life.

Other big recipeints of $$ from Annie's List:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Veronica Gonzales (I), $20,000 for her challenge by pro-life Javier Villalobos for HD 41, McAllen.
Paula Pierson (I) returned to collect $25,000 for her challenge by pro-life Bill Burch for HD 93, Mansfield.
Sherri Metula got $20,000 for her challenge to pro-life John Davis (I) for HD 129 (Houston), and another $5,000 in polling, as well as inkind comsulting support. She is also endorsed by Planned Parenthood.
Carol Kent got $10,000 to help with her challenge of pro-life Tony Goolsby (I) for HD 93 (Dallas).
Diane Trautman who is challenging Paul Bettencourt for Harris Co. Tax Assessor, got a whopping $45,000 for a mere county race.

The Real Problem with William Ayers

William Ayers has received a lot of media attention in the last few months because of his ties to Senator Obama. There is good reason for Ayers to get attention as he was a leader of a domestic terrorist organization the Weathermen. This is an organization that is know for acts of violence and terrorism against Americans and judges in the 1960's in an effort to intimidate the court system to give into their Marxist agenda. The Weathermen are no better than the KKK in their attempts to intimidate African Americans into not voting or moving into segregated neighborhoods.

Alas, I digress. William Ayers is now a professor at the University of Chicago. He can now take his ultra-liberal agenda and instead of inciting violence, he can indoctrinate students into believing his agenda. A teacher who interjects their attitudes and prejudices into the classroom is far more dangerous than a street thug who lobs bombs into Federal Courthouses. A teacher who only teaches their side of the story instead of teaching students to think on their own has the ability to create a generation of Americans who have a warped perspective on freedom, patriotism, and ethics.

William Ayers shows all that is wrong with academie today. Professors who are like William Ayers philosophically receive tenure from government universities; universities that claim to promote critical thinking and a balanced education. According to Martin Anderson in his book Imposters in the Temple, about 80% of professors in the major American public universities are liberal Democrats. These professors have the ability to indoctrinate students into hearing and believing their world views, thus creating the next generation of liberals.

This is not to say that all professors impose their prejudices against conservatives into the classroom. In fact, most do not. But, there are extreme cases in which domestic terrorists like William Ayers and communists like Robert Jensen at the University of Texas publicly celebrated when the jets hit the World Trade Center on September 11. These extreme cases are what promotes and encourages philosophical liberals who have never worked an honest job and hold elitist views that shun the average Americans. These extreme cases result in ultra-liberals like Barack Obama being able to be a viable candidate for the highest public service office in the land.

This is the real problem with William Ayers.

Barack's Bombshell goes Viral

This is Must watch TV - Barack Obama tells a radio audience that we "suffer" from a Constitution focussed on 'negative' liberty, and his desire for 'redistributive change'. His quote:

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

American Thinker reaction: "Obama wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes."

That's ... Socialism we can believe in.

8 days and counting down ... A time for choosing remains so today.

Another Obamedia whitewash - Rezko & Obama

Rezko is singing (reported back on October 10th in the back pages), and the Feds have delayed sentencing as Rezko spills the beans on Chicago political corruption:

Last week, defense attorneys representing figures in Illinois corruption cases tipped the media that Tony Rezko may have decided to cooperate with federal investigators. Now it appears their worst nightmare has come true. Federal prosecutors requested a delay in Rezko’s sentencing, almost certainly a sign that Rezko has cut a deal to limit his time in prison after his conviction on multiple counts of corruption: Federal prosecutors moved Monday to delay indefinitely the sentencing of convicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, sending their strongest hint yet that he is ready to spill his political secrets. The filing asks for a postponement while prosecutors and defense attorneys “engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures.” Speculation has simmered for weeks that the key fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama was whispering what he knows about corruption in Illinois government to federal prosecutors in hopes of getting a lighter sentence. Rezko raised more than $1 million for Blagojevich’s campaign fund and was one of the governor’s key advisers. He was frequently by the governor’s side in the early days of his administration and could be in a position to shed considerable light on federal investigations into patronage hiring and a host of other issues involving Blagojevich. Rezko also raised $250,000 for Barack Obama and was his most important fundraiser during Obama’s state senate career, as well as for his US Senate race.

But the Obamedia has continued to be utterly silent, even though the Rezko issue was there from the spring. Tony Rezko, the developer convicted on fraud and corruption, was an early patron of Obama. Rezko had given Obama $250,000 in campaign contributions over the years, and in exchange, Obama had steered $37 million or so in Government grants to Rezko's slumlord buildings.

That house deal between Obama and Rezko was a very simple quid pro quo bribe. Rezko overpaid for a lot next to Obama's house that served as Obama's yard, so Obama could get into a million dollar house on the cheap; the seller reduced his $1.65 million asking price to $1.35 million for Obama. The house and the lot were bought on the same day, and appraisal fraud may have been involved. Later, to make the gift of the yard less obvious, Obama bought a strip of land in the yard from Rezko, a strip that made the lot unservicable for anything but as Obama's yard.
But wait there's more - a Connection between Obama, Rezko and Alexi Giannoulias:

"Alexi Giannoulias, who became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator’s Oval Office bid.

Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.

Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state’s speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama’s help."

So Giannoulias is a pretty dirty politician/operator with mob links. And Obama's links to him? "Alexi also approved millions in loans for Rezko’s various real estate projects. Obama used (Giannoulias-controlled) Broadway Bank for both his personal business and for his Senate campaign fund." The Obama - Giannoulias connection goes way back, as Hillbuzz states:

(4) The Giannoulias family was involved with Obama as far back as his first state senate campaign in 1996. It has been long rumored here in Chicago that Obama obtained a sweetheart deal on his first town home here in Chicago — which he could not have afforded otherwise — and guess who the financing came from for that house? We’ve been told it was Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias bank. Now, this sets up a scenario where the Giannoulias family helps Obama with his campaign finances and gets him deeper in their pocket with his sweetheart mortgage deal ...
(5) One favor political Chicago claims Obama did for the Giannoulias family was in 2006 when, out of the blue, 29 year old Alexi Giannoulias, with no experience, and without ever having voted before, decides to run for State Treasurer of Illinois. Also out of the blue, Barack Obama endorses Alexi Giannoulias for State Treasurer. This was a SHOCK to everyone in Chicago — and Giannoulias would have never become State Treasurer without Obama’s help. In political circles here, it has always been believed that this endorsement was bought years ago with that sweetheart mortgage deal Broadway Bank arranged for Obama to buy his town house.

Alexi Giannoulias and his link to Obama are important because it appears that Rezko is turning on him. So now two of Obama's biggest and earliest supporters are actually both mob-related corrupt Chicago operators, and Obama participated in apparent bribery schemes with at least one (Rezko).

As with the media whitewash on Ayers and Rev Wright, Obama's real history and associates, includng this Chicago-style corruption, is completely whitewashed away. There is pretty clear evidence that Barack Obama got himself bought by corrupt mob-linked Chicago operators. And we are letting the Obamedia IGNORE this story?

LA Times Holds Back Video of Obama at a Khalidi Reception

This is from the Gateway Pundit's blog. This report, if true, is disturbing. I would like to think of Senator Obama as being open-minded and level-headed, just with an opposing viewpoint than me. But, the more I read and research on him, the less I think of him as a person and as a political figure.

I Support Congressman McCaul

I first met Michael McCaul during the 2004 Republican Party Primary election cycle. This was right after redistricting created an oblong-shaped district that ran from Pflugerville to Katy. There were at least eight candidates vying to become our Congressman then, including Michael McCaul, John Devine, Ben Struesand, and Dave Phillips, among others. I had the privelege to meet all of these candidates then while I was working with Young Conservatives of Texas on their endorsement process.

After interviewing all of the candidates in January and February of 2004, I came to the conclusion that Michael McCaul was the best choice for representation in Congress and recommended Young Conservatives of Texas to endorse him then. I have the same conclusions now as I did in 2004.

(More...)

Obama: Our Next Worst President

Some liberal pundits are doing the psy-ops thing and trying to declare the race over and Obama the winner, before the votes have been cast and despite numerous polls that show neither candidate above 50% in battleground states. Let me retort by pre-declaring Barack Obama our Next Worst President. He will out-do Jimmy Carter in historic feebleness in the face of foreign threats and will have a job-killing and economic-growth-chilling agenda on our economy. On social issues, he is a left-liberal extremist who will usurp First Amendment rights. The real change we need is to defeat the Democrat incumbent Congress. Should Obama win, I will be telling my Grandkids decades from now how he managed to be the Worst President Ever in the history of the United States. That's why I will spend the next 10 days fighting to avoid that calamity, and I urge you to do the same.

Pledge with Texans Spotlight: Limiting the Growth of Government

Limit the Growth of Governments

Impose strict constitutional spending restraints to further slow the growth of state government; ensure that dedicated funds are spent for their intended purpose or return the money to taxpayers; return to a true zero-based budgeting process to force agencies to justify all spending requests each legislative session; close loopholes in welfare programs; increase resources for child support collection to reduce reliance on government programs; and, end double taxation on phone bills by eliminating the sales tax on telecommunications fees and surcharges.

In the recently released Pledge with Texans, the Texas Conservative Coalition highlights limiting the growth of government as one of the key planks to the Legislative Agenda for conservatives in the 81st Texas Legislature. I could not agree more with this statement.

The best plan of the 80th Legislative Session was proposed by State Representative Ken Paxton (R-McKinney). Paxton's plan would have limited state spending to the rate of inflation plus the increase in population. This amounts to about a 5% increase per year. If the Legislature has an emergency and needed to spend beyond the 5% increase, there would need to be a 2/3 super-majority to increase the appropriation beyond that point. Any additional money that was brought in from taxes under the Paxton plan would automatically go into tax-relief funds, under the oversight of the Comptroller, which would be evenly dispersed to all citizens to lower their property, business, and sales taxes. Representative Paxton's bill, HJR 53, would have also put the caps in place on local governments as well.

The current constitutional spending cap that limits Legislative appropriations is very tough to comprehend and is easily broken every year by a simple majority. Which ever party happens to be in power choses to break the cap by voting to increase the limit on the appropriation before the budget is heard. In 2007, the Republicans in teh House voted to break the constitutional spending cap to pass property tax relief.

Regardless of the intent to increase government spending, an increase in spending is still an increase in spending. Why is this important? Taxpayers complain about high taxes. Taxpayers have the potential every year of having their homes taken by the government because of climbling property taxes. Business owners are now subject to the gross margins business tax so revenue can continue to come into the Texas coffers. Why? Because Texas spends a lot of money.

If a true constitutional spending cap that limits state spending to the rate of inflation plus the rate of population growth that also takes a 2/3 super majority to break had been put in place in 1978, the Texas budget would be about 1/2 the size that it currently is. The current state budget is roughly $168 billion and growing.

There is no better way to limit the authority and power of government and the role of government in our daily lives then to limit the growth of the budget. Without increasing spending, the government cannot grow because the government does not produce a marketable product that, on its own merits, will make money for itself. All government programs are subsidized by taxpayers. If the subsidies go away, the program will too. If the program was truly necessary, a non-profit or business will quickly fill in to continue the job and will produce better results than the government agency.

Now is the time to take bold initiatives and bold steps to create the most business friendly climate that we can in Texas. With the national economy sputtering and jobs going oversees, it is imperative that Texans give the rest of the country an example of how to attract businesses and limit the role of government to give our citizens a better quality of life for all.

It's Official - The Democrats in Congress are Big Spenders

Pelosi/Reid Congress most profligate of Bush years with a 12% increase in spending.

