Monday, December 13, 2010

We Don't Need Mama MO

First Lady, Michelle Obama, has taken it upon herself to help save our children from us, their parents. If you hadn't heard, Michelle is on a health food kick for our children. She is determined to make sure our kids eat well when at school. Why? From what she says, because our kids are being fed the wrong kinds of foods, like McDonald's and birthday cakes. Though she did recently agree to allow them to eat fatty foods for the holidays, so long as they make up for it after the holidays. It seems Mama Mo is determined to teach us all how to be good parents.

Michelle's keynote piece of legislation, a $4.5Billion program to revamp our schools' lunch programs, was recently signed into law by her husband, the smoker in-chief. Amongst the many provisions of the bill, aside from increasing funding to school lunch and dinner programs, and forcing our kids to eat healthier foods during those meals, it conveniently restricts the use of such events as bake sales to raise money for smaller school programs. It isn't quite clear yet how many bake sales a school will be permitted to hold each year before their quota will be exceeded. Though that would assuredly be worked out in the regulatory process.

Forgive me for making fun of this situation. Every first lady has their pet projects. Aside from then First Lady Hillary Clinton's pet universal health care project, back in 1993, no First Lady has ever been so ambitious. Especially in a time when we don't have $4.50 cents to our country's name, let alone another $4.5 billion.

The real crux of my complaint against this program is not in the benevolence of it. Rather, I take issue with Michelle Obama placing herself, or in the very least, placing the United States government into my parental shoes and telling me how to raise my kids.

Today, in touting the signing of the bill, Michelle had the audacity to say, “Nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children. Nothing.” Really, MO, "nothing"?

There is one little glitch is MO's proclamation that nothing is more important than the health and well being of our children. Though that may be a true statement concerning us as parents, it is NOT true with regards to the obligations and duties of our government. If that were the case, there would at least be something to that effect SOMEWHERE in the Constitution, don't you think? It is OUR duty and OUR obligation and OUR right to determine what is best for those for whom we are responsible. Only when we fail in those duties and obligations, and the life and liberty of our children become at grave risk is the government even remotely responsible for stepping in.

The problem with our society today is that we've allowed the far left to define our national conscience for us. They determine that some poor souls who lost their home in a fire in Georgetown should receive federal aid. And who are we to say those people should not be helped? They decide that the widow of a veteran of war should receive additional compensation because she just can't afford to live the way she used to before her husband died. And who are we to deny Congress the right to dip into the treasury to help her? (Google the story of the Georgetown Fire and Davy Crockett to read about this or just click here)

They decide that the families of those who perished trying to save others on 9/11 should receive billions of dollars in compensation and aid. And who would dare to challenge Congress is their philanthropic venture? Last summer, NY Congressman, Anthony Weiner made an impassioned plea on the floor of the House for several billion dollars more to be given to the victims and surviving families of the attacks of 9/11. When I questioned him on it, through a Facebook email, a conversation ensued between him and myself lasting several days. You can read the entirety of the conversation in one of my blogs here. It left me dumbfounded as to where in the world people like that feel that obtained any right or authority to simply use the public treasury for whatever cause them deem worthy.

When a massive earthquake struck Haiti, and two former presidents pleaded with Americans to send all they could to help these poor souls, Americans jumped in with both feet, as we do every time. They, our government, decided that millions of homeless victims of a massive earthquake in Haiti should be given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid because we, the American people, would want to help why shouldn't Congress just do it for us?

Why shouldn't they? Because it's not THEIR job. Because we, their employers, did not afford them the liberty to use OUR money in any manner not already expressly delineated in the Constitution. We did not appoint them as our conscience and our personal philanthropic arm.

When Davy Crockett was confronted by one of his Kentucky constituents after he voted, like everyone else in Congress, to help the poor victims of the Georgetown fire, he became acutely aware, for the first time in his life, that he has no authority to use one dime of the public treasury for what amounts to little more than a charitable endeavor.

When Congress appropriated, in 1887, money to aid Texas farmers who were suffering through a drought, then President, Grover Cleveland, vetoed the bill, stating,

"I feel obligated to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of the individual suffering which is in no manner related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."

The penchant for the left to compel the public to support government involvement in aiding those of less fortune than most, or to engage in restructuring general public mores to suit their own ideal of what our world should be like, through force of government, is reprehensible at best, and potentially criminal as it violates the fundamental tenets of the founding of our country, that, though we, as a civilized society, may need the benefits of a government which brings about an equity of opportunity, we are far better served without a government that impunes our personal liberty by imposition.

There is no question that I, as a parent, consider my family's well-being to be my sacred duty and privilege. I do not need, nor want...nor have I authorized Congress nor the First Lady of the United States, to act on my behalf in fulfilling this duty. The First Lady is far within her rights to use the pulpit granted her through her husband's election to espouse, encourage and enlighten the public concerning the issues of health and obesity amongst our children. But she oversteps her bounds by using her position and by manipulating the benevolent nature of the American people to impose her views upon us all.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Early 2012 Hopes

As early as August of this year I said we had a chance for as many as 75 house seats and 12 senate seats. Even though the 12 senate seat prediction was really pushing things, I thought that if we had the perfect political storm we could pull it off. But, as was predicted by some skeptics who felt that the GOP establishment would not take the influx of tea party candidates very well, the GOP found itself shooting itself in the foot in places like Colorado, Nevada, Delaware, West Virginia, California and Washington. With such a strong organizational structure from the unions and ACORN-clones in such states as California, Nevada, Colorado and Washington, it didn't take much foot-shooting from the GOP for the Dems to salvage seats in those states.

With that memory still clear in my mind, the Refounders group on Facebook asked today whether we conservatives could bring ourselves to support whatever candidate came out in opposition to Obama in 2012. That led me to respond that we need to be very wise from the early stages of the primary process, beginning in 2011 and culminating in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in early 2012. We need to find the candidates who:

1) best articulate the platform of fiscal conservatism and limited government, along with restoration of US strength in foreign affairs.
2) we believe can best defeat Obama. This may not be the candidate of choice, but nonetheless, we cannot afford another four years of Obama. We must find a candidate who CAN beat him.
3) surrounds themselves with the best advisers and leadership
4) is soundly organized to not only get out the vote, but to pull the GOP and Independents together for a common purpose.
5) who has a sound game plan for winning 270+ electoral votes.

At this point there are four major GOP hopefuls: Palin, Gingrich, Romney and Huckabee. All of them are capable of putting together a campaign to win the nomination. And all four are capable of dealing with the national scene. NONE of them are favored above the other.

That being said, I'd like to now give my opinion of a Dream Ticket. Suffice it to say that both of these people must make strides in putting together fund raising and get-out-the-vote structures, and must make giant strides in developing their message for the national scene. But, assuming they do, I believe this ticket would be a winning one.

Marco Rubio / Paul Ryan

Now, let me next say that this is not the only ticket that I believe can beat Obama in 2012. But I believe this ticket, if they achieve the above stated prerequisites, would be a lock to win and could lead to 16 straight years of a conservative GOP White House.

Here's how they win.

