MichaelTurk's blog

It's no surprise that I am a big believer in Fred Thompson.  I was making the case for Fred several months before getting involved with his campaign.  He is a stalwart supporter of the principles of the party - small government, personal responsibility, Federalism, and traditional values.

In looking at the race for RNC Chair, count me among the many voices who have made the argument that Fred should be our guy. As General Chairman of the party, he would be fantastic.  He is solid on principles, good on camera and able to articulate our party's message in a way that resonates with real people, and firmly committed to electing solid conservatives.

It's that last point that leads me to write this post. 

I have heard a number of people talking up Michael Steele as a potential party chair. While I think Steele is an appealing candidate with a great narrative (I love that he used to be a monk), I have to judge him on performance leading an organization like the RNC.

Steele has, most recently, been the Chairman of GOPAC.  If that name is familiar, it's because of the tremendous role it played in the '94 revolution. It was once a powerhouse in GOP campaigns.  It provided candidate training nationwide and recruited some great candidates.

Under Michael Steele, as of October 15, GOPAC had raised a whopping $77,135 this year.  Of that, it gave just over $29,000 to candidates - with $5,000 of that going to Steele's own campaign in Maryland.

By comparison, Fred Thompson launched FredPAC at the beginning of September - just 60 days before the election.  In that 60 days, Fred contributed $42,000 to candidates, recorded ads and robo-calls for GOP candidates, and criss-crossed the country trying to elect Republicans and the McCain-Palin ticket.

In trying to answer the question "Who is better able to rebuild the party, raise money, and actively campaign for our candidates?" I think we need to look at what the candidates have done to actually help candidates. 

Given that Steele raised very little, contributed very little, and took 17% for himself, I'm just not sure he's the best guy to dig us out of this particular hole.

A friend dropped by Saturday to chat about the state of the GOP, our loss, the future, and specifically the problems the GOP is having online.  He's not an online guy, and is much better connected to the offline establishment.  In our discussion, he really crystallized some thoughts I have been having lately.  One comment, in particular, got me thinking.

I hear what you guys are saying about the GOP needing to change our approach to the Internet, but I have to admit, it's often the way you say it. You guys have a tendency to come across like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons - talking down to anyone who knows less than you do.

While I disagree with the choice of analogy, I fully apppreciate his point.  I would actually suggest that we're much more like Jack Black's character Barry in High Fidelity.

According to an American Spectator item this morning, the race for RNC Chair appears to be over. Or maybe it's not. But the game of who is in and who is out has some tongues wagging.

It seems the South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson has been campaigning for the gig since last year sometime (Ok, not really. Just since the convention, according to the AS piece.)

Dawson, the owner of an auto-parts-supply company, has been calling GOP donors and fundraisers, among others, telling them he has lined up enough votes within the 168-member national committee to make him a prohibitive favorite for the job.

"He's made it clear he doesn't expect John McCain to win the presidency," says one RNC fundraiser who has received such a call. "Katon's an ambitious guy. He's made no bones about the fact that he wants the RNC job."

But no one takes seriously the notion that Dawson is anywhere close to having a large voting bloc of RNC votes. "There are too many others poised to get into the race," says one RNC member. "We're looking at between 10 to 15 potential candidates and maybe seven or eight of them already have constituencies on the committee. No one is in a position to call this thing over, particularly since our next president, John McCain, gets to pick the next chairman."

That point is something that Dawson has seemingly overlooked, and his aggressive campaigning at a time when most Republicans are fighting hard to get McCain elected President has angered a number of Republicans because they understand why Dawson, who has been a local GOP chair in South Carolina, and won the state party job in 2002, is running: in part, to help jumpstart a presidential bid for the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford...

Dawson was actually campaigning for the job during the Republican Convention, something that angered not only the McCain campaign, but other Republicans with longtime ties to the RNC.

Apparently, some people are upset because Katon Dawson is actively campaigning while they're trying to elect John McCain. On the heels of all the "reform the rightroots movement" posts, this may stirke some people as odd.

I'd like to throw this out for discussion. Given all the chatter about reforming the GOP, is it bad form to start a campaign for Chairman months before the election?

