Big Dogs House

We Need To Find A Generic Republican

Jun 17, 2011 Political

In recent polls for the 2012 presidential contest, a contest that is a year and a half away, Barack Obama beats or ties most of the announced or potential Republican candidates. Romney has traded places atop the polls but for the most part, Obama is ahead of the pack.

The polling that asks about the generic Republican shows that Obama loses. Obama loses to an unnamed, unknown generic Republican but beats the current field. This shows two things. America is generally tired of Obama and wants a change in leadership and that the current crop (thus far) is not the change in leadership that they want.

This could change over time as right now allegiances are spread across a wide Republican field but as it stands right now, Obama beats them when he can’t beat the generic candidate.

Unless someone jumps out of the pack of Republicans and espouses what those polled see in the “generic” candidate, Republicans need to find that generic candidate somewhere else.

The population is looking for a conservative with a proven record of financial experience who has not wavered on core principles. The current pack has few of those in it. Romney gave us Obamacare light and has changed his positions on several issues. He is a smart money man but to many, Obamacare light is a deal breaker.

People have a right to change positions over time based on experience and knowledge but too often positions change based on politics and that is not the mark of a principled person. Plenty of politicians opposed abortion (or federal funding of it) but changed over time for political gain. Look at how many have no problem with federal funding of abortion under Obamacare. Al Gore changed his position completely when being pro life was not to his political advantage.

These are not principled positions. The Republicans need that person who has a solid record of conservative values and have been principled in the approach to these sensitive issues.

Who will that generic person be?

Right now it is hard to say if one of the current contenders is the one or if a new person will have to emerge.

But one thing is certain, whomever it is, the left and its media wing will wage a full scale assault on that person. Power is a strong incentive to many people who have less than honorable intentions.

The Rasmussen poll linked above shows that voters are likely to vote for whomever the Republicans nominate and that is the generic Republican. This is misleading when one considers that the individuals currently in the race lose when polled head to head against Obama (except Romney who trades places depending upon the poll). If current economic conditions persist it is possible for Obama to lose to any candidate but if they improve the Republicans will need a strong, principled candidate in order to win.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: abortion, conservative, democrat, generic, lies, obamacare, republican

Why Not Vote For The Republican?

Oct 13, 2010 Political

The Democrats are in for a good thumping in November and they know it. Right now they are trying their best at damage control but there are only so many fingers to plug the holes in the dike. Many of them are running from their records and pretending they did not support the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. Many hardly mention their “achievements” if at all and there are some who are proudly touting that they voted against their leaders. Some are the so called Blue Dogs but most are those who Pelosi allowed to vote against the agenda in order to pander to the folks back home.

Democrat Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia’s 8^th Congressional District has an ad out in which a narrator proudly proclaims that Marshall voted with the GOP 65% of the time. Marshall wants the people of his district to vote for him because he votes more with the GOP than with his own party. Depending on how it is measured he actually voted with his party about 88% of the time but let’s go with his numbers.

If he is proud to have voted with the GOP 65% of the time (and therefore with his party only 35% of the time) and this is a reason to put him back in office then why not just vote for the Republican in the race?

The Republican will more than likely vote with the GOP in the 90% range so if 65% is a good thing and warrants reelection then more than 65% would mean the other guy deserves to be elected even more.

The Republican opponent, Austin Scott, is a business man who understands the economy and the business environment so why not vote for him?

He will give the folks of Georgia, and the rest of the country, a far better effort than 65% on conservative issues.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: 8th district, austin scott, conservative, georgia, jim marshall

The Golden Rule

Sep 18, 2010 Political

The Golden Rule is basically, the one who owns the gold makes the rules which might explain why two moron members of Congress will be holding hearings on the gold industry. Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner (an appropriate name if ever there was one) want companies that sell gold to disclose what the resale value of the gold would be.

The government does not like individuals owning gold. In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date**. People foolishly turned their gold into the government and they lost a fortune in value. A person who owned 100 ounces of gold back then would have about $2,500 in gold which would be worth about $120,000 today. People were robbed of their future wealth and their possessions by the government.

Now Weiner and Waxman are concerned about the new gold rush. But is their concern for those who are buying the gold and how they might get ripped off or is it for the people who act as spokespersons for the gold companies? There is a fairly long list of conservatives who pitch gold for various companies. Waxman and Weiner do not like that and while they might feign indignation because they are worried the ignorant public is being duped, they really appear to be going after the conservatives who make money hawking ads for gold.

These two morons are also concerned that the people who are selling gold are fear mongers stirring up the public and making the rubes believe that things are worse than they really are. The real problem is that things are worse than they are being portrayed. Gold is the only real hedge against inflation and we will have inflation. The government cannot keep printing money without causing inflation.

Gold is the hedge against that inflation and was one of the precious metals that backed our currency until the government decided not to have our money backed any longer. So it makes sense that people would want to buy it.

So while these two morons ignore the real problems and focus on gold and the people selling it, it might be a good idea if people did what they thought was prudent and ignored these bumbling morons.

If you decide to buy gold just keep in mind that the government will illegally confiscate it if it decides to and if you are not smart enough to keep them from knowing that you have it.