1) It would be assumed they can win the states that McCain won in 2008 (Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texax, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee for a total of 173 electoral votes. This leaves us 97 electoral votes short.

2) Rubio, bringing in the Latino vote just enough to turn Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado Red. Those four states are 46 electoral votes, leaving us 51 short.

3) Ryan helps to bring back Iowa, Indiana and Wisconsin. That's 28 additional electoral votes, leaving us 23 votes shy.

4) With the sweep of governor's mansions and state legislatures in 2010, the GOP is poised to battle in the following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. These states represent 112 electoral votes. That's not asking a lot.

5) Even Minnesota, a neighbor to Ryan, and Illinois, normally very liberal states, could be in play, though if we are fighting for these states, then we're looking at a landslide.

This, again, is not to say that no other ticket could be Obama. Gingrich could almost certainly mop the floor with Obama in a debate, but is he conservative enough. Palin can carry the common vote and most assuredly scares the Libs on some front. But can she win? Yes, but it's not sure thing. In my mind, Rubio/Ryan is the most conservative ticket and have, in my opinion, the strongest chance of winning. What do you all think?

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Why The Tea Party Is Neither Democrat nor Republican

The first thing you notice when you look at who attends tea party rallies is that the vast majority are Republicans. Yes, there are a very good number of independents. And there are even some Democrats. But no matter how you slice it, the greatest percentage of Tea Party Patriots are Republicans. There is a simple reason for this. And it really is the same reason there are so many Independents in the movement as well. The main reason for this is that three basic planks of the Tea Party movement are: Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and Free Markets. Since these are the three primary ideals that most liberals (who now own the Democratic Party) hate most, there is no wonder that the DNC will not support any Democratic candidate who would also align themselves with these three fundamental planks of the Tea Party. It's also no wonder that many, many Democratic candidates are choosing to "spin" their records to make them SEEM like they already espouse to these principles.

The next question is, why is the GOP not supporting the candidates who support these ideals? One answer: Power.

The leaders of the GOP want the GOP to take back the house and senate so they can have more power. They don't care that the power they have is restricted by the sheer nature of the center-loving RINOS they feel are easier to elect. They haven't quite gotten the message yet that we are not concerned with their power. We believe the power belongs to we, the people. And if their quest for personal power makes it difficult for them to grasp that idea...then so be it.

They didn't believe us when we coordinated efforts with all Republicans in Massachusetts to get Scott Brown elected to Ted Kennedy's seat. Did it matter that Brown is not a conservative? He never said that he is. The answer to that put it doesn't matter in this case. Why? Because he is far more conservative than his opponent was, and far, far more conservative then Kennedy was. Does it mean we are happy about all his votes in the Senate so far? No. But really, THAT'S OKAY. He is honestly representing the interests and wishes of the people of Massachusetts. In case you didn't notice, the Founders argued quite a bit about what the government of this new country should be like. They were representing the fundamental interests of their home states. Reps from small states represented the interests of small states. Reps of slave states represented slave owners interests, and so on. Scott Brown represents the interests of a relative liberal state. We don't like it when the President or our own representatives and senators don't vote according to the wishes of the majority in their district. So why should the people of Massachusetts expect any differently.

Now, a year later, we've done the same thing. We've put tea party candidates in Utah, Nevada, Alaska, Florida and now Delaware and New Hampshire. We've knocked out favored RINO Republican, much to the GOP's dismay. And now the GOP must make a hard choice...

Face this problem head on and work together like we did in Massachusetts or keep fighting us on this. We don't care. If you want the Dems to retain Congress and finish the work they've begun, fine...go home and whine or do like Cristy did and run third party. Either way, without your help, there guys cannot win...but with your help, we cannot help but win.

I respect that you were fighting for your fight with us for principle. We're still gonna be there to help the most conservative candidate in any race....even a RINO, like John McCain, over some constitution-hating democrat. So stop fighting Joe Miller and Sharron Angle and Christine O'Connell. Help them. Look...Angle is in a dead heat WITHOUT your help....see what you can do when you help and help only?

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

My Conversation With Anthony Weiner

A few days ago, Congressman Weiner was videotaped during a deeply passionate argument with his colleagues in the House over a bill that would add $3 billion to an already existing fund set up to compensate the heroes of 9/11 and their families. As some of my friends would know, I am deeply passionate about things too. One of the most passionate issues to me is the ongoing, generational usurping of authority by Congress and our various presidents the past 150 years or so. One of the compelling stories from Congressional history surrounds then congressman Davy Crockett. I won't go into the story to any large degree. But if you don't understand the full scope of the conservation below, then please Google Davy Crockett and the Georgetown Fire and read the story for yourself.

Below is the full conversation I have had with Rep. Weiner. It is ongoing. So I will add to this as it continues. But I want to say first, that I deeply respect Rep. Weiner for engaging me in this conversation. He has no obligation to do so. And the fact that I am clearly in opposition him and am not a member of his constituency would clearly free him from any sense of obligation to respond. Just because you might disagree with his responses, as I clearly do, please do not begrudge him his opinion. He has my respect for responding and continuing to respond. He is courageous for putting himself on the line like this and deserves the respect any civilized opponent should be granted.

John Manuola August 5 at 6:46pm
If you can somehow find the source of the quote I am about to share with you, then perhaps you might also find the historical context of the quote and realize that you have not the right nor the authority to appropriate one dime of the public treasury for the sake of some charitable inclination you might have and we might agree with.

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 6:58pm Report
Charity? really? is that what you call compensating people for their service to our nation? nope, its a debt. thanks for taking the time to write.

John Manuola August 5 at 7:05pm
As Congressman Crockett later said when discussing the issue from which I quoted, if this is a debt, where is the bill? If this is a debt, WHY is Congress debating it? There are appropriate offices within the government from which these families could present their bill and receive compensation. If there is a debate as to whether their bill, should they present one to the appropriate office, is legitimate, there are courts to adjudicate the legality of their claims. CONGRESS, Mr. Weiner, has no place in debating a debt supposedly owed another person.

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 7:19pm Report
yes, why are we debating it? exactly the right question. this should be beyond debate. in fact, a law was passed to compensate those lost in the act of war on 9/11. but what we didnt know then is that many would die by degrees later. so we need to amend the law.

John Manuola August 5 at 7:32pm
And I ask again, what debt was owed to ANY of these families. Is there a debt we owed them? You and your colleagues from generations past, are quick to compel the American taxpayer to pay some supposed debt without regard for the limitations placed upon you to dole out money from the public treasury. No one, in their right mind, would suggest that the families of fallen heroes should be aided in their losses. That is not the point. The question is, by what authority do you and your colleagues decide that it is YOUR place to decide to compensate anyone in that or any similar position USING OUR MONEY? If you can play upon the emotional support of the people to justify usurping authority you do not have to help these people, what is to prevent you from doing that same thing to use a trillion dollars of public money to help some other segment of society that you deem to be worthy of that money? Or what is to prevent you from sending $300 million to help the people suffering from an earthquake in another country? Or to send tens of billions of dollars to help some organization that YOU or some one of your colleagues deems to be worthy of help..such as oil companies (Republicans use this power to help their oil buddies) or unions (as is being debated right now in the House)?

