N.O.A.H. New Jersey Republican State Senator Sean Kean has called upon the state Department of Transportation to stop work on a route 36 bridge that spans the mouth of the Shrewsbury and Navesink River estuary in Mounmouth County New Jersey.

You might think it odd for a state legislator to call for the cessation of work on an important roadway in his district. But such is the case.

Senator Kean doesn’t want the project abandoned, he just wants it suspended until a group of immigrants leave the area.

Is this a sign that New Jersey Republicans are finally accepting the fact that illegal immigration is wrong and must be treated as such?

I wish.

But even if that was the case, why suspend the final touches on a project that improves a bridge on a crucial artery?

Well the immigrants involved in this particular case are not illegal nor do they have green cards, passports, licenses, or any other verifiable identification but they do have fins.

They are Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and this particular pod consists of 12.

These 12 happy campers came to the area 6 months ago and have been enjoying their new digs in the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers ever since.

There presence in the area is not abnormal, just infrequent. More infrequent is the length of their stay in the area. In the past, most visiting dolphins have moved on by now for areas south around the Carolinas. But not this pod.

Experts say that their unscheduled visit it is not indicative of a problem though.

There are two ecotypes of bottlenose dolphins, offshore and coastal. The offshore bottlenose dolphins usually frolic further out to sea than the coastal variety and they do so in large groups often numbering in the hundreds. The coastal variety tend to stay closer to shore and often inhabit bays, harbors and rivers. They also run in groups much smaller than their offshore relatives. Normally 20 or less. With the exception of the the poles around both hemispheres, both ecotypes exist in tropical and temperate waters worldwide.

The pod presently roaming the Navesink and Shrewsbury rivers are apparently the coastal type and the duration of their time in these rivers is simply because this is where they want to be now.4 of the 12 Dolphin Pod In The Shrewsbury River During June of '08

Marine scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service out of Gloucester Massachusettes, along with other wildlife officials, claim that the pod of 12 are not in any danger. They add that none of the dolphins are exhibiting any sign of stress, disorientation or starvation. In fact experts believe that the pod is just acting normally, and probably following the path of fish they feed on.

Yet animal rescuers and members of the group Clean Ocean Action are not satisfied by that assessment.

They believe that construction on the bridge at the Shrewsbury-Navesink River estuary is the reason for the long stay of the dolphins. Their thinking is that the loud noise from pile-driving along with the presence of crane barges by the bridge, are preventing the pod from exiting the straight that the bridge spans.

Marine experts have testified that the happy and healthy animals are not effected by either the barges or the noise and, just in case, whenever the dolphins are found within 500 meters of the bridge, work is stopped until dolphins have moved on.

But the activist dolphin fans still call upon the animal experts to do something. They have requested that they “lure” the dolphins back out into Sandy Hook Bay.

Explaining that the move is unnecessary, NOAA officials assured the activists that in addition to having the same concern for the dolphins that they do, there just isn’t a need to force the dolphins to change the normal, natural behavior that they are exhibiting.

They further add that the attempts to capture, herd or lure the dolphins are unlikely to work and unnecessarily dangerous.

antshrews1smallThe lead veterinarian for NOAA was reported to say "we're letting these dolphins be wild dolphins." She added “we are not, as an agency, trying to limit the habitat of the recovering coastal bottlenose dolphins."

Given all of the testimony by professionals in the field, why would Senator Kean call upon the Transportation Department to stop working on what experts say has nothing to do with the longer than usual stay of the dolphins?


Among the only imagery sadder than a lifeless dolphin is an innocent, wide-eyed, fear struck, baby fur seal about to be clubbed over the head or Bambi weeping . If any number of these dolphins perished, Sean Kean does not want to be linked to their demise through any sad imagery of the dolphins that would be replicated on a slick campaign mailer sent out by his opponent in the next election and blaming him for their death.

So Senator Kean acted responsibly as far as electoral politics goes.

After all, he does not have the authority to force the D.O.T to stop a project, so no one can blame him if they don’t stop construction on the bridge,……. he tried.

But what if the Department of Transportation did decide to comply with his request?

What is politically expedient today for the senator, may not be politically expedient for him tomorrow.

If construction on the bridge did stop because of Kean’s request for the safety of the dolphins, how long would it be before the dolphins finally moved on and construction could resume?