I suspect it will only be another 36 hours or so before we see a lot more people jockeying for the RNC gig. After all, it is one of the three most visible positions within the GOP if McCain should fail to hold the White House. However, how early is "too early"? Should the body be cold before campaigning begins? Does it even need to be dead?

Despite being three years old, the "Dear Red States" Craigslist posting from 2005 is suddenly circulating again.  I guess it must be election season that has revived this.  But I figured I'd take a quick shot at a response.

Dear Red States... We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

Hot Damn.  Thanks.  You're like people who have stayed long after the rest of the party goers have gone home. We've been hoping you'd finally leave, but we're too polite to simply throw you out.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

Well, actually, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington are typically considered "swing states", but you can have them.  Congratulations. You got two states too cold to live in, a failing automotive industry, and Washington.

As for the beaches, we got the entire gulf coast and the Atlantic up to North Carolina.  You got the rocky coast of the northwest and the Jersey Shore (whose tourism board just recently announced their new slogan "Guidos in Speedos").  Again.  Congrats.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

I don't mean to quibble with your argument, but Bank of America is the nation's largest and one of the few solvent banks.  It's located in North Carolina.  We'll take that.

I also suspect that most of the corporate CEOs that built that wealth will move in with us since better than 75% of them vote Republican.

You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

You can have the tax revenue.  We'll give the other 1/3 back to the people since they know how to spend it better than your army of bureaucrats.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire

Since our troops will be coming home in a year under President Bush's plan anyway, that's fine with us.  

You're also likely impose strict gun control while we a) have a tendency to support regime change and b) own a lot of guns. In addition, since most of America's nuclear arsenal sits in silos in the red states, if we ever decide we want New California back...  Well, let's just say, "Sleep tight!" 

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90 % of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 % of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 %of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

You got me there.  Let's just hope that all the Asian students who are attending those schools will let you mow their lawns when they graduate.

While I will miss the pineapple, I think I speak for my red state family when I say we're ok giving up the wine and stinky cheese.  After all, we still have all the Jack Daniels from Tennesee, all the Coors and Budweiser beer products from Colorado and Missouri, most of America's steak, and all the cigars we can roll with that North Carolina tobacco.

You also seem to forget that a) we will get most of America's total acreage.  We get America's strategic oil reserve, we get all the oil in Texas and Alaska.  With a much smaller population, we'll have enough energy to last generations.  If we run short, we have no problem drilling off the coast of New California since we know we won't run into you there. Even if we do, like I said, we have all the guns.

That is a shame about the condors.  I hear they're good eatin'.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 % of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

I can live with that.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. Additionally, 38 % of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico .

Peace out,
Blue States

Ugh! You get Hollywood?  Bummer.  You've just taken on a huge sector of the economy that creates little of actual value, yet gets paid better than most CEOs.  But we're willing to accept that since you have agreed to permanently dispose of Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, and Britney Spears.  Thanks for taking care of that for us.

In closing, let me simply say thank you again. I think this arrangement will work out beautifully.

There is a lot of chatter on the wires about the 2001 radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the Supreme Court's role in addressing "political and economic justice" and redistribution of wealth.  Taken together with his "spread the wealth around" comments to Joe the Plumber, a lot of people are seeing a pattern. Many have begun to suggest that Obama is a closet socialist just waiting to spring a trap on an unsuspecting America.

Well, let's look at this analytically beginning with an accepted definition of Socialism.  For sake of a common source, I'll use Wikipedia.  I'm not a big fan of it for discussions like this, but since the people have collectively "spoken" and regard it is sound, it's common ground, I guess.  It's definition of socialism includes this:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.^[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Many people equate socialism with communism and Marxism, but those are really false analogies.  Communism is predicated on a classless society with no government.  To that extent, what we call communist nations are not actually communist at all.  There have been countries that attempted to create a communist state, but most ended up totalitarian regimes.  Even China, one of the stalwart adherents to communism, has realized they need to open the door to capitalism more and more.

So what's the difference between communist/Marxist, and socialist societies? Well, the answer to that is long enough to earn you an advanced degree in most colleges, but let's define it as a question of two things - revolution and control.

Under Marxist theory, a revolution would be necessary to wrest control of the means of production from the hands of the upper class.  That would be followed by a period of control by a type of revolutionary council, and then eventually the abolition of government in favor of the collective.  This latter period is where most Marxist states have gone wrong.  They get caught up in the fervor of being in power, and end up inviting a revolution.

Socialism, by comparison, doesn't necessarily require revolution.  In fact, many argue that despite the fear of an Obama administration, the US is already well on the road to socialism thanks to the collapse of Wall Street and the intervention of the Bush economic team.

All socialism requires, per the definition above, is either "complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange or state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

It is in the latter framework that we need to address the question of "Obama's socialism".  Obama's team has reiterated, ad nauseum, their claims that Obama is committed to the free market. In response to the 2001 radio interview, his team had this to say.

In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

Actually, that's not what he said.  If you listen to the interview, he said that he could easily develop an argument that the court's could carry out the task of ordering redistributive policies, but that the administrative overhead would be too great for the courts so such change must come through Congress.

He also, quite specifically, never said he opposed redistributive policies, only that they must originate in legislation, not court doctrine.

So where is Congress on this?  Even Nancy Pelosi, a devout liberal, is on the free market bandwagon, right?

We are all believers in the free market -- it's part of our democracy. We know that the free markets create jobs, create capital, and create wealth -- that's very important. But recently, left unregulated and undisciplined and unsupervised, they create chaos.

Well, frankly we don't know if that's true because we don't have a free market.  We have a regulated market. "Free markets" by definition, are free of outside influence.  All transactions are between buyer and seller.  When you introduce even basic constraints - say fraud protection, lemon laws, etc. - you no longer have a free market.  Pelosi's comments seem to indicate that she's in favor of a regulated market.

So which does Obama favor?  A free market or a regulated market? From his statement about the plan for government taking ownership stakes in banks, it appears to be the latter:

[T]he plan appears to extend a broader set of guarantees to banks without requiring any additional regulation, which represents more of the same failed philosophy that got us into this mess.

Ok.  So Obama wants government regulation.  So what's wrong with that?

Well, let's look back at that "widely accepted" definition of Socialism.

[O]thers advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

We now have government with a sizable ownership interest in banks, insurance, and securities.  We're also heavily involved in an automotive bailout.  You can argue the current wave of nationalization started under Bush - which is true - but it's not like Obama has opposed it.

Further,  I suspect we'll start to see justifications for expanding that reach into energy and telecommunications.  The government is encroaching more and more on the people.

While it is not yet the complete nationalization of the means of production, it's getting a lot closer.

Obama is in support of the government role in banks, wants more regulation (read: control) of the market.  His cheerleaders in Congress want the same.  He has talked openly of using government power to "spread the wealth" around.  He has made coherent arguments that redistributive policies must come from government. (That alone leads me to believe he has spent a good deal of time thinking about it.)

With all that, I ask you, is there honestly anyone alive who can make that claim that the term "socialist" doesn't apply here?

The Washington Times reports on the fuzzy numbers behind Obama's tax "cut".  WashTimes looks at the rather questionable assertion that you can give a tax cut to people who already pay no taxes.  To achieve their goal of "cutting" taxes for 95% of America, it seems Team Obama will simply take $500 or $1000 from some people, and give it to somebody else - no questions asked.

That idea caught the attention of AFP's Phil Kerpen (a very bright guy):

It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes.

Obama's folks are justifying this wealth redistribution scheme by suggesting that Social Security taxes paid are now "refundable" through income tax rebates even if no income taxes were paid.

Unlike conservatives who have consistently pointed to the cumulative amount of taxes, the Democrats have suddenly discovered the "total tax burden".  They will use income taxes paid by some to rebate back Social Security taxes paid by others.

How exactly will that work, given that the Social Security trust is broke and about to start paying out far more that it takes in?  Well, I suspect we'll soon see another "soak the rich" campaign removing the social security cap so "the rich" will see dramatic increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the gap created by Obama's rebates.

If you doubt that, you should read the quote from Obama's campaign advisor.  It may be the scariest thing you'll ever see in print.

"Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' - they think it is only fair to reward work," said Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's chief economic adviser.

You heard that right.  Work that results in someone not getting ahead is to be rewarded with money taken from those whose work results in them actually making money (which is apparently work that needs to be punished).