But once again, I remind you, your powers are innumerated, specific and limited. If there is no legal debt owed to be paid from the public treasury, then you have no authority to dole out our money for the benefit of ANYONE. I do think it is time for you and your colleagues to remember that your powers are limited, no matter what Congressman Stark may say.

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 7:49pm Report
our obligation as taxpayers emerges from the service that the responders did for the taxpayers. is that distinction not clear to you? the power of congress to repay those who served our nation is clearly enumerated. there is no legal debt until we pass the law.

John Manuola August 5 at 8:08pm
whoa, wait just a minute...these people were not employees of the United States. They were employees of the City of New York. Were they not compensated for their employment? Did they and/or their survivors not receive benefits to which they were legally due? Where did their acts on 9/11 oblige anyone to pay them or their families a dime of our money to them? AGAIN, if there is a legitimate debt, where is the bill? You can play upon my sense of charitable obligation all you want, sir, but until you show me a document legally obliging anyone to compensate them for anything they did on that day, your argument is empty and without legal basis. If you wish to rant and rave that we, as a people, should dig deep into our own pockets to help these brave people then please do so. I would be pleased to offer what I can. But do not tell me that we owe a debt when there is no bill to show that we do.

I would suggest, sir, that contrary to your argument, there is no debt here at all...not any legally binding debt at all. For all your rhetoric, you are doing little more than attempting to compel support for nothing more than a legitimately charitable cause.In that regard, I will make you the same challenge that Congressman Crockett made to his colleagues. I will donate one week's worth of my own pay to whatever legitimate charitable organization has been established to help this people. If you will do the same and if you will stand before the House and make the same challenge to them.

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 8:12pm Report
they are sick because of their service to the country. the obligation is from that service. the legal basis comes in the law. the law is what is being passed by congress. the power for which is clearly enumerated in the constitution. which of these sentences is causing you problems.

John Manuola August 5 at 8:25pm
what power do you have as a Congress to establish a NEW debt where none existed before, sir? I see NOTHING in the Constitution authorizing you to oblige America to a new debt where none existed before. If the Constitution did provide you with authority to establish a new obligation where none existed before, then it would be unlimited the power you would have to abscond with the entirety of America's wealth for the sake of whatever obligations you and your colleagues might feel compelled to create where none previously existed. If this, sir, is your argument, there is no wonder why we are now in the financial state that we're in. It would explain how you and your colleagues, both present and past, have felt justified in spending billions upon of OUR dollars on what amounts to little more than charity. I would argue, sir, that if you, and people like you would simply use you pulpits to inspire the American people to donate to help everyone of these 'causes' you would find that not one single person in need would lack for the help that they need. The charitable hearts of Americans is without limit. We know how to help when those in need come knocking on our doors. We don't need our Congress to compel us or to usurp authority they were NEVER given to use our money against our will to help these people or anyone else. You, apparently, do not trust the American people to help those whom we know need our help. Well, we, sir, do not trust you to do it for us. Which is why, sir, our founding fathers NEVER gave you that authority.

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 8:29pm Report
"establish a new debt"? you mean pay for something? when we buy a tank die we "establish a new debt"? when we decide to create a farm program did we "establish a new debt"? you are allowing yourself to get tied in knots by this phrase. congress decides how to spend taxes. we are doing that here. you may not like the decisions but the notion that congress cant spend money collected in taxes begs the question : ok, then who can?

John Manuola August 5 at 8:35pm
Do you really think that Congress' power to spend the money that it collects in taxes is limitless?

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 8:38pm Report
no, its limited by presidential veto and judicial review. now to you sir, if congress doesnt have the power, uh who does?
John Manuola August 5 at 8:46pm
So the only limit to your power to spend our money is the President? What about the limits places upon you by We The People, through the Constitution?

To answer your question, one does. If Congress collects more money through taxes than it has the authority to spend, then it is obligated to return the money or retain it for another occasion when it DOES have authority to spend it.

Think of this way, sir, if I gave $100 to my employee and told him to go buy supplies for the office. If he only spends $50 on supplies for the office, just because I gave him $100, does not authorize him to spend the other $50 in whatever manner he deems appropriate.

That, sir, would be stealing. Or at the very least, imprudent, since I would clearly fire him for spending money he had no authority to spend.

Anthony Weiner August 5 at 10:24pm Report
you missed the other limit above. judicial review. the constitutional limits are interpreted by the courts. see marbury v. madison. that is the limit. if not the representatives of the people - the congress - then who?

John Manuola August 5 at 11:27pm
I did not miss it, I simply ignored it in anticipation that you would bring it back up, along with Marbury, to justify your point that somehow Congress can do whatever they want so long as "daddy" SCOTUS doesn't find out and ground us. However, the absence of judicial review of and for every act of Congress does not afford Congress authority it never had in the first place. To mere fact that "daddy" SCOTUS has not said that you cannot do this or do that is not de facto authorization to do so. The Judicial Authority of the courts does not exceed what it, too, has been granted by we the people. And they, honestly, cannot rule on cases not brought before them. And we both know that people like you would simply demonize anyone who dared to bring a case before the Supreme Court challenging Congress' authority to provide financial relief for those heroic people from 9/11 or those suffering from the massive earthquake in Haiti. We also know that the courts have essentially become political, anyway, loaded with judges designed to re-enforce the political agendas of their appointees.

Anthony Weiner August 6 at 4:34am Report
ok, so the congress doesnt have the right to spend and the courts dont have the right to review. so i your view of our republic, who has these rights? ive aked a few times.

John Manuola August 6 at 10:45am
You sound disappointed, Congressman. But it is not unsurprising that you misinterpreted what I said. I said Congress' authority to spend is limited (remember the employer with the $100). You are clearly authorized to spend our money, just not indiscriminately. You have your authority, don't step outside that authority, please.

As for the courts, their jurisdictional is clearly delineated in the Constitution as well. But if you recall from what I said, its not that the courts can't rule as to the constitutionality of something you folks in Congress's just that 1) their rulings are becoming more and more political (and this comes from both sides...I am not taking sides on this one) and 2) they can't rule on something if a case has not been brought before them. Which, even when a case does come before the SCOTUS it takes years, often, to get there....and costs far too much money for the average person to spend to do it.

This, of course, is why Jefferson and Madison, years after the Constitution was written, advocated the states' use of nullification with regards to laws created by Congress, enforced by the President and even ruled on by courts unfriendly to the Constitution. I can provide you with information on what they said about state nullification if you doubt me. But somehow, I don't think you really care what the Founding Fathers thought about the Constitution. I get the feeling, sir, you're one of those people who thinks the Constitution is often outdated and irrelevant to today's world and far too much of an inconvenience.

But to specifically answer your question about who has the "rights". Strictly speaking Congress has no "rights"...they have "delegated authority" which means, if you insist using the word "right", that you have the "right" to do exactly what you've been told to do in the Constitution and NO MORE.