The bridge in question happens to be heavily traveled, especially during the summer months when every single beachgoer coming from the north, including New York are traveling over it to get to the beaches of Sandy Hook , Sea Brite and many others past it.

Any traffic congestion during the summer months because of construction that was dealyed by the the dolphins will be compounded by a preponderance of beachgoers who locals call bennys, a term used by locals for the out of town, summer visitors out of frustration with with the extensive congestion of our roadways that the bennies cause as they flock to the Jersey Shore and make it more difficult for us to move out and about in our local neighborhood and on our beaches between Memorial day and Labor day.On The Navesink Rink In July

The term is based on first letter of the towns that tourists rode through when taking the Jersey Shore line of the New Jersey Transit train system to and from the shore. They include Bayonne, Elizabeth, Newark and New York.

If Sean Kean’s requested cessation of construction on that bridge during the less traveled winter months, causes the construction to occur when the Bennies are clogging roadways during the summer months, the added delays will result in angry voters who will not be pleased with the senator‘s actions.

But Senator Kean has to do what he feels he has to do.

Perhaps he sincerely fears for the lives of these dolphins. As a feline enthusiast and cattery owner, I am an animal lover and that includes dolphins. So I could understand if his motovation was driven by heartfelt concern. But I can’t understand why he would disregard the advice of a group of people who also like dolphins but unlike either one of us, these animal lovers are experts concerning dolphins. They know much more about them than the senator and most, if not all, the concerned activists who are second guessing them.

Of course, he could just be going through the motions in a well conceived attempt to please everyone .

Boaters Look On While The Dolphins Do Their Thing

The senator probably understands that some people will not be satisfied by any evidence that contradicts their opinion. Some of the “stop the construction crowd” probably wouldn’t be convinced that the bridge isn’t effecting the dolphins even if Flipper himself popped out of the water and presented them with a notarized statement swearing that their concerns are unwarranted.

So, given the fact that the construction site operates with a monitoring systems that is sensitive to the dolphins needs and that the D.O.T is not likely to comply with his request, Kean publicly goes through with the request understanding that the dolphins are not at risk. But by officially calling upon the D.O.T to suspend work on the bridge, the activists will know that Sean Kean did all that he could to address their concerns while Kean knows the bridge will be completed before the busy summer months roll around and the dolphins will still be safe.

Everybody wins.

All that convoluted thinking kind of makes you wish you were a dolphin yourself. They don’t have to deal with trying to please everybody. They get to go where they want, when they want and how they want, and they do it all without a big bureaucracy charging them for it.

Which brings us to a different potential problem for the dolphins.

If these bottlenose dolphins stay in the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers too long, Governor Corzine and the Democrat led state legislature will certainly tax them and add a toll for them to pay when they do finally decide to leave.



Christmas Time in Washington


The Supreme Court ruled there cannot be a Nativity scene in Washington, D.C. this Christmas.


This isn't for any religious or constitutional reason, they simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the nation's capitol.


There was no problem however finding enough asses to fill the stable.

Peer Production and the Future of the Republican Party: An Open Letter to the Next RNC Chairman

This letter was written as a follow-up to some points I raised about idea creation for the GOP in an earlier blog post.

To the future chairman of the Republican National Committee,

We face a tough road over the coming days, months, and years as we work to transform the Republican Party into the party of the future so that we can recover from this year’s devastating losses in the House, Senate, and ultimately, White House. The path ahead will be a challenging one, but I am convinced that we are up to the challenge and that ultimately we will prevail.

In order to do this, however, we must recognize as a party that many of the ways of the past are no longer the way of the future. For example, Barack Obama has proven that new media and the Internet are essential to winning elections. Similarly, we now see that we must be able to raise a large percentage of money and build a powerful infrastructure online.

Following this logic, we also need to realize that peer production is the way of the future – not just in politics or business, but in all walks of life. At a macro level, this means that we must democratize the Republican Party by opening it to mass collaboration. If the Republican Party wants to be the party of the future, it must adopt this sort of collaboration driven, peer production based model.

