Earlier this week, I attended the Benton County BPOU’s precinct caucuses. To say that there was an electricity in the air is understatement. In 2004, 97 people attended the precinct caucuses. This year, 313 people voted in the straw poll.

The thing that excited me most was the massive influx of first time attenders. A significant portion of Mitt’s supporters and a majority of Rep. Paul’s supporters identified themselves as first time attendees.

From my perspective, the most significant thing about that is the energy they brought to the event. Frankly, it’s an energy that’s been lacking in the GOP this year. When I submitted a resolution on the healthcare constitutional amendment that the DFL will put on this November’s ballot, Paul’s supporters and Romney’s supporters vehemently disagreed with the notion of healthcare as a constitutional right. That’s the type of energy that we’ll need going forward, both toward the conventions and towards rebuilding the GOP from the ground up.

Earlier this week, Michelle Malkin wrote the conservative’s rallying cry. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Some on the right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds and secure borders, no matter who takes the White House in November. (continue reading post »)

Frankly, I loved John McCain’s speech to CPAC. That doesn’t mean I’ll swoon and give my everlasting devotion to Sen. McCain. It does mean, though, that I’ll listen to what he has to say. Here’s something that I loved from his speech:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

That should be music to a conservative’s ears. Here’s the next paragraph: (continue reading post »)

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti has written a blistering attack of Howard Dean’s recent fundraising letter. It’s a fisking worthy of the Fisking Hall of Fame, if such an institution existed. Here’s an amusing portion of the fundraising letter:

John McCain is a media darling, but don’t trust his carefully-crafted image; he’s worked for years to brand himself. From Iraq to health care, Social Security to special interest tax cuts to ethics, he’s promising nothing more than a third Bush term.

I can’t believe that this passes the laugh test with anyone but the craziest of lefties. John McCain twice voted against the Bush tax cuts, which makes Dean’s assertion that McCain’s for “special interest tax cuts” utterly absurd. During his speech to CPAC today, Sen. McCain promised that he’d veto bills with earmarks in them. That’s a major distinction between Sen. McCain and President Bush.

Here’s Dean’s next absurd assault against McCain:

After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign. In fact, two of the top three sources for John McCain’s campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms, and he looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.

Democrats have been exposed as corruption mongers, using earmarks as a fundraising tool. John Murtha has perfected it to the level of a science. The absurdity of Gov. Dean’s statements gets more apparent with each sentence. (continue reading post »)

There’s a must read WSJ editorial out today that details the fight between Obama and Hillary over HillaryCare II. here’s a sample from the editorial:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton’s “individual mandate” for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren’t insured is because it’s too expensive, not because they don’t want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can’t be “universal” without a mandate.

But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.” It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table.

The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this “smear campaign” doomed HillaryCare in 1994, as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.

Yet if Mrs. Clinton’s plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won’t be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, “You can mandate it but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can’t afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” And in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that “we will have an enforcement mechanism” that might include “you know, going after people’s wages.”

There aren’t many differences between Hillary and Obama so it’s important to point out a difference as significant as this. Hillary admitted to George Stephanopoulos that they’d “have an enforcement mechanism” in her new plan: (continue reading post »)

Sometime Thursday, a big fight will erupt on the House floor. According to this memo, the fight will be over earmarks. Here’s an outline of the fight:

“House Republicans regret Speaker Pelosi’s decision to keep the earmark factory open. Middle-class families are fed up with Washington politicians squandering their hard-earned money, particularly at a time when families are struggling with the rising cost of living. We need to bring fundamental change to the way Washington spends the American people’s money, but this change cannot begin until the earmarks stop. Republicans hope rank-and-file Democrats will honor the promises they made in 2006, and join us in voting to halt the broken earmark process so it can be reformed,” Boehner said. (continue reading post »)

Most people don’t care about politics. Most people don’t take the time to read about the issues. Most people just glance at the headlines. That’s why this caught our eyes.

Republicans block a plan to boost economy? Wow.

The actual AP article reads: “The fate of $600-$1,200 rebate checks for more than 100 million Americans is in limbo after Senate Republicans blocked a bid by Democrats to add $44 billion in help for the elderly, disabled veterans, the unemployed and businesses to the House-passed economic aid package.”

These “rebate” checks are a joke, and the people who will be getting them are certainly not going to be boosting anything. They are low-wage earners who already pay little taxes.

The reason for this stimulus package is to help people hurt by the subprime meltdown. So, what is $1200 going to do for the economy? Recipients are either going to pay down some debt (if they’re smart), or more likely squander it. It happens. And from where will the government make up the $44B?