In my not so humble opinion, the biggest problem with Congress (and the President), now and in the past, is your arrogant belief that you somehow have the right to do whatever you wish, so long as you can con your constituents into believing you're the best person to keep doing what you're doing. Congress has become that employee I used in the earlier example...gone unchecked...for decades. Well, sorry, Congressman, the gig is up...we the bosses have had enough.

You may not personally find yourself without a job come November, because there are enough people in your district who have forgotten what exactly you were sent to Congress to do and are actually happy that you spend their money with limitless abandon. But should you keep your job after this fall, you will be finding yourself welcoming a WHOLE LOTTA of new folks in Congress next January...and they will not be left there unchecked. America is awake, finally, sir, and we will not be going back to sleep again anytime soon.

Anthony Weiner August 10 at 10:21pm Report
so you dont believe in judicial review? so who decides when congress acts outside the constitution? you?

John Manuola August 10 at 11:02pm
Do you read what is written or just play the pity party routine all the time? A judicial review is not the ONLY means by which the unconstitutional acts of Congress or the President are determined to be unconstitutional. The states have the power of nullification and we the people have the ultimate power of civil disobedience.

"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".

You see, Mr. Weiner, the Founders didn't leave it to just you guys in the national government to keep yourselves in check. You don't get to make the rules, execute them and let the people YOU put on the courts judge their constitutionality, without other means of protecting the rights and powers of the states and we, the people.

Yes, the courts do have judicial review. Yes, the President has veto power. Yes, Congress can override a presidential veto. What happens, Mr. Weiner, when Congress has both chambers of Congress, the Oval Office and it takes millions of dollars and years of litigation to challenge your unconstitutional laws in the courts? That's where we are right now. You don't get to just do whatever you want, sir. You will soon find that out.

Anthony Weiner August 11 at 9:23am Report
so you believe we do have the right to act and voters have the right to not to reelect. thats more like it. class dismissed.

John Manuola August 11 at 10:45am
Wow, talk about showing your elitist colors, Mr. Weiner. I am not alone in suggesting that the only thing you have "taught" me is that you are little different than a teenage boy who figures out to how manipulate what his teacher, or boss, or parent tells him into whatever he wants to believe. Clearly you walked into this conversation thinking that you have the power and authority to do whatever the heck you want as a Congressman, so long as no one with greater power than you stops you. And you weren't about to be told any differently by some cake-eating peon. But let me "teach" you something, Mr. Weiner. You see, we, the people, ARE more powerful than you. That's what our Founders were trying to tell you in that document you find so terribly inconvenient. You don't have the right, nor the power, to manipulate the words in that document, like you manipulate my words, to make them agree your opening premise. What a sad statement regarding the quality of our country's education that someone supposedly so educated and intelligent doesn't even know the fundamentals of how to engage in a logical debate. You can go back to screaming and making the veins in your forehead bulge out. We're least until you figure out how grow out of your zit-filled petulance.

Anthony Weiner August 11 at 10:52am Report
i have been patient with your long path to the place i started. you now agree with me that congress has the right to do things you dont agree with. understanding our constitution and our republic is essential civic responsibility. perhaps you expected that your incoherent screed would be met with acquiescence. sorry pal, you are not the only one with beliefs. oh and one more thing - dont over use "we" when speaking about your views. it sounds a bit, uh, pompous.

John Manuola August 11 at 11:58am
Although it would suit me to contend with your statement with words of my own, Mr. Weiner. I shall refrain from taking any further position of insult and merely remind you of the story with which I began this conversation. A few months after Davy Crockett voted, along with most of his colleagues, to provide financial relief for the victims of the fire in Georgetown, he was back in home district campaigning for re-election when he ran across a farmer by the name of Horatio Bunce. Below is Crockett's account of that conversation. I challenge you, Congressman Weiner, to read this accounting in its entirety.

BUNCE: "Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

CROCKETT: "This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

BUNCE: " ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

CROCKETT: " 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

BUNCE: “ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

CROCKETT: " ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

BUNCE: " ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

You, see, Congressman Weiner, you are not at power to do as you please in Congress. Nor are you at liberty to do as you wish, so long as the Judiciary doesn't tell you otherwise. Nor are you free to simply interpret the Constitution as you wish. Instead, you are obligated to know its content fully and the spirit and intent of that content completely. You are obligated to refrain from attempts to manipulate its meaning for the sake of a cause that might otherwise be an honest and worthy focus of your passion...but is outside the scope of your authority.

Here lay the conclusion of our debate: you may be able to convince the people of your constituency that the passions and causes you endorse are within the scope of your authority to legislate, but you have not convinced me. You are fortunate I do not reside in your district. For you would not have my vote for the same exact reasons that Horatio Bunce gave Colonel Crockett. And unfortunately for me and for your constituents, I have severe doubt you will enjoy the same epiphany experience that Colonel Crockett experienced upon meeting Mr. Bunce. For indeed, Crockett was an honest man. And in being such, was open to being humbled and corrected by even a simple farmer. He never again voted for such spending bills as he did with the Georgetown Fire...and often stood in opposition to them. Would that even a few of the men and women in power, such as yourself, would take it upon themselves to experience anew the humility so absolutely necessary for such persons of power to truly be the servants of the people that they most assuredly entered politics to be.

I leave you with that, sir, in hopes that you will also accept my sincerest expression of gratitude that you would take the time to debate such a timely issue as this with someone not even of your constituency. Although our debate became the tiniest bit heated on occasion, I respect you for putting yourself on the line like this.

AT THIS POINT, dear readers, I am pretty sure the conversation is over. I truly doubt Mr. Weiner is going to change his position and I frankly don't think he has a leg to stand on if chooses to continue the path of "logic" he is taking. I do find it interesting that this conversation validated some my ongoing views about the majority of politicians in Washington. Namely, that they are primarily petulant, elitist, arrogant and dismissive. But I also believe, as Horatio Bunce did, that most of them entered politics with honest motivations. What we need to do is make sure that we are ALL this generations Horatio Bunce...knowing the Constitution ourselves and keeping our representatives true to its intent and meaning.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Taking Back The Senate 2010

Taking Back The Senate
Like our efforts to “take back the House”, this is only secondarily about making the Republicans the majority party in the Senate. There are only two choices as to whom would be the majority party. Republicans are more suited to conservatives…though not so much so that we much not be careful (see Castle vs. McConnell in Delaware).
I am going to take a look at all 37 Senate seats being contested this November. Some are shoe-ins for the incumbent. But others offer a good chance to make some changes.

Seats Projected to Solidly Remain Republican:
Alabama – Richard Shelby
Alaska – Lisa Murkowski
Arizona - John McCain
Georgia – John Isakson
Idaho – Mike Crapo
Iowa – Chuck Grassley
Kansas – Jeff Moran
Kentucky – Rand Paul
Louisiana – David Vitters
Missouri – Roy Blunt
North Carolina – Richard Burr
Oklahoma – Tom Coburn
South Carolina – Jim DeMint
South Dakota – John Thune
Utah – Mike Lee

Seats Projected to Solidly Remain Democrat:
Connecticut – Richard Blumenthal
Hawaii – Daniel Inouye
Maryland – Barbara Mikulski
New York (Senior Seat) – Charles Schumer
Oregon – James Huffman
Vermont – Pat Leahy

That leaves 17 seats that are in play. Some of these 17 seats are currently very strongly leaning towards one party or another. But they are still in play for various reasons.