Indeed, peer production has proven enormously and unequivocally successful as a business model. Corporations are scrambling to replicate the impeccable successes of companies like Goldcorp, Inc., who in 1999 was on the verge of bankruptcy because it was unable to locate sources of gold on its property. Out of desperation, CEO Rob McEwen issued the “Goldcorp Challenge,” inviting anyone and everyone to help the company locate gold on its campus. The success was astounding: due to peer production, Goldcorp went from being an underperforming $100 million company to a $9 billion juggernaut. Many other leading companies, including IBM, Boeing, and Procter & Gamble have adopted peer production as a central component of their business model to similarly resounding success. Although political trends tend to lag behind business trends, peer production is clearly one trend in which we cannot afford to fall behind.

In fact, Barack Obama’s electoral success was not really due to his use of the Internet. Rather, the Internet only served as the medium through which Obama’s volunteers and supporters could peer produce. In the end, it was the Obama campaign’s understanding of the necessity of utilizing peer production and its ability to do so that fueled his victory. was immensely successful in doing this, resulting in his supporters peer producing 200,000 offline events, 400,000 blog posts, 3 million phone calls, and $500 million. Everything at MyBarackObama made it unambiguously clear: “This campaign is about you.”

Democrats, following in the footsteps of countless successful corporations, are going to continue to use this model in 2010 and beyond because it is a proven winner. Accordingly, this begs the question: are we going to do the same? Please, Mr. Chairman, let the answer be an unmistakable, “Yes!”

Forget the Ideas Czar or Network: We Must Create Ideas Through Peer Production

(promoted by Soren)

Patrick Ruffini recently wrote a piece arguing that the GOP needs an “ideas czar”, while Soren Dayton disagrees, insisting that, “The beltway is the disease not the cure.” Regardless of where you stand on this argument, both Patrick and Soren raise a critical, underlying point: the Republican Party needs a way to bring new, innovative ideas to the table if it wants to find its identity and ultimately achieve electoral success.

Ruffini founded the site, which specifically states that the Internet must be our #1 priority over the next four years. I fully agree with this, and in this vein I think we need to utilize the Internet – and specifically, the concept of peer production, which “describes what happens when masses of people … collaborate openly to drive innovation and growth” – to accomplish our goal. Peer production is what creates content for Wikipedia and empowers websites like Digg.

Indeed, in today’s new Age of Participation, having an elite person or group of people making policy decisions and generating new ideas is a recipe for death. Although I have an enormous amount of respect for Patrick, his idea of establishing a GOP ideas czar is tantamount to maintaining the status quo in that our ideas will continue to come from the party’s established elite. An institution consisting of “politicians, academics, business leaders, think tankers, and interest groups” as Soren describes is slightly better, but ultimately it is still an exclusive group of elites.

Instead, we need to establish an open forum in which all ideas from all walks of life are welcome and taken into consideration. Everyone’s opinion is valuable as we fight to rebuild the Republican Party. Patrick has taken the first step toward this with, where anyone can make suggestions to enhance the platform, but unfortunately it’s only a baby step. In the end, the be all and end all of the Republican Party – the Republican National Committee – is not reviewing, considering, and responding to this feedback.

If we really want to create new ideas and transform the Republican Party, we cannot continue to allow a small, elite group to be the source of our ideas and policy. If we continue to do so, we risk digging a hole so deep that we may never be able to climb out. Instead, we must permanently open the Republican Party’s ideas and platforms to mass collaboration. In doing so, we can truly become the party of the people, and in turn we can take a huge step toward becoming the party of the future.

Crossposted at NextGenGOP.

Only Federalism Can Unify the Party

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

- United States Associate Justice Louis Brandeis

Our Founding Fathers understood one truth about political philosophy: To find common ground is sometimes impossible.  When disagreement between political opponents rests on fundamental ideological principles, one side must forfeit its core beliefs in the name of unity, or suffer defeat.  Consequently, to unify a young nation without engaging in an immediate civil war, the framers of the Constitution set up a system of Federalism that has since been abandoned by both political parties to America's detriment.

Federalism is the system of dividing government and political power between the States and the Federal government.  This form of decentralization guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution ensures that regardless of which ideology achieves power at the federal level, it would not be granted monopolistic tyranny over minority views.

Although Justice Brandeis' famous quote has been cited several times over the last few decades, the Republican Party, the Party that could benefit the most from its implementation, has abandoned its principles.

Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has doubled down on remaking the federal government in its own image.  It went from a Party that advocated local control over education and accountability, to using Jimmy Carter's Department of Education to create a "conservative" federal program called No Child Left Behind.  It went from a Party that advocated individual states experimenting with social policy to creating its own national healthcare agenda.  It went from a Party that wanted to keep the government off the citizens' backs to one that prevented states from individually legalizing medical marijuana and online gambling.  These are just a few examples.

The greatness of Federalism is that States can freely experiment with public policy without significant political difficulty.  Subsequently, if the ideas prevail, other states in the Union can mimic them.  If the ideas fail, individuals can "vote with their feet" and leave.  Conversely, if ideas crash at the federal level, our entire Country experiences a disaster rather than it being a localized phenomenon.

The liberty offered from Federalism is precisely why it is the only way to save the Republican Party.  The bottom line is that certain ideological factions, libertarians and social conservatives for example, may argue with one another until the end of time without agreement.  While they are struggling for control of a weakened Party, the Democrats will continue to prevail.  This avenue is no solution to our Country's problems.

Instead of continuing down this road, the only way to unify the several factions that have traditionally voted Republican is to allow each other to have local and State control of public policy.

Not only are there political differences between libertarians and social conservatives, but also there are cultural differences between different regions of the Country.

We need to face the facts that people like David Brooks and David Frum, Washington establishment pundits, have virtually nothing in common culturally with Ted Nugent.  Moreover, San Francisco has few cultural similarities to Montgomery, Alabama.  This is not a moral judgment; it is just a reality that we need to accept.

The great irony is that if the Republican Party adopts Federalism as a major goal of its Party platform, it will appeal to people across the political spectrum, even some Democrats.  The reason is obvious: Federalism offers the individual more control over his or her life.  The only tradeoff is that one must allow someone from across the Country to have that same liberty.

Over the last few weeks, numerous pundits have argued over who is going to control the Republican Party, and what type of "rebranding" is necessary.  This is never going to work.  What the Republican Party needs to do is to offer all factions the opportunity to unite around the ideals of Federalism.

Lastly, it must be noted that the term, "States' Rights" has a pejorative connotation gained from the era of Jim Crow Laws.  This may explain why Republicans recently have abandoned the policy for fear of being labeled a racist.  Nevertheless, fear that an ignorant few could engage in an ad hominem attack is no reason to avoid educating the masses of your true laudable intentions.

In fact, those who accuse States' Rights for being code word for racism ignore how Federalism was used to protect slaves.  For example, when the Federal Government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required the return of runaway slaves to the South, the northern states passed their own "personal liberty laws" to make it extremely difficult for the oppressive federal law being enforced. (

It should also be noted that those who charge States' Rights proponents of being racist never have an argument for why many of the northern states outlawed slavery at a time when the majority of the Country as a whole was prejudice against Blacks.

In conclusion, the Republican Party has only one option to avoid being swept into the dustbin of history.  It must offer a solution to empower the masses to take control over their own lives.  For the same reasons that the Founding Fathers did in the past, the Republican Party must unite around Federalism.   Do not forget that unity via a decentralized government is why we are called the United States in the first place.
Devil's Advocate
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty



Three Ways Republicans Can Win Back the Youth Vote

We simply cannot afford to lose a generation of young voters to the Democrats. As a follow-up to my first post from a few days back, I’d like to propose some specific changes that would better serve the Republican Party in recapturing the youth vote.

Establish a Young Voter Outreach arm of the Republican National Committee

We need to fight tooth and nail to bring young voters back to the Republican Party. Yes, the Young Republican National Federation and College Republican National Committee exist. The problem is that neither of these organizations actively serve to “sell” the Republican Party to young voters – rather, their purpose is to engage young voters who are already affiliated with the GOP. Thus, the Young Voter Outreach arm would serve to accomplish this, demonstrating to young voters that the Republican Party actually cares about winning their vote and is not just the party of older generations.

This arm of the RNC must be overseen by – surprise – a Republican under the age of 30. It would be responsible for working with the RNC’s eCampaign folks to launch new, state-of-the-art websites, blogs, and other online projects that are designed specifically to appeal to young voters who are not necessarily Republicans. One of the goals of these projects should be to serve to answer crucial questions like, “Why is the Republican Party’s platform the right one for me as a young voter?” or “Why should I, as a young voter, be alarmed about the Democrats’ plan to [insert bad policy here – redistribute the wealth, raise taxes, etc.]?”

