Tag Archives: elections

Rove vs the Tea Party

Posted by Tim on

The Republican party, currently America’s “opposition” party, has an interesting journey ahead of it. The GOP is at a crossroads. One path take the party towards the Republican establishment; moderate Washington elites. The other takes the party to middle America; the Tea Party, conservaties, and libertarians. One journey is set to be led by George W Bush advisor, Karl Rove. The other is to be led by no one. Just as there is no “leader” of the Tea Party, there is no leader of the movement to kick GOP pretty-boys out of office and replace them with constitutional conservatives.

If there was any leader behind the Tea Party, perhaps it would be one of the politicians who was elected because of the Tea Party. Take your pick – Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz,  Allen West, or countless others. These are not just the run of the mill Republican politicians. Rather, these are men carrying a message from the American people. Government growth needs to be stopped and reversed. Men who have been in office for a mere two years – Rubio and Paul, are already becoming the leaders of their party in the Senate, with or without the official title of “Minority Leader”.

Compare these office holders with the Republican establishment; politicians the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Eric Cantor. Can anyone name a time when these politicians actually stood for something? Was there ever a moment when their constituents said, “Way to go, Boehner!”, the way Kentuckians support Rand Paul, the way Floridians support Marco Rubio, or the way Wisconsinites support their Governor, Scott Walker? The strength of the party, the balls of the party, reside not with the career politicians who are more concerned with keeping their jobs than with the national debt, but with the Tea Party and the grassroots conservative movement.

But after the latest round of elections, which delivered Barack Obama another 4 years in office, as well as a Democrat majority in the Senate, Karl Rove is upset. The “architect” (as he likes to be called) was among those quietly pulling for Mitt Romney during the 2011-2012 Republican primaries. Low and behold, the candidate who was seen by most Republicans as “moderate”, lost against Obama. The problem to begin with was that Romney didn’t connect with people. I often make the remark that Romney acted as if he was made of wood – bland, boring, a Massachusetts moderate. But with millions of dollars in campaign money, both from his own war chest as well as the backing of the Republican establishment, Romney bulldozed his way past Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Months later, the news came – Obama won the election. Why, if Mitt Romney could not beat John McCain in 2008, and if John McCain could not beat Obama in 2008, did people believe that Mitt Romney could beat Obama in 2012? How many more Bob Doles, John McCains, and Mitt Romneys will have to lose before Republicans realize that moderates do not necessarily attract “independent” and “swing” voters? The last landslide election for a Republican came in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, and then did so again in 1984.

The Republicans who opposed Reagan in the 1976 and 1980 Republican primaries are the same ones who oppose Tea Party candidates today. The “Grand Old Party” is just that – old. The American people are seeking something different from Barack Obama, but Mitt Romney didn’t really offer that. He made no play for evangelical voters. He made no play for Tea Party voters. He made no play for gun owners. Romney’s message was simple – Obama is failing on the economy, and I’m a rich businessman, so I must know more than he does. Is this an emotional argument that is going to get people out to vote in droves? The polls say tell the story.

The Republican party is up for grabs. Either it will go the way of moderate Republican establishment hacks like Karl Rove (who, by the way, LOST the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000. Some “architect”!), or it can go the way of the Tea Party. Think of the candidates that both teams have put forth – Mitch McConnell vs Rand Paul. John Boehner vs Marco Rubio. After elections are over, who would you trust more to get the country back on track?

Eric Hovde for US Senate

Posted by Tim on

I already posted my announcement to endorse Eric Hovde for the Wisconsin US Senate seat a while back. I gave a few positives for each candidate, and essentially called it a two-man race, between Eric Hovde and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. As of late, Mark Neumann has closed the gap, and Jeff Fitzgerald has picked up a few points as well. With all that going on, I still stand behind Eric Hovde, and for anyone still on the fence, I want to express why.

Each candidate has positives and negatives. No politician will ever be perfect on every issue, and that’s just the nature of the game. Tommy’s positives may be that he is very experienced, not only on the state level, but also as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. That certainly gives him a leg up – perhaps he won’t be the typical “freshman” Senator. His experience with healthcare could also be an asset when we repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reforms.

But to me, the most important issue is where Eric Hovde stands head and shoulders above his opponents (especially Tammy Baldwin, I should add). Not just today, but over the next 10 years, the domestic issue we will face is cutting our government’s spending, eliminating the deficit, and slowly whittling away at our national debt. These are the issues where a Senator with a background in economics comes in handy.

Paul Ryan, one of the most controversial politicians in Washington, is leading the fighting for fiscal sanity. He is chairman of the House Budget Committee, and is the brain behind the fight to reform Americas costly entitlement programs. Ryan needs a partner in the Senate he can count on, and while Ron Johnson is doing the job just fine – two is better than one. Paul Ryan went to college and earned a B.A. in economics. Eric Hovde went to college and studied… that’s right – economics. If we want a parallel to Paul Ryan in the Senate, Eric Hovde could very well fill that position.