An Obama administration will first absolve a huge segment of taxpayers from any tax responsibility at all, and then shift that obligation to those who create jobs and get ahead.  The wealth redistribution schemes the Obama team wants to put in place should scare the bejeezus out of anybody with one ounce of grey matter in their brain case.

The Politico today covers the decision by the NRCC to pull funding from Congressional races for good, conservative challengers so they can prop up the campaigns of flailing Republicans.

Under normal circumstances, I would expect the NRCC to behave this way.  They are, after all, a campaign organization run by friends and colleagues of those currently serving.  They will protect their own first, and build our numbers second.

What makes me uneasy with that now, is the specific names the Politico mentions.

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Frankly, it hasn't caught me by surprise.  All of those listed voted for the $700 billion - or is it $850 billion or $1.5 trillion, I guess it depends on whose scoring it - boondoggle foisted upon the taxpayers.  These guys are solidly Republican living in solidly Republican districts, and they're suddenly at risk of losing their seats just two short weeks after pissing on the taxpayer? Hrrrrmmmm... I wonder why.

What should stand out in particular are the names Shadegg and Terry.  They're among the sellouts who switched from No votes to Yes votes.  Apparently they guessed wrong.  That vote for political expediency may cost real conservatives - like Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, perhaps the best candidate we have running this cycle - a seat.  It may guarantee that the one chance we have to hold a seat - any seat - in NM is lost.

It is unfortunate that the NRCC feels it's better to protect weak Republicans than to elect strong ones.

Well I won't be supporting the NRCC until we see a new Chairman - one who is willing to support good candidates, not just good friends.

Here they are, folks.  The list of sellout votes.  They've sold out their party to save their seat in Congress.

Make them pay at the ballot box in 33 days.

Rodney Alexander – LA05
Gresham Barrett  - SC03
Judy Biggert – IL13
Charles Boustany – LA07
Vern Buchanan – FL13
Howard Coble – NC06
Steve Conaway – WA29
Charlie Dent – PA15
Mary Fallin - OK05
Rodney Frelinghuysen – NJ11
Jim Gerlach – PA06
Pete Hoekstra – MI02
Joe Knollenberg – MI09
Randy Kuhl – NY29
Sue Myrick – NC09
Jim Ramstad – MN03 (not seeking re-election)
Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen – FL18
Jean Schmidt – OH02
John Shadegg – AZ03
Bill Shuster – PA09
John Sullivan – OK01
Lee Terry – NE02
Mac Thornberry – TX13
Patrick Tiberi – OH12
Jerry Weller – IL11

The left is all spun up today about the latest non-story regarding Sarah Palin - she had a tanning bed installed in the Governor's mansion.  To put this shocking abuse of government power into perspective consider the following facts:

• A residential tanning bed runs about $1300 to $2600 and will likely last at least a few years.
• The cost is roughly equivalent to three to six John Edwards' haircuts.
  • Assuming John only gets his hair cut once a month (not likely) that's the equivalent of 1/4 to 1/2 John Edward's annual budget for hair cuts (probably closer to 1/8 his hair budget).
• Average annual temperature in Juneau is 47.2 degrees - you don't get an opportunity to do a lot of tanning at 47 degrees.

Given the relative inability to lay out in the sun, and the relative cost efficiency over time of having a tanning bed in residence as opposed to paying a monthly membership to a tanning salon, this doesn't seem eggregious. 

If they have a receipt that shows they paid 10 or 20 times market value for the bed, maybe.  But $2,000 grand on a tanning bed so your Governor doesn't look pasty when she goes on TV is not a stretch.

Let's find something real, huh guys?

When copyright protection goes too far, you get stuff like this.

Last night, I created and posted the video below to YouTube.  Immediately after processing, I received a notification from YouTube that ITN News, a British media company, has claimed all rights to footage of the Republican National Convention, and my video would be disabled unless I chose to pursue a denial of their claim.

No, there are two things to note.  First, the video was not obtained from ITN, but rather from C-Span.  Second, the video was used in accordance with C-Cpan's copyright policy here: http://rnc08.cspan.org/About/Copyright.aspx

So YouTube has effectively become the watchdog for ITN who is misusing the copyright process to a) prevent anyone from posting convention video and b) prevent anyone using video from another source for posting convention video.