Environmentalists vs the Economy

Greens: ‘Economic growth is killing the planet’.

Me: No it isn't, but environmentalists are killing economic growth.

Lawyers for Obama Vote Illegally

... and then are forced to withdraw their votes cast in Ohio early voting (I don't know how that is done).

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the vote fraud, voter registration fraud, and potential campaign finance fraud that the Obama campaign is engaged in.

CNN exposes ACORN fraudulent voter registrations - 50% of registrations are fraudulent. Mentions how ACORN voter registrations are under investigation in several states. Obama's campaign has enables online credit card donor fraud by disabling verifications.
Phony names accepted for Obama contributions: "The Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors ... The end result? “Donors” like “Doodad Pro” can submit tons of donations totaling well above the $2,300 limit using different bogus addresses." A commenter did just that:

Hello HOTAIR. I just made a contribution to Obama’s campaign. The site is still allowing fraudulent transactions. The only error it throws is if you try to put in $1. I posed as Osama Bin Laden, Terrorist Leader, Mujhadein, in A CAVE IN WAZIRISTAN KHOST, AR, 12345. email was osamabinladenforobama@obl.gov.

Another commenter points out the obvious motive for disabling AVS here:

Donations from overseas. This is where the millions are coming from, and why he won’t disclose the list of “$200 or less” donors. The man and his cohorts are, without a doubt, the most incorrigible, blatantly dishonest, and corrupt group in history.

Perils of Straight-ticket voting

Apparently some people can't figure out how to use the electronic voting machines:

A widely circulated Internet message telling people to vote straight party and to vote again for their choice for president needs to be ignored, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said. ... If Travis County voters mistakenly vote that way, a message will appear on the screen saying that they have changed their choice, she said.
The electronic ballot allows voters to reselect that candidate, which means that their selection will be counted, she said. The process is still confusing, said Buck Wood, an attorney representing the Texas Democratic Party. A lawsuit that the party filed last year against the Texas secretary of state alleges that the electronic voting machines used in Travis and 101 other Texas counties disenfranchise voters who make the same mistake that DeBeauvoir discussed. The lawsuit is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seems like nonsense to me. It was fairly easy to vote this morning, going straight party first, then checking and correcting. Anyone who can't handle it probably shouldn't be deciding on who runs the country.

No Faith in Austin Interfaith

I attended the Austin Interfaith forum tonight. As a St Thomas More parishioner, I got the notice, and originally confused this with a parish event. I found out later this was an event that included other churches (St Albert), a synagogue (Kol Halev), and members of other groups (teachers unions). The 'forum' was not really a forum, but rather was an endorsement rally put on by the Austin Interfaith 'faithful' for their issues. (This was said directly by one of the leaders: "Our Issues are our candidate" and they endorse an agenda.) This was a highly scripted event, where almost all the talking was done by the Austin Interfaith leaders and questioners, and only a little time by candidates to answer, and no free-range audience participation.

The most objectionable part of the forum was how it was set up. Before the candidates came in, the 'pre-session' leaders instructed the audience directly that when a candidate answer "YES" to a question, they were to answer with loud applause and when a candidate answered "NO", they were to sit on their hands. They even rehearsed this activity, just to make sure the audience was 'trained' right! So even audience participation was scripted and controlled!

It's very creepy to have the audience trained like seals to applaud when directed rather than simply being permitted to express their opinions openly. Why the mind control? There is a reason: the 'accountability session' clearly has a very heavy hand of intimidation on the candidates themselves, to make them feel accepted if they go along with the Austin Interfaith questions, and very isolated should they be brave enough to have a different opinion than the Interfaith group. This was not about information, but about intimidating candidates and exercising power. By being so scripted and non-open, this 'forum' had the worst aspects of mass-movement power-intimidation.

Further more, the handouts had a scorecard on the back, where the audience members would 'score' the candidates on whether they were answering well or not.