But there’s more. As a Party, we need to begin building and then maintaining a strong base of young, up-and-coming Republicans, who in the near future can begin running for the U.S. House and Senate. These young candidates will help allow us to pursue a 435 district strategy while bringing new, fresh faces to the table. Therefore, the Young Voter Outreach arm would be responsible for identifying and recruiting these folks, but more importantly, it would encourage them to begin running for local offices and provide training sessions to show them how to run for an office and win.

Differentiate from Democrats Through Ideals of Limited Government

Over the next two years, the Democrats will look to expand government in many ways. As I noted in my first column, many young voters are decidedly libertarian, and thus they’ll frown on these changes – a circumstance that Republicans, as the party of free-markets and personal liberty, can capitalize upon.

Despite this, young voters are going to find it difficult to support the Republican Party if it remains the party that condones government intervention in such issues as gay marriage or the behavior of two consenting adults in their own bedroom. These socially conservative issues may be important to voters in the other generations, but in the eyes of many of my peers, government has no place in getting involved in these matters. Indeed, the Republican Party’s continued support of government involvement in these issues continues to reinforce the notion to many young voters that the GOP is the party of the older generations.

Clearly, some sort of common ground needs to be reached if the Republican Party wishes to appeal to the young voting bloc while not losing social conservatives. In terms of policy, what could this balance look like? On issues such as gay marriage, Republicans could advocate the voters in each state making their own statewide decision. Specifically, California’s Proposition 8 is a phenomenal example of how the voters – rather than the government – can determine their state’s position on this sort of issue. Abortion, however, is a slightly different animal. If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then abortion is, quite simply, the infringement of another human being’s right to life. Since the federal government is charged with protecting people’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Republicans can fairly argue that it is the federal government’s responsibility to fight to limit abortion.

Taking this all into account, a forward-looking, pro-young voter platform statement for the Republican Party of the future should look something like this:

The Republican Party is the party of individual freedom, limited government, and personal choice. At the federal level, we will fight to reduce the size of government and make it more accountable to the people who fund it. We will fight to protect every human being’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And at the statewide level, we will work with the citizens to protect and preserve the traditional values upon which this great nation was built.

Rethink Our Branding and Organizational Identity

This one’s so simple, yet we cannot underestimate its importance: the fact is that a huge part of what drew young voters to Barack Obama was his hip, corporate-like branding and identity. Some might argue that this is shallow, but I strongly disagree. Instead, this is the reality of effective marketing. Indeed, it is the same reason that some brands flourish and while others fail miserably. Marketing is one of the most critical topics in the business world, and Barack Obama has taught us that it can be equally as significant in politics.

Just look at a side-by-side of the two candidate’s logos. Obama’s “O” logo probably has near 100% brand recognition – you don’t need the “Obama ‘08″ below it to know what it represents. On the other hand, if you took away McCain-Palin and left only the star at the top with the two lines extending out from it, would anyone have a clue what it represents? Nope.

Further, Obama’s simplistic yet impeccably memorable slogan of “hope” and “change” were consistent and didn’t change in the slightest since he entered the race. McCain didn’t maintain such a consistent message, and unfortunately, his “Country First” slogan that was implemented near the end of the race does not have the appeal of “hope” and “change.”

Fortunately, the Democratic Party itself does not have a branding or identity advantage over the Republican Party. This creates a unique opening for the GOP to take the initiative. Redesign the RNC’s logo and to reflect the trends of Web 2.0. Find a unifying, clear-cut message for the party that carries wide-spread appeal. And most importantly, offer resources so that our candidates as well as our state and local parties can do the same.


The changes that I’ve identified in this post are necessary for the Republican Party to transform itself as the party of the future. A huge component that will be necessary to accomplishing this is the GOP’s ability to attract younger, fresh faces – the people who are this country’s future. Ultimately, the changes I propose all add up to one overreaching goal: to transform the Republican Party into one that represents all generations and embodies the core principles that make this nation so great.

This entry is cross-posted at NextGenGOP.

Recognizing the Lessons of the Ron Paul Revolution

Crossposted at

A few hours ago, I received an e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter, and although the majority of the e-mail was rather condescending, the author makes an important statement that I do believe merits exploration:

You guys [at NextGenGOP] are … ignoring Ron Paul … and his contribution to gathering sincere and dedicated enthusiasm in American politics.