AR – Republican John Boozmanis WAY out in front of Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic incumbent. This seat is going to switch parties. GOP GAIN

CA – Barbara Boxer is the three term incumbent in the bluest of blue states. In Mass. it took Kennedy’s death for that seat to go Republican. But here, no death is necessary. This seat is in play with the latest polls showing a statistical tie (46 to 44 in Boxer’s favor). But, as Karl Rove reported, the reported, Boxer has never had 50% in this race. And the undecided votes typically go against the incumbent, unless there is an October Surprise of some kind. Living in California, myself, I will definitely be trying to help her win. Would I have liked to have seen Chuck DeVore instead of Carly? Yes, of course…but that’s over and we need Boxer out. So, Carly gets my help. GOP GAIN (WISHFUL THINKING? PERHAPS)

CO – Mike Bennett, the Democratic incumbent is in deep trouble here. In fact, the Democratic Party, with the Romanoff scandal on their heels, is in deep trouble. The primaries are still to come. So his Republican opponent is not yet determined. But he loses, in the polls, to either Republican candidate. Now, who do we support in the Primaries, Ken Buck or Jane Norton. Their campaign is getting nasty and this may turn off voters. But thank goodness, the primary is next week and that leaves plenty of time for the winner to campaign against Bennett instead of against the other Republican. I don’t honestly care which one wins…mostly because they both have the right views on the important issues and either one is FAR better than Bennett. GOP GAIN (I HOPE)

DE – This is Joe Biden’s old seat. Here we have some shady business going on. Rumors are abounding that Mike Castle, the leading Republican candidate, is in bed with the Biden, specifically Beau Biden, Joe’s son (not literally in bed). Biden knew from the polling that he had no chance of winning this seat. Castle has supposedly cut a deal to win the GOP nomination, get elected and pull an Arlen Specter on the Republicans, then resign and have Beau be appointed to the seat. I know, I know…and they call birthers crazy. I truly doubt that would happen, especially now that it’s been exposed. But nonetheless, the Republicans are projected to win this seat no matter whether Mike Castle or Christine O’Donnell win the nomination. In that regards, O’Donnell is far and away the better conservative here. She is not trailing Castle by much and so I fully endorse O’Donnell and hope our Delaware patriots can help her win. GOP GAIN (MOST LIKELY)

FL – Goodness, we all know what’s going on here. RINO, Charlie Crist was upset that he didn’t get the Republican nomination so he went rogue (independent). He is threatening to turn this state upside down. His election would amount to electing another RINO, at best, or another Democrat. We’ve seen what RINOs do in the Senate (see Elena Kagen as just the latest example). Please, Florida, get Marco Rubio elected to the Senate. GOP GAIN (SIGH…DOESN’T LOOK PROMISING)

IL – Mark Kirk (R) and Alexi Giannoulias (D) are running neck and neck here. This would be such a slap in the face of Obama if Kirk wins this seat. Obama even went there during his birthday weekend to help raise a million dollars for Giannoulias. Despite that, the two candidates are in a statistical tie (Kirk trails 43 to 41). This is actually key seat that I think we should attack and try to win. GOP GAIN (I HOPE SO)

IN – Dan Coats (R) is far ahead of Brad Ellsworth (D) is taking this seat from the Dems as Evan Bayh retires from the Senate. GOP GAIN

– We all know what’s at stake here. If Reid doesn’t get ousted, what power can we possibly have as Conservatives? Reid was down by 15 points before Angle won the nomination. But he came out with guns ablazing and quickly eliminated Angle’s lead and took a 7 point advantage. However, NEVER, has Reid’s numbers topped 50%. He is deeply vulnerable still. And, in fact, with recent support for Angle increasing and money flowing in, projections are that Reid’s lies and smear tactics are growing weak. Recent polls showed this now a dead heat again. It is time to fight, Patriots. THIS is our Revolutionary War. No guns, just ballots. We HAVE to win…or we lose our country. GOP GAIN (A MUST)

NH – I guess retiring Senator Judd Gregg just wasn’t satisfied with retiring. He had to go out with one last stab in the back of our Constitution. Voting for Elena Kagen was a low blow by this moron. Now it’s time to replace him with someone with some understanding of the Constitution. Congressman Paul Hodes (D) is the Dems’ nominee here. His record indicates just how much worse it would be to elect him than it would be to even retain Judd Gregg. The September 14th primaries will determine his opponent on the GOP ballot. Republican Kelly Ayotte has shown to be the front runner for the GOP nomination and polls ahead of Hodes for the seat. GOP HOLD (YES…AND MORE CONSERVATIVE TOO)

NY (Junior Seat) – This is the seat Hillary once held and is now belonging to Kirsten Gillebrand. She is polling strong in retaining this seat. It is unlikely we’ll take it from her. Though people like Dick Morris still think the dust has not settled yet and she is vulnerable due to some serious ethics violations on her part that have yet to come out, except in Morris’ book. I wish he were right, but there doesn’t seem to be a strong candidate to run against her. Still, with Gillebrand not polling over 49% in the polls, she is still vulnerable. It is going to wind up coming down to who the GOP nominee is here. The Primary is September 14th. GOP GAIN? (NOT LIKELY)
ND – This is a strong opportunity for the GOP to gain a seat as John Hoeven is far ahead of Dem. Tracy Potter. GOP GAIN

OH – This is a seat we have to keep. Rob Portman (R) is leading Lee Fisher (D) in the polls, but only barely. If we are to regain the Senate, we cannot be losing seats like this one. Please lend your support to the Portman campaign.

PA – Here’s another potential pick up for the GOP. Pat Toomey is leading Joe Sestak in the fight to take this seat which was held by the turncoat, Arlen Specter. Again, lend your hand here…take this seat and we have a good chance of taking back the Senate. GOP GAIN

WA – Dino Rossi is strongly challenging incumbent Democrat Patty Murray. They are in a statistical tie, with Murray only slightly leading in the Polls. With Murray never coming close to 50% in the polls, this seat is extremely vulnerable to the GOP. GOP GAIN (VERY POSSIBLE)

WV –With the death of Robert Byrd, the Dems are forced to try to hold yet another seat. This is strongly leaning towards Governor Joe Manchin winning the Dem. nomination and winning the seat…you just never know what’s going to happen between now and November 2nd. The vulnerability here is that this is a state rich in mining, coal mining. And the people here are not all that happy with the idea of Cap and Trade, nor with Obama’s attitude towards coal mining. That being said, let’s wait to see how the Primary lays out and then see if this seat remains strongly Dem. GOP GAIN? (NOT LIKELY)

WI – Russ Feingold is in big trouble here. The primaries still haven’t been run and he’s trailing Republican Ron Johnson in numerous polls. This seat is a strong possible GOP gain. It will take lots of work, as Feingold will, undoubtedly, come out swinging when the GOP primary is over, just like Reid did. But if Johnson’s camp can prepare for that they can fend him off and really challenge this seat. GOP GAIN? (HOPEFUL).

As you can see, with Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, North Dakota and Pennsylvania strongly leaning towards a Republican gain, that puts the GOP at 46 seats and the Dems at 52 with two independents. We would technically need to gain five more seats AND hold onto Florida and Ohio. Florida and Ohio are winnable. The five Dem seats we need to target are: Nevada, Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington, and Colorado. That also leaves California and Delaware. Delaware, as I told you, will most likely go Republican. I would not consider it a real victory, though, if Castle wins. If he wins, at best he remains GOP (allowing GOP to be the majority party in the Senate), but joins the ranks of John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Olympia Snowe and that other Senator from Maine as the RINOs of the Senate. I’d rather not have that, especially when we have Christine O’Donnell who could win that seat too and she is much more conservative. In California, Fiorina is not much better than a RINO, but I’ll take her over Boxer any day. So frankly, there are a minimum of 12 Dem seats that COULD change hands in a perfect world. But, as one person wrote recently, this November’s elections look to be the “perfect political storm with the Democrats caught in the middle of it”. For the first time, we can do more than merely HOPE that’s true. We are within range of it and we must be diligent to do what we must to win back both the House and the Senate.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Take Back The House 2010

It's actually a misnomer to call this a game place for "winning back" the House. In reality, I want to first, and foremost take it away from Nancy Pelosi and her ilk. As a result of that first priority, I would support any candidate running against a sitting congressperson who voted to any large degree WITH Pelosi on any of the major issue (Cap and Trade, Obamacare, Card Check, Financial Reform, Student Loans, Stimulus...all of them...the Obama Budget and anything else I am not thinking of off the top of my head).
But, until such time as we have opposition candidates in place, our goal should be to find an opposing candidate who 1) best meets the goals we have for this country (see Sean Hannity's list from his latest book...its a good guideline), and 2) has a reasonably good chance of defeating the incumbent.
Election Projections has created a list of the most hotly contested seats in the house ( ). They are currently projecting a 31 seat turn over towards the Republicans. This is not enough to take the House away from Pelosi. Granted, many of the seats that EP is tilting towards the Dems retaining are strongly uncertain, if for no other reason than the fact that the Republicans have not had their primary yet and have yet to select an opponent.
That being said we have three jobs to do: 1) help to support the best Republican candidate in that state's primary; 2) once the state primary is decided, support the best candidate for that district; 3) make sure that we don't forget to support the conservative/republican candidates who, though leading in their districts, still need support.
Take a look at the list on that site.... I've begun the process of looking at the best primary candidates available in those states yet to have held their primaries. I want your input on these any other races you see as potential pick ups for Republicans in November. Remember, I am not supporting the Republican party simply because they are Republican. I DO want the best candidate...BUT remember this one thing...the party with the most members of the House get to choose the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is VERY it is VERY important that we get Pelosi OUT of that position. The ONLY way to do that, in the current two party system, is to make sure the Republicans hold the majority. BTW, even if we do take the House away from Pelosi...our job is not done. We need to make sure to pressure the Republicans to elect the BEST Speaker possible. on to the are my initial recommendations on some key races. I am going to target 19 races that I think are winnable, as that would give us the cushion we need to take control of the House.

AZ - District 1 - Democrat is Ann Kirkpatrick: voted for stimulus and for Obamacare; but voted AGAINST cap and trade; she is a good supporter of the troops and relatively strong on education, though not so far as to favor school choice.
The top two Republican candidates are: Rusty Bowers and Brad Beauchamp. Bowers is an experienced State Legislator who has lived in that district his whole life. According to his website ( ), he stands for most everything us conservatives support. Beauchamp's site is not as obvious in relation to the details of what he believes, but it is clear he is conservative in nature and has the support of the border patrol council ( ). He is running heavily on his "outsider" position.

I personally believe either one would be a good choice...but get the feeling that Bowers would have the best chance of defeating Kirkpatrick.

AZ - District 5 - Democrat is Harry Mitchell: he voted for Stimulus, Cap and Trade, Health Care and many other Pelosi programs. His website indicates that he is little more than a mouthpiece for the talking points of the far left of most issues. Even on something as vital to his district as border security, his support of AB 1070 is lukewarm at best...especially for an Arizona Congressman.
The Republicans are fielding a good group of candidates. Susan Bitter Smith, Chris Salvino, David Schweikert and Jim Ward are on the same page as far as the issues are concerned. I think they would all vote similarly on the issues. The question is, who has the best chance of beating Mitchell? Although I think they could all succeed if backed properly, the two who seem to stand out the most are Chris Salvino and Jim Ward. Chris seems to have the backing of the key figures in the district. While Ward is a fundraising expert (having out raised all his other opponents COMBINED for three straight quarters). And we know what money does...hmm. Any of the four would be fine with me.

Here are their respected websites:

AZ - District 8 - Democrat is Gabrielle Giffords: She voted FOR Obamacare, the Stimulus, Financial Reform, and Cap and Trade (need we say more?). She is very good at spewing the same mindless talking points that Pelosi told her to use in selling these bills to her constituents.
Republican Jonathan Paton was recently polled in a statistical dead heat with Giffords (even though the Republican primary has not been held yet). This is a seat we CAN win. Paton is a strong conservative and is positioned to win this seat with our help, even though EP is still giving this seat to Dems (weakly). Here is is website ( ).

CA - District 11 (which is mostly in San Joaquin County, but includes areas in the Eastern portions of Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) - Democrat is Jerry McNerney: He voted FOR Financial Reform, the Stimulus and Obamacare. His security in the District was recently lowered from Moderately strong to Weak. This seat can be had by the right candidate.
Tom Harmer is the candidate for the Republicans and he is a first class Reagan Conservative ( ). Harmer currently trails McNerney 42.3% to 40.5% in the polls...clearly within the margin of error. We can take this seat with some effort.

CO – District 3 – Democrat is John Salazar: He voted FOR stimulus, Cap and Trade and Obamacare (despite the fact that, like many Dems who voted for Obamacare, he won’t openly say so on his website. He simply makes it sound like he is supportive of certain issues RELATING to Obamacare). He shows a debt clock on his web page yet touts his many successful pork projects.
Republican Bob McConnell is the Sarah Palin-endorsed candidate in the primary coming up. McConnell is up against a much more polished candidate in Scott Tipton in the primary. Tipton is endorsed by Dick Morris. Either one would make a good candidate to kick Salazar out. You decide which one to support in the primary…but either way…support the primary winner against Salazar. Here is a link to a debate between McConnell and Tipton (

CO – District 4 – Democrat is Betsy Markey who is already losing in all polls against Republican Cory Gardner (who is the likely GOP candidate here). This is a seat EP is weakly giving over to Republicans. So we need to fight for this one too. Keep working here.