Father Elmer Holtman set the focus with a general speech ("justice for all") that in a few areas got into specifics - such as "We want to make sure immigrant families do not live in fear. ... we support rule of law, but not local officials doing the work of immigration agencies." (But the real issue seems to be they dont want the law enforced by anyone.) While I appreciated the desired to speak about living our moral values through active participation in the public sphere, the elephant in the room at least for me was the complete and utter failure to mention, while lamenting the litany of items affecting us, the moral issues around the unborn, right to life, end-of-life, or the family itself. The agenda was centered around 4 themes: Jobs/"living wage', Education, Affordable healthcare, immigration. The set of issues has a common theme of spend more Government money and relax standards and the rule of law. While they claim to be non-partisan, the group and their agenda is quite liberal.

The candidates who came were: Donna Howard and Pam Waggoner (HD-48 candidates), Jerry Mikus (HD-50), and Gerald Daugherty (county commissioner, pct 3). They had 4 'stories' before they got to the questions, which were short speeches about the challenges these members had in a particular area. After that, they got into questions. The questions themselves were biased and leading, in that they were stumping for their agenda item and demanding a simplistic 'yes' to what in some cases (especially healthcare and education) were complex multi-agenda items.

They first had Daugherty up, since he had to go early. He was supportive of the CapitalIDEA item; on healthcare, he keyed off 'working with you' on for the mental health issue, pointing out how mental health patients should be out of jails. Interfaith's immigration question was to ask if he would call on the County Sheriff to revoke his decision to work with ICE to deport illegal immigrant held in the jail. He did an admirable job being straight with Interfaith and saying no, pointing out that Sheriff Hamilton was an independently elected official.

Then the House Rep candidates took turns on the questions. Each candidate got only 15 to 30 seconds to speak to a question, not enough time to explain where they stand, which made this session more intimidative than informative. The CapitalIDEA item was universally supported. On education, they spoke about being less 'punitive'; there was general support, and for Pam Waggoner, enthusiastic support. The healthcare question had Howard declaring "Health care is a right" (which should be argued against since no 'right' exists to spend someone
else's money on your behalf). Jerry Mikus and Pam Waggoner argued cogently about the risks of expanding CHIP as the agenda desires, so gave qualified answers (which were cut off).

The most contentious perhaps was the immigration question, where Austin Interfaith opposes state law efforts to have local law enforcement work with Federal immigration officials to enforce immigration law. Donna Howard expressed support for Interfaith's pro'sanctuary city' position, but both Republican candidates, Waggoner and Mikus, argued that enforcing Federal law was part of the proper domain/responsibility of local law enforcement; Waggoner mentioned that its in the Constitution.

On the answers that went against the Interfaith agenda, there was a smattering of applause. I was among them, applauding the courage of the candidates for speaking their mind rather than getting intimidated by the forum setup. Their parting shot warning to the candidates was "You are giving us permission to hold you accountable to the questions you say yes to." This struck me as another example of power-mongering/threatening intimidation towards candidates.

In summary, the 'accountability session' was an overly scripted session and excercise in mass-movement intimidation tactics that was disturbing and troubling on several levels:

1. The forum was a hostile environment for free thinking and free exercise of one's conscience. It was an endorsement rally for the specific agenda of Austin Interfaith. There were mind-control and though-control methods used that were frankly creepy, akin to what you see in cults, not a free and open forum (which this was not).

2. Held in a Catholic church venue, it violated the guidelines put out by Texas bishops (Texas Catholic conference) on how Catholic churches should behave. Item IV. "Evaluations of candidates or political parties should be avoided" - when this session did just that - rating candidates 'good' or 'bad' on the Austin Interfaith agenda. This was an endorsement/evaluation rally/exercise, that graded not merely an issue forum.

3. For a Catholic church to host an event - the elephant in the room question - why wasn't the life issue on the agenda? Surely, its unfortunate that Rebecca McIlwain's daughter didnt get into accelerated English in 10th grade (the 'story' on the education, but I've been there too with my daughter in the past week, disappointments happen), but does it rise to the level of the right to life itself for the unborn? The agenda was a narrow agenda and missed "Faith citizenship" agenda items such as the issues of life, family, etc.

We know why life is off the agenda - because the other partners in this coalition force it to be so. After the session, I had a discussion with a woman from the synagogue. She mentioned how there were other 'pro-choice' groups and so that item was 'divisive'. So too was school choice. Why? Oh, because the teachers unions are against it. Yet she warmly related how the lessons learned from catholic colleagues were used by other groups to push for gay marriage (oh joy!) This begs the question of why the Catholic church, which goes out of its way to limit political participation in other ways, would lend credence to a coalition comprised of other groups who are on the other side of the catholic church on fundamental issues.

4. I do not believe that the Austin Interfaith agenda was a genuine grounds-up agenda coming from our parish. Rather, it was a pre-defined agenda that the backing organization, Industrial Areas Foundation, has been pushing, and the 'house meeting' and other meetings are less to discover the agenda of the parish, than to find those members receptive to push this agenda. In short, Austin Interfaith is pushing a narrow liberal agenda (including agenda items of teachers unions) into the church, rather than taking the church members' agenda into the community. The Catholic church should not be taken advantage of in this way. To put it bluntly: Why is the moral capital of the Catholic church squandered on pet issues of the teacher's unions and other external groups, when those groups themselves have enough power to push their own agenda?

These concerns make me wish the Catholic church would reconsider participation in this organization.

Lyin' Trial Lawyer Doherty Fails to Respond

Larry Joe Doherty is raking in some big bucks (out of district liberals trying to buy a conservative district) to challange Republican Michael McCaul for TX-10 Congressional race. But Doherty still hasn't apologized for slandering and insulting the American soldiers who served this country in Iraq. James Crabtree noted on the 16th:

To date he has still not replied even though a copy of the letter was hand delivered to his campaign manager, posted on his Facebook page, printed in the Austin Chronicle, and emailed to him. Perhaps he’s waiting for it to be sent by semaphore or carrier pigeon? Either way, there will be more to come on this matter before Election Day. Stay tuned.

As of yet, still not a word or remorse from Doherty for calling the U.S. military baby-killers.

Freedom Ain't Free: A Clarion Call for Honest Reporters

Freedom Ain't Free: A Clarion Call for Honest Reporters

Obama's Circle of Friends

Ayers' radicalism and Obama's similar language - on the record. Meet Mike Klonsky, another radical friend of Barack. And there is a leftism and corruption nexus - Feds and Rezko Piecing together Ayers, Giannoulias, Obama [Crossroads Fund]. Obama's Change themes are based on radical left "change" themes - cynicism, isolation, and a call for identity through social(ist) action.

Does this stuff matter? Yes, if Obama's agenda is influenced by it. Yet we know Obama's record is liberal:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-ratings-and-record.html

BHO Admits He's a Socialist. We also know what his agenda is. We wrote about what the Obama/Democrat majority will deliver here: Change we Need: Defeat the Democrats in Congress. He is also calling socialism "opportunity": Obama: I Don't Call it Socialism, I Call it Oppurtunity.

And every day, we find another outrage that they will enact: House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks and Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get CitizenshipWhen you look into the heart of Obama's extremist liberal record - the most liberal Senator as rated by National Journal in 2007 - and his left-liberal promises - $800 billion in spending promises, Government takeover of healthcare, against protecting traditional marriage and for appointing liberal activist judges - it all adds up. Obama's radical friends are a reflection of what Obama really believes and wants to advance himself. Expect a huge shift to the left in the Federal Government if he is elected and the Democrat majority in Congress is re-elected.