Indeed, the author is correct – our contributors have not really discussed the Ron Paul Revolution, despite the fact that there are a number of crucial lessons for the Republican Party to learn from his successes. Thus, without further ado, I will take this post to thoroughly explore this matter.

To his credit, Ron Paul’s campaign demonstrated that Republicans can indeed keep up with Democrats in the era of Web 2.0, particularly in the areas of grassroots organization and fundraising. In addition, his campaign won the hearts of many young voters in a way quite similar to that of President-elect Obama. This begs two critical questions: how did Ron Paul manage to accomplish these significant feats despite being widely regarded as a “fringe candidate,” and more importantly, what lessons must the Republican Party take from his success?

Ron Paul’s Successes

Let us begin by looking at the many successes of the Paul campaign, and how his performance compares to that of the two most significant candidates of the cycle: John McCain and Barack Obama.

  1. Ron Paul energized his supporters, resulting in an incredible outpouring of enthusiasm for his candidacy despite being supported by an extremely small percentage of voters. McCain’s campaign created a short burst of energy during his selection of Sarah Palin and the convention, but it proceeded to fizzle out as time passed. Obama’s campaign continuously energized its supporters, resulting in unbelievably massive crowds at his campaign events. A Gallup poll from October 2008 confirms this phenomenon, clearly indicating the enthusiasm gap that Democrats had over Republicans.
  2. Ron Paul effectively used the Internet to organize his grassroots efforts. Relying on existing infrastructures like – where he was able to recruit over 86,600 members in 1,150 groups that planned and held over 51,000 offline campaign events – the Paul campaign had enormous success in this arena. McCain’s website had its own network called McCainSpace, but at many levels it was not especially groundbreaking, and in contrast to the online outreach by Obama and Paul, it seemed to be used fairly lightly by supporters. In contrast, Barack Obama successfully built an incredible network at by bringing on Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Ask almost any Obama supporter, and they’ll tell you that they used Obama’s online tools in one way or another. What’s unique about Ron Paul’s success, however, is that his campaign didn’t spend enormous resources building its own tools. Instead, it successfully took advantage of tools that already existed and thus was able to build an incredibly comprehensive national grassroots network without having to spend a significant amount of its own money.
  3. Ron Paul’s ability to raise funds online is unparalleled in the Republican Party. Indeed, for the final quarter of 2007, Ron Paul outraised all of the other Republican Presidential candidates. McCain’s fundraising was generally unexceptional, and his strategic error in choosing to take public funding will almost certainly never happen again. And of course, we all know that Obama was a fundraising juggernaut, particularly online.
  4. Ron Paul strongly appealed to young voters. Exit polls for early primary states like NH, MI, SC, and FL show that a disproportionately large percentage of younger voters pulled the lever for Ron Paul (in many cases, roughly twice the percentage of votes he received from other age groups). As we know from the exit polling of the general election, these young voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama over John McCain: CNN pegs Obama’s advantage at 66% - 32%.

How Ron Paul’s Successes Came to Fruition

At the most basic level, it was Ron Paul’s common-sense and decidedly libertarian platform that created so much interest in his campaign. While some of his positions, such as his staunch opposition to the Iraq war, stand in stark contrast to the Republican agenda, the fact is that the core of his message is quite in line with the traditional Republican message: reducing the federal government’s size and cutting its spending.

What made Ron Paul distinct, however, was his passion and commitment to accomplishing this. If you had to identify the single most important policy issue in a hypothetical Paul administration, it would unquestionably be reduction of government. Unfortunately, you cannot unequivocally say the same about any of the other Republican candidates, and certainly not of John McCain (read: McCain-Feingold, among other things).

Ron Paul’s steadfast and unwavering commitment to his limited government principles brought a huge influx of dedicated supporters to his campaign. The resulting enthusiasm among these supporters translated into impeccable successes.

