Arkansas

by Bill Smith, ARRA News Service: While I wouldn't trust the leftist biased DailyKos polling numbers, I found it interesting that they polled Arkansas on the following Question: Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?
      Yes    No    Not Sure
All   63     17     20
Dem   84      8     8
Rep   33     29     38
Ind   68     16     16

DailyKos added their opinion that "Two-thirds of Arkansas Republicans are deluded conspiracy theorists." Their polling numbers identify that 37% of those polled said no or not sure regarding Obama being born in the United States of America.

As with many polls, the DailyKos sought to highlight what we all already know. While it was interesting to poll what "what one believes." that is not the important issue. The important issue is "Was Barack Obama born in the United States of America?" A president should not leave 37% of those polled in doubt. Omitting even those classified as "birthers," a properly designed detailed polling question would yield a significantly higher percent for those in doubt of his citizenship. For example, the following question would yield a different results: "President Barack Obama has never allowed public access to his birth certificate by even the press and election officials to validate that he was a natural born American Citizen (born in Hawaii verses a foreign country or territory). This situation has caused some people to be concerned about Mr. Obama meeting the requirement of being a natural born citizen to be qualified to be the President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This issue has not been an unresolved issue previously in U.S. history. Note: that all citizens of the United States are required from time to time to provide their birth certificate to meet legal requirements or to obtain benefits and services. Do you believe that Barack Obama should make his birth certificate public to alleviate the unanswered question concerning his meeting the requirement of the U.S. Constitution and thereby allow the citizens of the United States of America to resolve this issue for all time?"

Like other citizens, I have been required to present my birth certificate on numerous occasions. For example, to be sworn in as a commissioned "regular" military officer, I had to provide my birth certificate to prove that I was born in the United States of America. To receive a Top Secret clearance, the U.S. Government investigated to see if I was born in the United States of America. For one of my sons to be validated as a natural-born American, both my wife and I had to provide proof to the State Department overseas and before a Federal Judge in the United States that we were both born in the United States of America. To get my previous diplomatic passport, I had to provide my birth certificate. And there are other situations for which I had to prove that I was born in the United States of America! They same is true for all other U.S. citizens.

While I am not part of or pursuing the interests of the "birther movement," both as a citizen and commissioned military officer, I expect President Obama to do no less than I have done. Mr. Obama is not a potentate but a citizen servant. I would expect him to resolve this issue by demonstrating leadership and by presenting any and all documentation to remove all doubt by citizens of the United States as to his being a natural-born citizen of the united States.

Like many others, I am disappointed that the traditional media failed to do their job and to address this issue prior to the primary so that this issue would not be an issue. They clearly showed a bias unequaled in history and their failure to do so will be judged by history. It has been almost nine months since Barack Obama took the following oath of office to be President of the United States:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He previously, took the following oath as Senator:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

By the taking both of these oaths, President Barack Obama has a responsibility to resolve this issue by laying before American citizens his birth certificate and by allowing the press public access to his original birth certificate. This issue will never be hidden in history by the things which Mr. Obama hopes to achieve as President or even by the things he does later in life. If not resolved, Mr. Obama will go down in history as the "Unnatural President" and his actions and his programs will be tainted in history. This can be easily resolved by Mr. Obama presenting his birth certificate as other Americans have done on numerous occasions.

As Doyle Webb, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas  mentioned  earlier , recently we held the annual RNC State Chairman’s meeting.  I traveled with Doyle and sat in on the Executive Director meetings.

Having the chance to meet with National Committee members and other state party staff from around the country proved to me that our State Party is moving in the right direction.  I am not knocking other State Parties, I do feel that the Republican Party as a whole is making a comeback, but I am proud to say the Republican Party of Arkansas has it together!

We are using the resources we have both efficiently and effectively.  Our new website has put us leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.  The candidates we are talking with not only have a clear and conservative message, but more importantly, have the ability to follow that message through with action.

I am excited and I hope you are too!  If we continue to strengthen our base while reaching out to and educating the other pieces of the political spectrum, it will be no time before we have successfully painted Arkansas Red!

Written by Chase Dugger, Political Director

Also posted at the Republican Party of Arkansas.Follow us on Twitter@argopTo become a fan of the Republican Party of Arkansas click here. Go to the Republican Party Of Arkansas to learn more. 

Michael Barone makes a typically brilliant point looking forward to 2010:

[I]f I were a conservative cheerleader against the Obama/Pelosi stimulus package, I would be concentrating less of my fire against the three Republicans who supported the Senate version and more on Democratic members of the House and (at least those who are up for reelection in 2010) the Senate.

Given all the talk on the right the past few days, I must go on the record AGAINST a primary challenge to Arlen Specter.  My reason is simple: Arlen Specter is the only Republican who's won Statewide in Pennsylvania at the Federal Level since 2001.  More specifically, he knows how to win in the Philly suburbs.  As Chris Palko has blogged about on this site, Republicans have gotten killed in the Philly 'burbs for the past decade.

A little background: I supported Pat Toomey in 2004.  In 2004, Republicans had a (reasonably) popular President, control of the U.S. House, and VERY narrow control of the U.S. Senate; under those circumstances, it made sense to replace a Liberal Republican with a Conservative Republican.  There was good reason to believe that whoever won the Republican Primary would cruise to victory in the General Election.  As a state with a Democrat Governor and a Republican State Senate, Pennsylvanians are well known ticket splitters.

In 2010, Republicans will only have 41 Senators.  While the President's popularity heading into the election cannot be known, Conservatives should prepare for the worst.  Republicans shouldn't risk a perfectly good Senate seat when a much smarter alternative exists.  Whatever Specter's flaws, a liberal Republican is better than a Democrat.

And what, pray tell, is the Alternative?

That one's simple.

Let's Beat Democrats!

More Specifically, there are 5 (actually 10) Senate seats currently held by DEMOCRATS that we should aggressively target before we counterproductively cannibalize our own.

1) Indiana - While Obama eeked out McCain in this state in 2008, it's historically been a GOP stronghold.  As such, Indiana will be Ground Zero of any backlash against President Obama's economic policies; Evan Bayh will not be able to hide his vote(s) .  If Mike Pence runs for the Seat, so much the better.

2) Wisconsin - While Obama won this state solidly in 2008, it has a history of electing Republicans and Bush almost won it in 2004.  The Incumbent, Russ Feingold, is a far left kook who teamed up with John McCain for one of the all time great legislative assaults on the Constitution.  If Congressman Paul Ryan or Former Governor Thompson could pick up this seat, they would do the nation a great service.

3) North Dakota - This is a state that consistently votes Republican at the Presidential and Gubenatorial Levels yet elects borderline Bolsheviks to the U.S. Senate.  Well, the Radicals Have Taken Over and they just got their way on economic policy.  Byron Dorgan will own the results of President Obama's economic policy.  Most of the statewide offices (at the state level) are held by Republicans.

4) Arkansas -  This state was one of the few bright spots for the GOP in 2008.  Every county voted more Republican than 2004.  Seats like these are the low hanging fruit of any future majority.

5) Nevada - President Obama just insulted Las Vegas.  Harry Reid is President Obama's cheif Lieutenant in the Senate.  Need I say more?

As you can see, pickup opportunities abound in seats currently held by Democrats.  We can do more to influence the agenda in the Senate by picking up these seats than by going after one of our own.  Primary Challenges are a luxury we cannot afford.

---

In case you would like to know why Arlen Specter deserves to stay in the Senate, I present the following three reasons:

1) The Surge -- In 2007, when the Democrats in Congress wanted to give up in Iraq, Senate Republicans rallied around President Bush and gave him enough breathing room to get the Surge off the Ground.  Arlen Specter was one of those Senate Republicans.

2) John Roberts and Sam Alito -- As Judiciary Committee chairman, Specter did what was necesssary to get President Bush's Supreme Court nominees through the Senate.  He'll do the same with any future Republican President.

3) Senator Chris Matthews -- I just can't handle that.  No way.  I can live with Arlen Specter if it prevents that.

I hope this helps.

Thoughts/Suggestion?!?

Good morning, and welcome to the start of the 111th Congress. Your intrepid blogger remains on his voter-mandated vacation as he writes this, and it is not for a lack of trying.

As we move forward to the ceremonial opening of Congress, we must ask ourselves if Speaker Nancy Pelosi will beckon children to gather about her as she is anointed like she did at the start of the 110th Congress. Or, will she beckon the special-interest group which will be at the heart of every Democrat this session: the union bosses?

The news reports today detail how Madame Speaker has, with the likely tacit approval of the incoming president, decided to embrace her own versions of "Hope" and "Change": changing the rules of the House of Representatives back to the pre-Newt days in the hope of quashing all dissent and opposition in order to protect her caucus from politically tricky votes, and installing committee chairman for life - going back on the reforms Republicans brought forth in 1994.

House Democrats are poised to approve new rules that will significantly increase their authority while taking the bullets out of the few legislative weapons Republicans have in the lower chamber.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has approved the changes from the last Congress, when House GOP members frustrated their Democratic counterparts by winning over two dozen amendment battles on the floor.

Pelosi’s move has set up a divisive mood on the first day of the 111th Congress, which Republicans say runs counter to the tone set by President-elect Obama.

Republican leaders intend to fight the rules changes, which would curtail their ability to delay legislation by forcing Democrats to take politically difficult votes.

“This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised,” the GOP leaders wrote Monday in a letter to Pelosi.

Republican leadership aides say the changes will make it easier for the Speaker to run the House and protect vulnerable House Democrats.