Once again, another example of Democrats being generous with other people’s money, instead of really addressing the problem: Creating an economic climate that spurs job creation through private innovation that contributes to new wealth creation. In short, capitalism.

If nothing else, we just hope you read the headline.

Democrats are victims of their own success.

They have adopted a far-left platform pleasing to the MoveOn.org crowd that is endorsed by both frontrunners, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

They have successfully purged ideological dissent within the party and now goosestep in unison with the single-minded purpose of a hive mentality.

They have even discarded the term “liberal” in favor of “progressive.” This is unintentionally honest as the Democrat Party of today has little resemblance to the values of traditional Western liberalism.

They have been so successful that the typical Democrat voter can see little difference in the policies and positions advocated by Clinton and Obama.

So, their party faithful must look to other factors.

Here, Democrats run into their other success story — identity politics.

If you’re a feminist who believes in government-funded abortion-on-demand, you’re a Democrat.

If you’re an African-American who believes you should receive preferential treatment because your great-grandfather was a slave, you’re a Democrat.

If you’re a Hispanic and see no reason to assimilate culturally, learn English or follow the nations’ immigration laws, you’re a Democrat.

If you’re gay and believe that organized religion’s rejection of homosexuality is hate speech, you’re a Democrat.

You get the picture; if you claim victimhood, you’re a Democrat. (continue reading post »)

With today being Ronald Reagan’s birthday, I thought it would be a perfect time to remind people of his wisdom and the principles that drove his policies.

The Great Communicator’s wisdom was uncanny. He had a habit of standing conventional wisdom on its head. He was able to do this because he’d thought the issues through to such an extent that he was the expert, at least on the strategic level. Reagan then picked people that were skilled tacticians to deal with the day-to-day things.

King at SCSUScholars and I are teaching MOBsters the value of Reagan’s saying that “Your 80 percent friend is not your 20 percent enemy.” The wisdom behind it is that Reagan’s conservatism was principled, not dogmatic. He knew how to get people to his side of an issue.

I’ll always remember another thing Reagan said during his farewell speech on January 11, 1989:

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the people.” “We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. “We the people” are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the people” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the people” are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I’ve tried to do these past eight years.

AMEN TO THAT, MR. PRESIDENT!!! (continue reading post »)

In my post titled “The battle we can’t afford to lose“, I included a study done by the American Medical Students Association (AMSA) on the viability of a single-payer healthcare system. Here’s the ’study’ that AMSA did for the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition:

Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:

• Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
• Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
• Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
• Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
• There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.

At the time, I ridiculed the study for saying that “the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development” and for saying “The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care.” What they’ve just said is that the single-payer system would all but eliminate R & D spending and that they’d dramatically restrict profits for healthcare providers.

As alarming as that study is, AMSA is tied into something far more sinister and widespread than just single-payer. When I visited AMSA’s website, I found a link to an article about an upcoming event being held in Brooklyn, NY. Here’s the opening paragraph of that article: (continue reading post »)

Blogging has been light the last 10 days. For that, I offer this simple explanation: I’ve been fighting a nasty sore throat & a chest cold. Today, though, I return to serious blogging. There’s alot to accomplish; most importantly, we need to rally to Mitt Romney. Here in Minnesota, we also need to stop the “affordable health care” is a constitutional right crowd.

As I wrote here, that’s the battle we can’t afford to lose. Here’s some of the most egregious misinformation from one of the single-payer advocacy groups:

Q: How much does this overhead add up to?
A: Up to 30 percent or more, which means that only 70 percent of every dollar spent for health insurance is available for actual health care. With a Single-Payer system, these costs could actually be used for health care. The savings amount to $630 billion per year, which is way more than enough to provide comprehensive health care for the 54 million uninsured and underinsured.

Q: Well, aren’t these overhead costs just the cost of doing business?
A: No. Medicare’s overhead is in the 1 to 2 percent range. This means that 98 cents on the dollar goes to health care.

Last week, I sent a copy of that factsheet to legislators, BPOU chairmen & women, & numerous bloggers. When I talked with King about the factsheet, he was forced to laughter over the part about Medicare’s overhead being only 1-2 percent. He said that that’s just one of the canards the universal health care lobbyists use. The way they get away with it is because they don’t factor in the overhead of operating a hospital or health care clinic.

Most importantly, conservatives need to jump aboard the Romney express if they object to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants or if you care about keeping taxes low and government spending under control.

Remember this: A vote for McCain is a vote for the Democrats’ agenda.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Health Care, Constitution, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog