Corrupt Democrats

Well, I have told all my friends that I was going to give Obama a chance, going in with an open mind to see how he would do. Well, it took him just three days to tick me off. What did he do? I am glad you asked. He removed the rule that would prevent US tax dollars from being used to fund international abortions. Next up on the list, after his claims that he was going to be this new, transparent, ethical administration, Obama is already bending the rules to allow a lobbyist to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. So, everyone says that the first 100 hours are critical to setting the tone for the rest of the administration. Is this what I have to look forward to for the next 8 years? Talking a good talk, and then undoing what you just did less than 2 days? This is not good for our country. On this note, the only media that has gotten an interview with him since he became President was the company (ABC) that spent millions hosting a ball for him. This has created what some reporters are calling a "Pay to play system." Oh, and the Feds are raiding a contractor that Democrat Jack Murtha steered more than $100,000,000 to. Can anyone say corruption?

In other news (non-corrupt), Bobby Jindal is not doing much to clamp down on the rumors of a Presidential run when he is getting the top speaking slot for the NRCC, a spot usually taken by former President Bush.

Congratulations President Obama

Well, congratulations are in order to Barack Obama for becoming the 44th President, and the nations first black president. While I think that it was high time for a black person to be elected President, I had wished that it would not be him. However, he won, and that is how the system works. I do hope that the Democrats observed Republicans showing how not to be a sore loser, like they have been for the last 8 years. Unlike Bush's Inaugural that was plagued by frustrated Democrats who wanted to ruin the day for him, protesters were more or less non existent for Obama. Unlike Democrats who made the election drag on for a month, Republicans conceded quickly when the results came in. Maybe Democrats will learn how to be a sport, but I doubt it. I guess the bottom line on that is just that Republicans aren't Democrats. So, congratulations President Obama.

I'm Back!

Well everyone,
I am back. I have not been posting because of a lack of news, rather I just have a lack of time. I have started writing a paper on how the Republican Party can return to dominance. I will be posting it here, piece by piece. I expect it to be a while since it is low priority, and I will be taking 21 hours of school. So, without further ado, here is the first section, which is a brief summary of the Republican Party.


Republican History
Is there a need for the Republican Party? This is a difficult question, and ties in with the next section. History repeats itself, so I will start with going over the history of the GOP.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas Nebraska Act, which would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. At the time, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Republican Party was just filling a niche, somewhat like the Libertarian Party of today. They started gaining power through Congressional elections.
In 1860, the party’s second Presidential nominee—Abraham Lincoln—was elected to the nation’s highest office. The Republican’s platform was for "Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men".
The Civil War was followed by roughly 30 years of Republican dominance, with the Democratic Party limited to the South. This came to an end in the 1880s as the Democratic Party became competitive, winning the White House in 1884, and losing it in 1888. In 1892, the Democrat’s took control of the government, and the economy crashed. In 1894, in response to the economy, the Republicans won the biggest landslide (130 seats, comparable to 158 seats today) in their history.
In 1896, the Republicans recaptured the White House. This was seen as the resurgence of the Republican Party, brought about by honing their message, reviewing their policies, and the Democrat’s policies failing.
In 1912, the party split, allowing the Democrats to win again. In the 1920s, the party again gained power. They pushed through the agenda of big business. At that time, “social conservatives” were members of the Democratic Party. When The Great Depression came, the country turned to the Democrats, who established firm control of the nation. While the Presidency would go back and forth between the parties, the Congress would be controlled by Republicans for only 2 years between 1934 and 1994.
During the period of time following the Great Depression until the 1980s, the Republican Party was controlled by moderates. They also were repeatedly defeated. The first time the conservative showed their strength was in the nomination of Barry Goldwater, who was defeated by Lyndon Johnson.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan led the conservatives to victory. It was during this election that social conservatives abandoned the Democratic Party, and joined the Republicans. The moderates lost control of the party, and briefly regained it in 1996, followed by 2008, both of which ended in defeat.
In 1988, George Bush was seen as the heir to the conservative leadership. By 1992, conservatives saw that he was not a true believer and he lost to Bill Clinton. The majority people did not support Clinton, but many conservatives thought that Bush had lost his way, and would not vote for him, and Clinton won with only a plurality.
In 1994, America had had two years of liberalism, and decided that they did not like it. In combination, the Republicans defined their message with the Contract with America, and were brought to dominance in the House.
In 1996, the moderate candidate won the nomination, and was defeated. The Republicans retained control of the conservative House, however.
In 2000, the conservatives nominated George W. Bush, who many saw as a true conservative. He united both economic and social conservatives. The Republican Party rode his coattails to take tie control of the Senate. In the 2002 midterm elections, America had had a taste of conservatism, and they liked it. They gave complete control of Congress to the Republican Party for the first time since the 1950s. When the GOP took power, however, they lost sight of their goals, took part in wasteful spending, became corrupt, and failed at being decisive leaders. In many instances, you could not tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. In 2006, the nation resoundingly rejected this type of leadership. The aftershocks of this were still being felt in 2008, resulting in the GOP losing more Congressional seats, as well as the Presidency.
The one caveat to purifying the brand is that while it is needed at the Presidential level, the Democrats proved in 2006 and 2008 that they can run moderates on Republican turf, and win. Republicans may have to put this into their formula for finding candidates.
The Republican Party has accomplished many great things over the years, and they can again, if they follow their ideas, and don’t compromise to liberal pressure.

Merry Christmas!