Lessons for the Republican Party

  1. Democrats aren’t the only ones who can fully take advantage of the Internet, both in donations and in building a grassroots organization. Indeed, you don’t even necessarily need to build new tools to win the battle online. That said, in order to see Ron Paul-like success, there are two crucial components that must exist. First, you must have enthusiastic supporters who are not only willing but excited to help the organization. Second, you must be willing to allow online tools to step into areas that have traditionally been controlled internally, such as grassroots organization.
  2. We cannot underestimate the importance of our ideals of smaller, less expensive government – and our candidates’ commitment to these ideals. To paraphrase a McCain stump line, Republicans were elected due to their promises to change Washington, but instead they let Washington change them. As a result, the voters turned to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, at least in part because they simply don’t trust us to keep our word. In 2010 and beyond, we need to run candidates who have a proven commitment to these principles – perhaps signing off on a Contract with America 2.0 similar to what I’ve previously suggested – and in doing so we will generate an incredible amount of enthusiasm for our candidates.
  3. Successfully using the Internet saves money. A lot of money. Of the major Presidential candidates, Ron Paul’s campaign devoted by far the smallest percentage of its budget to paying staffers. One of the most important reasons for this is simple: by successfully using the Internet to build the grassroots backbone of the campaign, there was considerably less need to pay staffers to organize outreach efforts. Yes, the sheer notion of such a decentralized campaign may be unsettling to those who are used to running traditional campaigns. However, Web 2.0 is shaking up the foundations of many traditional infrastructures with resounding success. If we want to survive in this new era, we need to allow it to shake up our organizations, too. Just imagine if John McCain had been able to slash his campaign’s payrolls by just 15% due to such decentralization – in fiscal year 2007 alone (well before McCain was the presumptive nominee), McCain would have been able to save $2.3 million.
  4. Republicans can win back the younger voting bloc. My experience has been that the vast majority of my peers – voters age 18-29 – fundamentally agree that they want the government in their lives as little as possible. The Republican Party is the party of individual freedoms and liberties, and if we can manage to resecure the public’s faith in this, we can win back young voters.

The bottom line is that we simply cannot afford to discount Ron Paul as a “fringe candidate” whose successes hold no lessons of value for the Republican Party. Instead, we must to adapt these successes into the new Republican Party. Viva la revolución!

McCain Lost to a Liar, Cheater and Thief who also used the “African American Raciest Card.”

The Republican Party lost the election because They Allowed people like Governor Charlie Crisp to pick who the presidential candidate would be.  They Removed the rights of the voter to go to the polls and vote for who they wanted to support.  If the voters had been able to have their vote count in the primary then John McCain (sorry Mr. McCain) would not had been allowed through the front door.  The Republican Party had Hillary Clinton already picked, she was the demo They Wanted to run against.  They Thought, that the "Most of the Time Liberal, sometime conservative" McCain was the Decorated Grandpa they needed to run against her.  They Took away his rocking chair and they pushed him to go forward into the Abyss of Lies...McCain smiled all the way while calling everyone, “My Friend.”  I don’t want a friend in the White House who is going to take names, then kick bottoms.  I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO WILL KICK BOTTOMS FIRST THEN TAKE NAMES.  And by the way, I would had voted for Colin L. Powell if he had run for president...but I had doubts about him when he said his wife was afraid for him to run.  Now I think, I don’t  know for sure, but I wonder if the black panthers would had murdered him.  Powell showed his true color (true color has nothing to do with his skin color) by supporting a man who lies.  Powell is a raciest and a traitor and I wouldn’t pour water on his behind if it was on fire.

1. The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama LIED, and, the Republican Party and McCain never pushed for him to keep his word at how he would raise money.  The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama’s Web Site contributions of who he Secretly Collected Money from is why a "liar, cheater, and thief" will be president.  The Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain are no better than the Democrats because of how the party conducted business, or did not conduct business.

2. The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama and The Social Liberal Democrats was given the election on a Gold Platter given to them by the Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain...In no way did Governor Sarah Palin have anything to do with it.

3. The 2008 SLIME Machine (Social Liberal Influential Media Election) Was a Historic Blessing in Disguise for all Patriot (red, yellow, black and white) Americans;  Because of the Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain and McCain people, all of us Dull, Bible Carrying, Gun Owning, Game Hunter, Beer Drinking, Soda Drinking, High Class, Low Class, Middle Class, Rich, Poor and Always Helping Others, Loving Country, and Giving Thanks to GOD Patriots, discovered too late this time that the Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama is a Liar and Social Liberal Raciest who wants to change America & the WORLD...he can have the world but he will never get America.  Patriots love America and they love Governor Sarah Palin.  Mr. Obama and other blacks and mulottos believe it is more important for them to be African than to be a plain dull American Patriot , Wow How Dull it is for him and other blacks and mulottos to be just a plain dull American.  He should be in the Melting Pot with all of us Colorful Dull American Patriots who loves God, Country, Guns, etc. and Governor Sarah Palin, and, don't forget we go by the plain old name of American.