**To make this clear the government made it illegal to own more than $100 worth of gold. Later that was tightened by certain licensing restrictions. People could not move their gold because of the restrictions. History

Cave Canem!

Tags: confiscation, conservative, gold, lies, waxman, weiner

Obamabots To Invade Talk Radio

Feb 26, 2010 Political

Not long after Obama took office he told people that they could not listen to Rush Limbaugh to get their information and he basically made Limbaugh, a private citizen who has been more successful in business than Obama will ever be, an enemy. He did this along with FOX News and conservative talk in general.

Conservative talk was insignificant, need not be listened to, was ground noise, static.

But it must be loud enough and have enough influence to make the Democrats pay attention because they are amassing the Obamabot army to call in to talk radio to talk up the health care plan. The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America has launched a campaign where supporters will listen to talk radio and call in when the debate is about health care so that they can talk it up.

“The fate of health reform has been a focus of debate in living rooms and offices, on TV and online — and on talk radio. And since millions of folks turn to talk radio as a trusted source of news and opinions, we need to make sure OFA supporters are calling in with a pro-reform message,” says the introduction to the online tool.

It will be fun to listen as pimple faced cellar dwellers call in to extol the virtues of a plan with their great arguments about it being a right and Republicans are mean. It will be great to listen to them get chewed up and spit out by people who are experienced at talking for a living and know how to debate an issue and who actually have knowledge of the subject.

The drawback for the left is that having these people listen to conservative radio might end up turning them away from the Democrat party and the health care takeover.

Now that would be funny.

Tags: conservative, health care, Obama, obamabot, talk radio

Barney Frank Agrees With Evan Bayh

Feb 17, 2010 Commentary

Barney Frank agrees with Evan Bayh that the climate in the Congress is not operating as it should and that there is too much partisanship. Frank thinks it would be better if Senator Bayh stays on and helps to end the filibuster, a procedure that allows bills to be stalled or killed.

Both parties have used the filibuster and both have threatened to kill it in order to pass their agendas. The filibuster is only good when one is in the minority and bad when one is in the majority. Minorities love using it.

The filibuster is a thorn in the side of the majority because invoking it requires a 3/5 (60 vote) cloture to end it. This means that each time the filibuster is used it requires more than a simple majority to get things passed.

The Constitution describes a quorum as a majority of a particular chamber present. This suggests that a majority is all that is needed to conduct business and to get things done. However, the Constitution also allows each chamber to make its own rules and the rules of the Senate allow for the filibuster and requires 3/5 to end it. They can change those rules but that would require 2/3 (67 votes) to vote for the change. It is unlikely that the Senate could get 67 people to vote on ending the filibuster as a rule change.

If Democrats were to succeed then it is likely they would ask for the filibuster in the future and would want a rule change to get it. Remember, the minority party loves the filibuster. If they could get 67 votes they might get satisfaction now but regret it later when a Republican Congress and President could do what it wanted with no opposition from Democrats.

Another option is the Nuclear or Constitutional option. This is a procedure where the filibuster is declared unconstitutional and then must be voted on. In order to pass, a simple majority of 51 votes is needed. In other words, the Democrats could declare the filibuster unconstitutional and then use 51 votes to end it (Republicans do not have enough votes to stop it).

This is what Bill Frist threatened to do when Bush nominees were being denied an up or down vote. The Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate if Frist invoked the nuclear option. The filibuster was obviously important to them at that time and they were willing to shut down the Senate to keep it.

I am not sure how they could have shut down the Senate but one would have to assume the Republicans could do the same thing.

If the Democrats declare the filibuster unconstitutional then it would likely be lost forever. How could any Congress later state that it was not unconstitutional after all? Of course, how can they declare it unconstitutional when they have been using it since the mid 1800s?

As for Barney Frank, he is not part of the Senate so his input really matters little since he cannot vote on the Matter. Besides, he has been one of the most partisan people in Congress.

His idea of partisanship is when Republicans do what the Democrats want. Frank has little concern for the ideas of the other side.

I did not like Ted Kennedy but he knew how to broker a deal and to reach across the aisle on occasion. He worked with Republicans and Republicans worked with him to get legislation passed.

Was it always good legislation? No but they did work together.

We do not need to end the filibuster, we need to end the tenure of the people in Congress. It is time to sweep out the people who have been there for way too long.

In the last election the youth of America embraced Barack Obama as young and in tune. They discounted McCain, in part, because of his age and length of service.

It is time they did the same to the people in Congress by embracing younger people who are not career politicians.

Most Americans are not far left or far right. I am conservative on some things and moderate on others. Adam and Darrel, who comment here, are liberal on some things and moderate on others. We can have the debates about policy and what we think is good for America and we can either agree or agree to disagree. In the end we have more in common than not though we differ on how to get to where we need to be as a country (and where we need to be). One thing is certain though, we cannot get anywhere as long as we allow people to take up residence in DC and have decades long careers. We need fresh blood.

Vote for the new person in the primary and then let the parties fight it out in the general election. Let us show them who they work for and let us hold them accountable.

I will not vote for any incumbent in November. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Sources:
CBS News
Breitbart

Tags: barney frank, conservative, evan bayh, incumbent, liberal, Obama