CT – District 4 – Democrat Jim Himes: voted for ALL the left wing agenda. He is a first term Congressman who garnered only 51.6% of the vote in 2008 (the year of “hope and change”), meaning he flew in on Obama’s coat tails. With Dodd retiring (in no small part because they knew he couldn’t win re-election with his strong ties to and sweetheart deals from Countrywide) and Obama AND his health care reform numbers SINKING like a rock in CT, this seat is ripe. Himes’ re-election hopes were recently lowered from Likely to Leaning in all projections.
There are three Republican candidates: Rick Torres ( who is a strong conservative as shown by Ron Paul’s endorsement; Rob Merkle ( ) who seems to wish to appease the Tea Partiers, but almost seems a little apologetic in his support of the Tea Party; and Dan Debacella ( ) who seems the most organized and is clearly more of a career politician with some seemingly moderate views on things like health care reform (incorporating right wing ideals of tort reform and buying across state lines, but also promoting middle of the road efforts to “streamline” medical information of patients and offering tax credits for “healthy living”).
My choice would be Torres first, then Merkle, then Debicella. Though any one of them would be better than Himes.

DE – ONLY SEAT – Currently held by Republican, Mike Castle, who is running for the Senate seat formerly held by Joe Biden. The seat, according to EP, is leaning Democratic. The main reason this seat is leaning Democratic is because the Democrats have only one candidate, John Carney, who has already won state-wide elections as Lt. Governor.
The Republicans, on the other hand have two good conservatives (Rose Izzo and Glen Urguhart), neither of which are well funded or capable of beating Carney without serious help. The third Republican, and, unfortunately, the most likely to win the nomination at this point, is Michelle Rollins, who is a clear cut RINO.
Because of the lack of support of the two conservative Republicans (and perhaps the reason there ISN’T support for them), there are also two Tea Party candidates. Neither Doug Campbell nor Earl Lofland (Constitution Party) have a snowball’s chance of winning…and are, unfortunately stealing from the Republicans. If we can get the support necessary to push one of the two Republican candidates over the top in their primary, then we might be able to squelch these two guys from stealing the election away from the Republicans and save the seat.

FL – District 2 – Democrat is Alan Boyd. He won with 61% of the vote in 2008 but July 22, Stuart Rothenberg (an election expert) changed his status on this district’s race in 2010 to a TOSS UP. This district can be had. Boyd is considered a Blue Dog Democrat who has an interesting plan of regaining some fiscal sanity ( ) even if it does NOT include renewing the Bush tax cuts. He voted for the Stimulus and Cap and Trade. While initially talking as if he would vote AGAINST Obamacare, he turn-coated on his constituents and voted for it eventually.
The main reason this seat is not leaning Republican is that the five Republicans running are all relative newbies to politics and no one has stepped up. Here are the five Rep. candidates and their links:
Barbara Olschner ( ) is, without question, a RINO. Read her views of Energy and Immigration. She has strong fiscally conservative views but that’s not good enough for me. She and John McCain would just be a House version of McCain or Graham.
Eddie Hendry ( ) is a true conservative on all issues (as you can read on his Issues page), including immigration, energy and health care)
Dianne Berryhill ( ), although another conservative, is not very organized or well funded. She would do well the remove herself from the primaries and endorse David Scholl, Steve Southerland or Eddie Hendry.
David Scholl ( ) is another very strong conservative and perhaps my favorite pick for the Republican nomination.
Steve Southerland ( ) is a soft spoken conservative who, although he has the right ideas, may not be capable of articulating them well enough to get the voters to vote for him. I like how well he has articulated his points IN PRINT, but he doesn’t come across like someone who can win the election. But that just might be me. You judge.
Whoever comes out of this primary is better than waffling blue dog Alan Boyd. However, let’s HOPE it’s not Olschner. It would be far more palatable to support any of the others against Boyd. In fact, I would just write this District off if she wins the Rep. nomination because she is no different than Boyd. The only good that would come from her winning the nomination and beating Boyd would be that it would make it more possible for the Republicans to kick Pelosi out of her Speaker’s seat.

FL – District 8 is Alan Grayson’s seat…and currently, EP is giving this “weakly” to the Republicans. We can only hope it stays that way. I would love few things more than knowing that we will not have to see him rant again from the House floor. Keep supporting his opponent, whomever they might be…primary still to come.

FL – District 22 – Democrat Ron Klein: was a true leftist in that he voted consistently along Pelosi-lines. Yes on Obamacare, Stimulus, Cap and Trade and so on. This district in South Florida will not be easy to win, but EP currently has it as a weak Dem. Hold.
Allen West ( ) and David Brady ( both seem like good candidates for the Republican nomination (Aug. 24th primary). Though West seems to be the favorite to win the nomination. The promising part of this district is that in April of this year, West polled ahead of Klein by 2 points (44 – 42%). That’s not a significant lead…but if you look back to 2008 when Klein BEAT West in the general election, a poll taken about the same time in 2008 showed Klein leading West 49% to 22%. West is known much more than he was in 2008 and current polling shows he has a chance to unseat Klein.

FL – District 24 shows incumbent Democrat Suzanne Kozmas losing to any Republican candidate giving the Republicans a weak gain here…but don’t stop working it. We need this seat. My personal choice for the Republican nomination is Sandy Evans. Yes, she is conservative…as are a couple of the others. But Sandy endorsed an idea that has long been a pet project of mine…the use of a Zero Base Budget by Congress (look it up…I don’t wanna preach on it right now). But I support her nomination and will help her cause if she wins the nomination.

HI – District 1 – Currently held by Republican Charles Djou. The pundits are mixed in their projection of who will hold this seat after November. Hawaii is the most liberal state in the union and will always lean that way, even though this seat went Republican in 2008. Djou is a strong conservative who’s star is rising. I strongly support his election and deeply respect his position on almost all issues. Fight for him, Hawaii.

ID – District 1 – Democrat Walt Minnick is one of the most conservative democrats in Congress. He voted against Obamacare and Cap and Trade. Although it would be nice to have this seat in the Republican column for the sake of removing Pelosi from the Speaker’s seat. But I am not worried at all if Walt wins re-election. He is one of those rare politicians, from either party, who actually listens to his constituents and votes accordingly.

IL – District 10 – This is an Open seat held by Republicans right now (Mark Kirk is running for Senate in Illinois) and leaning slightly towards remaining Republican. Robert Dold (R) is running against Dan Seals (D). The primary reason Seals is still close in this race is that he ran twice before for this seat and he has some name recognition. Dold is a solid conservative with strong ideals. He needs money, more than anything else…and volunteers to help get his name out there. If he gets a real chance to get his message out, Dold can win this seat and would be a strong influence in Congress with some great ideas. Dold is trailing, as of May, by 8 points in the polls….but I suspect that number will shrink as people get to know him.

IL – District 11 – Debbie Halvorson (D) is the incumbent. She voted in favor of the Stimulus, Obamacare, Cap and Trade and more. Yes, she worked to help add provisions that made those bills more “palatable” for fence-sitting Dems. But that is not good enough when government is out of control.
Her opponent in November is Republican Adam Kinzinger ( ). He is a strong conservative, young and full of great ideas and energy. I would strongly encourage support of him in his campaign. Kinzinger, as of March, was leading Halvorson, but the numbers have narrowed since and Halvorson is now leading slightly in the polls. This guy would be a great asset to the Republican party, Congress and America.