As I write, Rep. John Larson (the new Rahm) is speaking on C-SPAN about working together with Republicans to improve the country (which is easy, I guess, when you write the rules in such a way that the only "working together" comes from voting with the Democrats). Per CQ:

Democratic leaders are taking a hard look at preventing the minority party from scoring easy political points with motions to recommit a bill to committee with instructions to make contentious language changes and then report it back to the House “promptly.” In the outgoing Congress, “promptly’’ has meant an indefinite hold, because committees were not willing to adopt poison-pill amendments sponsored by the minority.

Most motions to recommit require instead that an amended bill be returned to the floor “forthwith,” which means within minutes.

GOP aides complain that the possible limit motions to recommit would take away the minority’s ability to attack tax increases in must-pass bills. That’s because the pay-as-you-go budget rule, which is likely to be renewed, does not allow amendments or motions to recommit forthwith that would remove any of the offsets it requires in legislation.

The pay-as-you-go rule requires that all new entitlement spending or new tax cuts be offset with equivalent spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere.

So, to sum up. Speaker Pelosi will strip term-limits from committee chairman - giving them virtually unbridled power to dominate the minority party - while stripping the minority of the power to recommit a motion back to a committee. That sounds an awful lot like one-party consolidation to me.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following editorial comments are in reaction to the actions this week by the five Republicans in the “Gang of 10.” Most of us have been to varied team sporting events: e.g., Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey. For the team to win, the members of the team must all remain focused on the goal of winning. During the game, they don't get sidetracked patting opponents on the back and running out on the field with a couple of their team buddies to meet members of the other team, or declaring that they represent their whole and have negotiated the end of game results - so the game is over. We would rightly call these players a "gang; thugs." Obviously, they would at a least be benched or at best, kicked off the team. Razorback fans (other readers substitute your favorite team) go to see their Hogs play - win or lose. They keep coming to see their team play in hopes of defeating the other team. They want to win and they wouldn't like it if a few team members sold out the rest of the team. They understand that the Hogs may lose but they sure don't want the game played with without a full team.

Consider then our form of government; we are a Republic. We, the people, elect our Senators to represent our State and elect our Congressional Representative to represent our individual Congressional District. We expect these men and women to go to Washington D.C. to represent us and not to try to compromise and represent the people of other States or districts. Retuning to the sports analogy, across the country we have in effect elected our all star players to go to Washington to compete both for us - their constituents - and to part of their political "All Star" team. For example, in Arkansas, we know that our Senators, both Democrats, are also playing for the Democrat "All Star" team under the incompetent team coach -- Harry Reid. Others, like Lieberman , an "independent democrat,” play for the Democrat team. Others like Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson are supposed to be playing for the Republican "All Star" team. Unfortunately, while on the Republican Team, they have decided to break out on their own and negotiate with members of Reid’s team.

Most of us dislike small groups of people who meet privately to make agreements, and decisions that affect us. We call such groups "clicks" when being nice and other names when not feeling so nice. The press has rightly labeled these breakaway elected officials as “gangs.” We do not deny them their right to associate, to talk, to caucus, or to debate. We may not like their continued personally associations but heck we have no say if the go to church, go fishing, visit their local D.C. "watering hole,” or even foot tap" together. But we do mind when they are on the playing field and then they opt out of their teams and join together in a "Gang of 10" to speak for the rest of the elected officials and the members or your political party. This arrogance is intolerable as they are trampling on our Republic and over calling or silencing the voices of our other elected official.

And for those five Senators who are Republicans, how dare you compromise an important bargaining position on which we are supported by a majority of the American people. While the five democrats on the “Gang of 10” are clearly representing their party’s agenda and getting republicans to compromise and to “shut –up,” such is not the situation for the five republicans. The five republicans have “fumbled the ball” without even having their full team present. They have ignored one of the “most exciting and motivating” issues of the day on which Republicans are taking a stand. They have abandoned their team, ignored the coach and compromised a fundamental issue on which Republicans are taking a stand. How can they expect their team members to trust or work with them in the future? American voters do not forget and “Elephant” voters have long memories and have been know to turn out RINOs. Losing to the other team in a hard fought game is understood. Having a few players throw the game is unconscionable. While winning covers a multitude of issues, failure to support the team is unforgivable. Ask any die hard Razorback fan. We love our team and despise anyone who sellouts the team or tramples on the Razorback name. The same is true for voters be they democrat or republican. And currently, the actions referenced in the Wall Street Journal editorial are unacceptable to Republicans.

Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal: It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Sen. Obama was thrilled. . . . Equally gleeful was Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, the Senate's most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production -- a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with "five Republicans" to "lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home."

Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a "bipartisan" effort on energy, especially one that includes "drilling." His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain's good friend Lindsey Graham considers "helping," somebody might want to ask him to stop.

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. . . .

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him. Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.