Catholics, Obama, and the life issue

We know that the right to life is a non-negotiable fundamental tenet of Catholic teaching:

"Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions used to justify it." - Bishop Chaput

"As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage…; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children." - Pope Bendict XVI, 2006

We also know that Obama is a proabortion extremist, probably the most extreme pro-abortion candidate in our nation's history. Obama is cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act", that would make partial-birth abortion legal again, strike down restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, and nullify virtually every state and federal law or policy that would in any way "interfere with" access to abortion, including parental notification laws. Obama promises to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would uphold abortion on demand. He voted to block a bill to require an abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl who lives in another state.

If bishops would make clear the moral gravity of ignoring the fundamental issue of abortion, or critique the false statements of pro-choice politicians like Biden and Pelosi, or debunk the rationalizing away how wrong Obama is on the issue, it could well turn the electoral tide sufficient to be a huge victory for the prolife cause. When Catholics vote en masse pro-life, politicians would be forced to listen.

Well, the bishops already have spoken out:

(Denver) Archbishop Criticizes Obama's Catholic Allies

"None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They've been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ''get beyond'' abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won't be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues."

Little Murders [Bishop Chaput Slams Obama on Abortion & Blasts Kmiec for Misleading Catholics]

Bishop Finn does everything but name Obama

Colorado bishops correct governor’s ‘bad theology’ on Catholic teaching about human dignity

Bishop Holley Calls on Black Community to Stop Planned Parenthood's Racial Slaughter

Mashek of US News: Bishop Violates First Amendment by Denying Biden Communion

Bishop of Scranton pledges vigilance in correcting pro-choice Catholic politicians

Bishop Finn: Can a Catholic Vote in Support of Abortion?

Values: Abortion tops list (Area Catholics get warning from bishop)

Bishop Robert Hermann on Voting to 'Save Our Children'

Black Catholic Bishop Holley: Abortion Exploits African-American Community

Bishop of Fresno removes priest who opposes Prop. 8

Bishop Martino of Scranton on Respect Life Sunday

Bishop Vasa: Pro-Abortion Candidates are 'Disqualified'

Bishop reminds Catholics to remember Judgment Day in the voting booth(Vote for Obama-get zapped)

Arizona Bishops Encourage Yes Vote in Support of Proposition 102, the Marriage Amendment

Bishop Aquila's Address on Absolutes in Life Issues

Kerry: Abortion, HELL is a Reality and we are Free to Choose it, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, Fargo

Bishop Soto Stuns national homosexual ministries conference

Biden avoids confrontation with his new bishop

OBAMA DEMAGOGUERY

OBAMA DEMAGOGUERY
By Bob Ward

When Joe the Plumber pointed out to presidential candidate Barack Obama that his tax proposal could kill the s mall business he hoped to start, Obama replied that he just wanted to “spread the wealth around.”

Obama is spreading something, but it is not wealth. His answer reveals a concentrated dose of economic ignorance. The reality is that without a damaging take hike on businesses, without a government program with its attendant bureaucracy and stifling regulations, wealth, left alone, spreads itself around.

No sane person, and certainly not Joe the Plumber, takes his money and buries it in the backyard. He spreads it around by spending it. And his expenditures create jobs for the people who manufacture the goods and provide the services that he purchases.

Obama’s tax proposals would interrupt that spontaneous, market driven spreading of the wealth by seizing money from the producers -- the businesses that provide the goods and services people purchase. In promoting this scheme he is invoking the myth that taxes imposed on businesses are somehow not paid by the people. He is being deceptive.

Corporations do not print money to pay their taxes. They get that money from the people in the form of higher prices for their products, lower wages or layoffs for their employees, curtailed purchases from their suppliers, or smaller dividends for their shareholders. And shareholders, it should be noted, includes the pension plans that working people rely on to provide a decent income for their retirement.

The bottom line is that the government cannot tax an abstraction and that’s what a corporation is, a legal fiction. The actual payer of taxes is real people. There is no one else.

Obama talks a lot about “fairness” but his proposal to tax business instead of people is not fairness – it is demagoguery.

Final Stretch Case Against Obama

The comprehensive argument against Obama.