Well, every year we have a time set aside where we leave the politics behind, spend time with our families, and remember the Reason for the Season, that is the birth of our savior, Jesus Christ. So, with that note, I will wish you a blessed holiday, and resume the political bickering after the holidays are over.

Texas Governor's Race 2010 (Continuation)

Well, I must admit something to you. I incorrectly predicted which race would be the really big one. I assumed that it would be for the Governor's Mansion, but I was wrong. The big race for 2010 (or a special election before that) is for Kay's Senate seat. Several of my main ideas for candidates have announced, or are discussing a run for her Senate seat (Michael Williams, Roger Williams, Greg Abbot, David Dewhurst, Bill White, etc). So, this post will conclude my analysis of the Governor's Race. I will soon start analyzing the Senate race.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson

Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Everyone has been talking about her. But who really knows who she is? Hutchinson was born on July 22^nd, 1943. She was raised in Texas City. She went to University of Texas, and got a Law degree. She was unable to get a job as a lawyer, and so she started working for a Houston news channel as a reporter. In 1972, she was elected to the State House, its first Republican woman. In 1990, she was elected to the office of State Treasurer. This was in a Republican year, which also swept Perry into office. Her big break came in 1993, when Lloyd Bentsen resigned his seat to become Secretary of the Treasury. In the election to finish his term, she won with 29%. In the runoff, she won 67% of the vote. Hutchinson cruised to easy victories every time she has run for re-election. In 2006, she became chairwoman of the Republican Conference, widely considered to be the number 3 position in the Republican leadership ladder. In 2008, she announced that she would not seek re-election to her leadership post, and that she would retire in 2010. On December 4^th, she formed an exploratory committee for a gubernatorial run in 2010.

Hutchinson is an extremely popular Republican who stands a good chance of defeating Perry. Perry really has only one issue that h can use. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is mildly pro-choice. This is unknown to most Republicans, and is a serious problem if they can be told that she is. She was a member of WISH List, which is the largest PAC for pro-choice Republican women. She has stated that she does not believe that abortion should be outlawed, and that Roe v. Wade was the correct decision by the Supreme Court. This is extremely alarming for me, as an ultra-conservative. I am extremely unhappy with Rick Perry, but I simply cannot support someone who is pro-choice. I will feel a little more sure about her if she resigns her seat. Soon.

Texas Governor's Race 2010

2010 Texas Gubernatorial Candidates

With the election over, it is time to start looking at the future. I will start discussing the 2010 gubernatorial election. I will be discussing each candidate, posting my article on each, one at a time. I will order the article with the first part being a biography of the politician, and the second part being my analysis of their chances. One thing is for sure: this election is going to be a battle of heavy weights, and it will be played for keeps. At the time of this writing, it appears that at least three of our most powerful politicians will be running, leaving only one of them an office when this is over. This will also create some room for younger politicians to move up the political “food chain” into the vacant offices.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry was born on March 4^th 1950, near the family ranch in Paint Creek, Texas. He received his Eagle Scout, and then went to Texas A&M University to study Animal Science, hoping to become a veterinarian. Becoming a veterinarian didn’t pan out, but he did spend time as a yell leader at A&M, a coveted position. After school he spent five years piloting C-130s in the Air Force. In 1977 he returned to the family ranch to take up the family trade. In 1984, he won his first public office, as a state representative. He was elected as a Democrat. He remained a Democrat until 1989, when he was passed up for a leadership position, and then switched parties. In 1990, an up and coming political consultant named Karl Rove saw an empty suit where he could put hi talents to work. Perry became one of his creations, and ran for his first statewide office, winning a surprise victory for the position of Agriculture Commissioner against a popular incumbent. This was one of the first signs that the Democrats’ control of the state was starting to fade. In 1998, Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock announced that he was retiring, and Perry announced that he would run for the seat. Now, in many lesser states, the office of Lieutenant Governor is nothing more than an honorary, meaningless office. However, in Texas, the Lt. Governor is more powerful than the Governor, because no legislation can come to the Senate floor, and sub-sequentially be passes, without his personal approval. This puts him in an excellent bargaining position. He served in this office until 2000, when Governor George Bush resigned to become President. Perry survived his re-election, coasting to a 58%-40% victory even though he was outspent by more than 2 to 1. One of his more controversial issues was his role in forcing through the new redistricting plan that was masterminded by Tom Delay. He also pushed through a plan for a new superhighway from Dallas, through Austin, to the Mexican border. This was approved, but two years later, was stopped by the state legislature. The most controversial issue, was when he signed an executive order requiring all Texas teenage girls to receive the HPV vaccination. This made the conservative state incredibly angry, with the state legislature overturning his order with an almost unanimous vote. He won re-election in a 4 way race, with a 39% “majority”. This has caused his nickname of “Governor Goodhair” to be replaced with “39% Perry”. On December 21^st, he will become the longest serving governor in Texas history.

Perry has many problems with the conservative base of the Republican party, and must survive a definite nomination battle. However, he does have a few advantages. First, is that he has a fundraising advantage, with over insert number million dollars. Second, he is the sitting governor of the state which will cause many loyalists to vote for him. Third, he is 100% pro-life, which is in opposition to one of his primary opponents.

Hutchinson forms exploratory committee

Well, no surprise, but Kay Bailey Hutchinson has formed an exploratory committee to look into a possible gubernatorial run. So, everybody knew that she was going to do this, so the fight is now on. Personally, I am waiting to see if she resigns her Senate seat to prove that she really wants this job. If she does not, she may have a hard time convincing me to support her.