I think the thing I like most about Hovde is that he isn’t from politics. He doesn’t come from a family of politicians, the Bush family or the Kennedys. He comes from a private sector background – starting a business at 24 years old and working to become a millionaire, supposedly being valued at around $150 million. He knows business. He knows economics. If we want to get our business climate turned around, and if we want to start paying off our debt, we need Hovde.

Some people may not feel comfortable with a candidate who is so wealthy. There’s another way to look at it though. If there is someone out there who is willing to give up their prominent position in the private sector making millions of dollars, and trade it in for a Senate seat earning significantly less money – he’s doing it for the right reasons. Hovde isn’t running for Senate to earn money; he already has plenty of that. He’s running so he can help save our country.

Furthermore, because he is able to finance his own campaign, he doesn’t need to make backdoor deals with his fundraisers. Eric Hovde’s biggest fundraiser is Eric Hovde – not some labor union, not “the rich” or “the poor”, not whites or blacks or hispanics. He can go to Washington and do what he says he’ll do, without having to answer to some company who gave him large campaign contributions. He specifically talks about these kinds of seedy arrangements that distort our free market system.

For all the reasons above, I’m still sticking with Eric Hovde. He’ll get my vote on Tuesday, August 14th, and I hope he gets yours as well.

Where We’re Going

Posted by Tim on

Today has been a busy day in Washington DC. Not only was Eric Holder officially held in Contempt of Congress for withholding documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, but Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, the so-called “Affordable Care Act”, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. For the time being, let’s put Holder aside and focus on the big one – Obamacare.

The entire law rested on whether an individual mandate was constitutional. Does the federal government have the power to punish someone for not buying a product or service – in this case health insurance. The argument was made that because Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, that they also have the power to regulate that people buy health insurance. Fortunately, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to compel an individual to enter into a private contract with an insurance company. Congress can regulate insurance, but if someone doesn’t buy it – they cannot do anything. The individual mandate was struck down.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Instead of deeming the law unconstitutional, the law was upheld by changing a few words and a few definitions. Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that the mandate was in fact not a mandate, but a tax. In this case – Congress still has the power to tax whoever it choses. The problem with this is that it is in fact NOT a tax, nor was it ever presented as such. President Obama even went out of his way on multiple occasions to specifically say – this is not a tax. In the law its a mandate, in the court its a tax. Roberts overstepped his bounds by changing the very law he was judging. The law stands.

A lot of people are still confused about what this all means. In short it means that in 2014 every citizen must buy health insurance or face a penalty fee of roughly $700. You can buy your insurance on your own, from your employer, or you can just pay the penalty and forget about providing insurance for yourself. In the end, businesses across America will drop their health insurance because the penalties are cheaper than the insurance. People will be left to fend for themselves.

There are a number of cost exploders included in the bill – popular items such as 26 year olds being allowed on their parents insurance, and people not being turned down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions. As great as this may sound, these both force up costs of insurance. At the same time, Obamacare prevents insurance companies from raising their rates. If they can’t charge more, and they are forced to cover more people…. they go out of business. This was the plan all along.

With private insurance companies out of business, America’s healthcare system will become “single payer”. There will be one “insurance company” – the federal government. Every citizen will be on the same plan. No competition, utterly inefficient, and guess what is to come. As with every other single payer system in the world – rationing. Certain types of medicine and certain procedures will not be covered. Who decides what is covered and what isn’t? The infamous Death Panel - a small group of bureaucrats who decide which patients are worth keeping alive.

Scary, no doubt. This piece of legislation is the largest tax increase in American history. It severs any sense of State or individual sovereignty. The federal government will continue to grow larger and larger, delivering less of what it is obligated to (defense, secure borders) and more of what it should stay away from (government-run education, banks, energy, and healthcare). The history of government is tyranny. Every country has seen it. Government always grows and it’s end is always the same – it traps its citizens and treats them like subjects.

There is hope, however. Now more than ever, we need Mitt Romney. I hate relying on one person to turn around the fate of our country, but frankly – Mitt Romney needs to win in November. Along with Romney as our president, we’ll need a Republican controlled Senate. History shows us the path we are going down, and it isn’t a good one. I repeat – the history of government is tyranny. To keep a government from becoming tyrannical we need to shrink it and control it, so it doesn’t control us. The hope lies in delivering Wisconsin to Mitt Romney in November, as well as delivering an additional Republican Senator to Washington.

Wisconsin – A Red State?

Posted by Tim on

Things are feeling good here in Wisconsin. Real good. Not only is the cold weather finally over and many beautiful days ahead of us, but the cold of many political trials are almost over, and I must say that things feel great right now. The past week I was doing some traveling around the US and I missed some good news. Well, I didn’t miss it (I heard about it while I was gone), but I wasn’t here to celebrate with some fellow conservative Wisconsinites.

Reports of Scott Walker costing Wisconsin over 30,000 jobs in 2011 were hard to hear. The latest commercials stated that not only was Wisconsin losing jobs, but that we actually hemorrhaged more jobs than any other state! How could this be? One ad says one thing, and one ad says another. What bothered me most was that the numbers went completely against what I felt. Wisconsin felt like it was creating jobs, that its unemployment was lower,  and that its economy was turning around. Why then with these dismal numbers?