From The Great State of Tennessee,
Dull American Patriot and Proud of It.

Justice Is Blind and So Should Be the Color of Our Skin.  Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious in His Sight, Jesus Loves the Children of the World.

P.S.  Warning Notice:  Don’t forget, the Angelic Cunning Lucifer Union hates Blessings.


Michelle Bachmann and the Politics of Division

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

Obama Tried To Stall Troop Withdrawal From Iraq



The New York Post published an opinion piece by Amir Taheri where he reveals that fact that while in Iraq, Obama tried to pursuade the Iraqi Officials to delay an agreement on a withdrawal of the US military.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that Obama made his demand for delay during his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

So, there you have it folks, Obama, who I have heard a hundred times while campaigning say he would begin the withdrawal of US Troops from Iraq immediately if he is elected, was trying to delay an agreement on troop withdrawals until after the elections.

The reason why is clear, If Obama wins, he will look like the hero by having troop withdrawal agreements drawn up while he is President. If Obama loses it will look like the Bush Administration wasn't able to form an agreement with Iraq for troop withdrawals and it will also pressure McCain to allow congress to become involved in the talks.

It backfired. Not only does he not convince Iraqi officials, but he fails to convince the leaders of the US Military in Iraq as well. Apparently Obama fails to recognize that President George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US Military, General Petraeus would have to consult President Bush before he could agree to anything Obama suggested. But such is it with an unqualified candidate who is not ready to be Commander in Chief, he does not even understand the chain of command.

Apparently Obama is concerned with the death of US Military personnel, so concerned that he is willing to attempt to pursuade Iraqi Officials and US Military leaders to delay withdrawal talks until after the US elections. Meanwhile, any US troops who are killed during the delay can just be blamed on the Bush adminstration.

It will be interesting to see if we hear anything from the Ant-America left (Code Pinko, Not in Our Name, ANSWER, on this delay tactic. I can almost guarantee you could hear a pin drop during their silence.

This is hypocrisy in it's purest form. Hopefully, the American Public is beginning to get the picture of this empty suit candidate.


J.R. on Vacation: Flight Attendants Thank The Soldiers


Hey Folks,

J.R. here reporting from Wrightsville Beach in North Carolina where Mrs. J.R. and I are vacationing. I have been trying to sneak peeks at the Republican Convention and following a lot of it on You Tube. Weather is great here.

Anyway, the reason why I am posting a blog today is because of a very heartening experience we had on our flight here from Charlotte. Both Mrs. J.R. and I were seated toward the rear of the plane. We overheard a conversation between a female flight attendant and a soldier just back from Iraq. She was asking him how things over there were going. The soldier explained that things have going much better and that there were many provinces in Iraq that were now in control of the Iraqi Military. The soldier stated that the Iraqi people were cooperating more with the US Military helping them weed the terrorists out of their neighborhoods. He was relating a very positive outlook on the progress we have made in Iraq,

The female flight attendant seemd surprised to hear his remarks. She told the soldier that this is not what the news media is reporting here in this country. She thanked him for his service.

A couple of moments later a male flight attendant, who looked like Patrick Stewart,(no kidding he looked just like Jon Luc Picard} walked back and was speaking with the soldier and the female flight attendant.

Shortly thereafter, as our flight landed and we waited to depart the aircraft the male flight attendant was doing his routine welcome to Wilmington, N.C. speech and as he was finishing he asked the passangers to allow him to indulge in a bit of editorial license and then acknowledged the soldiers who were on the plane in civilian clothing and asked the passangers to join him in thanking our brave men and women in uniform for serving their country and to thank the families for their sacrifice as well. He went on to acknowledge that he also served in the military when he was younger.

When he was through, the passangers in the plane erupted in applause.

As Mrs. J.R. and I were departing the aircraft I stopped and shook his hand and thanked him for acknowledging the troops and for his service to our country as well.

It's nice to see that there are people who support the troops and aren't afraid to stand up and say so.


Syndicate content