Well, just last week, the new and improved numbers were put up. In a new federal report on jobs numbers not only did Wisconsin NOT lose any jobs in 2011, but it actually gained over 20,000! Add that to over 10,000 gained so far in 2012, and Wisconsin is definitely on the right track! So much for Scott Walker’s policies not working, ey?

In the end, this means that Wisconsin is doing better than it was when it was under Democrat control. Taxes were continually raised on working families and small businesses alike. The government repeatedly kneeled to pressure from various public sector unions, forcing the state into debt – which in turned raised taxes on Wisconsin citizens. All the while there were ridiculous ideas about building a train to go from Milwaukee to Madison – something that would cost the state even more money.

But since we’ve turned around, people in Wisconsin are taking notice. For the first time in nearly 10 years Wisconsin taxes went down. Its not just me that’s noticing, either. Across Wisconsin people are listening closer to their options, and more people than ever are standing strong with Scott Walker against his recall. In the primary just a few weeks ago, Walker’s votes totaled more than both of his Democrat opponents combined! Recent polls show Walker leading his opponent by 10 points!

The most startling evidence of Walker’s impending victory is his opponents’ reaction. Not too long ago, the DNC pulled out their forces from Wisconsin. That’s right! Weeks before the election is set to be held (June 5th, by the way) the DNC decided to pack up their things and go back to Washington. They have already written off Wisconsin as a loss, and are moving on to other things. Equally surprizing is the fact that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made a statement actually endorsing Walker! (For those of you who don’t know – the Journal is heavily biased towards liberal politicians, earning it the title “Milwaukee Urinal” from folks like myself.) The fact that the Journal came out and is now standing with Walker is amazing! He’s turning his opponents into supporters!

Once the recall election is taken care of (Please DO NOT forget to vote for Walker. Don’t get too comfortable!), next up is our Senate election. Honestly, any of the Republican candidates will be able to mop the floor with Tammy Baldwin, a washed up liberal hack from Madison. Jim Sensenbrener and Paul Ryan will remain confortable as Wisconsin’s conservative representatives. What’s left? Oh yeah – Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama. With everything else turning from left to right, can Wisconsin go from an Obama win to a Obama loss? Can Wisconsin become a red state again? I think its certainly in the realm of possibilities. Only time will tell, but you can count on conservatives fighting to bring Wisconsin style policies to Washington!

Down To 4 – What Does This Mean?

Posted by Tim on

I can’t say this is “breaking” news, because it happened… an hour ago. But hey – I predicted it. Well, sort of. Rick Perry is officially out of the race for the republican nomination. I knew it was going to happen, I just though Perry would stay in past the South Carolina primary. Turns out he’d rather drop out now, save the money, and throw his support at… Newt Gingrich…

I can’t say I’m not disappointed. I knew Perry would drop out, but I was hoping he would endorse Rick Santorum. With Perry giving his support to Gingrich, that’ll probably put Gingrich in 2nd, right behind Willard Romney – moving Santorum to 3rd, right ahead of Ron Paul. The conservative vote is split two ways – Gingrich and Santorum. What does this mean for the rest of the states?

Well, it means that 25% of the vote will go towards Romney, another 15% to Ron Paul, and the rest will be divided between Santorum and Gingrich. 60% divided two ways means … 30% for each (assuming they split it evenly). Now, obviously these are rough numbers, but it’s looking good for an alternative to Romney. Although Romney has been winning the last few times around, it’s important to note that most people are still voting for someone else. A “conservative alternative” is what people want. Until now, it’s been divided among too many people. But now, Santorum and Gingrich both have a shot at taking down Romney.

In any case, I believe that the nominee will be able to beat Barack Obama in November. Obama has no record to stand on, his base is weakened, and across America people are literally afraid of another 4 years of his administration. But let’s not write this off as a victory just yet. There are a couple ways that Obama could be reelected. If Ron Paul drops from the republican ticket and runs as a third party candidate he could pull just enough of the vote to weaken the republican nominee and give the victory to Obama. Now, Ron Paul says he’s not planning on running third party, but you never know. This could end in a Ross Perot kind of way.

The other thing to think about is this – in recent polling, voters say that if Romney is the candidate, they would be voting against Obama, not for Romney. While, a vote is a vote in the end, we want a candidate who we can vote FOR. I’ve run across a number of people who are planning on sitting out this election if Romney is the nominee. This is not good. We need someone else.

I feel that Newt Gingrich is too much of a politician for America right now. His record, his personal life, his demeanor – people are turned off by him. Some people love his blunt way of talking, but too many people just don’t trust him. Trust is key to getting people out to vote. While some people say that Rick Santorum isn’t as polished a politician as Romney or Gingrich, he IS someone we can trust. His record is solid, and his personal life backs it up.

Who knows – wait and see for now. It’ll be a while before Wisconsin gets to vote…