IL – District 14 – Democrat Bill Foster holds the seat. He voted FOR Obamacare, the Stimulus and Cap and Trade. Although he talks a good talk regarding border security and taxes, word has it that he would support comprehensive immigration reform which included amnesty…and that he does not support renewing the Bush tax cuts for anyone making more than $250K/year.
His opponent is Randy Hultgren ( ). Early polls, before it was known who Foster’s opponent would be, showed very low approval for Foster from constituents. However, Hultgren is not doing so well in the polls…this is a statistical dead heat. This seat is for the taking if we can get out there and help Randy.

IN – District 2 – Joe Donnelly, the incumbent Democrat, is in trouble here (despite EP still leaving this seat to the Dems). Although he is against amnesty (on the immigration issue), the fact that he voted WITH the left of every other issue begs the question as to whether he would cave on this issue as well.
His opponent is Jackie Walorski (R) ( ). She is a strong conservative who would love to overturn Obamacare. She started off way down in the polls, but is running a good campaign and the polls are now showing Donnelly only a slight favorite. She needs our help. Please send money and volunteer to help.

IN – District 8 – Democrat Brad Ellsworth is running a losing battle for the Senate. So this is an open seat that can be taken by the Republicans. EP already has this leaning Republican…but ever so slightly. Larry Bucshon ( ) needs your help. This seat voted HEAVILY Democrat in 2008. So the fact that Bucshon is slightly favored is huge. Keep working for him.

IN – District 9 – Baron Hill is the incumbent Democrat. The five-time Congressman won with nearly 58% of the vote in 2008. So the fact that he is only SLIGHTLY favored to win at this point is another HUGE one. Hill was “proud” to vote for Obamacare and Stimulus. He also voted for Cap and Trade and although he tries to make Hoosiers believe he is an advocate of the 2nd amendment…he is only against “unfair infringement” on gun rights. Time for him to go.
His opponent is Todd Young, a strong conservative and another of a good group of young conservatives ( ). Although EP shows this seat barely remaining in the Dems hands, a new poll recently shows Young up by 5 points on Hill. This seat is for the taking.

IA – District 3 – EP still shows this seat staying Dems hands. But latest polls shows incumbent Leonard Boswell (D) trailing Brad Zaun (R) by 8 points now. This seat is primed for Republican taking. Zaun is a strong conservative, as you can read on his website ( ).
Former President Clinton is being recruited to come campaign for Boswell, indicating that the leading Democrats see this seat slipping away. We need to step up our support for Zaun, asap.

KS – District 3 – Six term incumbent Democrat, Dennis Moore, is retiring. It has been speculated that he is retiring due to Democratic Party pressure. Some think he can’t win again after supporting most of the bills that Kansans oppose.
There is a very crowded field for the Republican nomination. And since the primary is tomorrow, I will refrain from making comments until we know who both parties have nominated.

LA – District 2 – This seat is currently held by Joseph Cao (R), the turn-coat who voted FOR…what was it, Obamacare, cap and trade or Stimulus or all of them. I can’t remember. But in a state that leans heavily Republican, this is the most liberal district. And without Republican support this time around, it is unlikely he will win…but who cares. The biggest mistake made here was in the Republican party NOT helping to find an alternative candidate. We lose, no matter who wins this election.

MD – District 1 – Democrat incumbent, Frank Kratovil, is projected to lose this race, narrowly, to a yet to be determined challenger. There is one serious issue here. In November of last year, before Kratovil voted to pass Obamacare, Republican Andy Harris was leading by double digits in early polls. Now, Kratovil is back in the lead, ever so slightly (despite this, this seat is still projected to go to the Republicans. The problem here is that Tea Party activist, Frank Wilson, has begun siphoning off Harris’ votes. Harris is not the most conservative of Republicans, but if you read his views on the issues ( ), you will see that he is far enough right on most issues to warrant supporting him in this election. Wilson CANNOT win. It would take a large scale miracle for his to win. Maryland is a left leaning state and this district is fairly left leaning as well. Harris CAN win and will be a valuable asset in a Republican-led House. Please don’t hand this election to Kratovil simply because Harris might not say everything right. I knew from the very beginning that Scott Brown, in MA, would not support many conservative issues. But do you really think he didn’t have an effect on stopping Cap and Trade in the Senate? His former opponent would have most certainly fallen in line with Reid and we might be looking down the barrel of a Cap and Trade gun right now. A right of center Andy Harris is better than a Pelosi-puppet like Frank Kravotil.

MA – District 10 – This is an open seat held by Dems right now. Republicans Jeff Perry ( ) and Joe Malone ( ) far ahead of the pack of Republicans wishing to steal this seat from the Dems. Perry is 15 points in front of Malone, which is okay by me, since I see Perry as slightly more conservative than Malone.
The Democratic primary is a two person race, with Bill Keating ( ) trailing Bob O’Leary ( )by 8 points. Both of these guys make my skin crawl when I read their positions on issues. Therefore, no matter WHOM the Republicans nominate, please give your support to them. This is a seat that can be had if we work hard for it.

MI – District 1 – This is Bart Stupak’s old seat and it’s currently leaning ever so slightly towards the Republicans. Remember, Stupak ran as a conservative, pro-life democrat. This district has traditional conservative values.
Gary McDowell is the sole Democrat running for this seat. All one needs to know about him, despite his convictions on protecting 2nd Amendment rights, is that he supports Obamacare.
Of the plethora of Republican candidates, three are seen as the frontrunners: Jason Allen, who has name recognition in the district and is a late entry into the race, says that he is not very different ideologically from the Tea Party, yet says nothing on his webpage that indicates where he stands on issues. Some have called his move into the district just before entering the race a carpetbagger move.
Dan Benishek is the hands-down favorite to win the nomination and the slight favorite to win the seat. He is a strong conservative with strong core values ( ). He would be my choice for the seat because he has strong enough core values for conservatives and the ability to actually win the seat..
Tom Stillings is the down-to-earth, conservative who SHOULD be the representative, but lacks electability, for the most part. If someone with some moxie could take him and make him into an electable leader, then I want him. But otherwise, Benishek is a close, very second.

MI – District 7 – This is a tough district. The incumbent, Mark Schauer, is a first term Democrat who barely won the seat in 2008 and is projected to lose to whomever the Republicans nominate. The real issue here is the fact that there are TWO Tea Party activist/party entries NOT in the Republican ticket. This could severely hamper taking this seat from Peters. If any one of them could win, that’s one thing, but it’s extremely unlikely, since even the Republican party is putting forth their own Tea Party candidate in Marvin Carlson ( ). Those three would likely beat each other up in the November elections and the seat might not go to the Republicans, as EP predicts.
The top Republican candidate is Tim Walberg, a former Congressman. He is able to raise the money and run the campaign and has top name recognition. He sports a double digit lead over Schauer in the polls as well. However, he is, far and away, the most entrenched candidate. He was part of the Republican led Congress that blew things apart a few years back. I personally will take him over Schauer, but if anything can be done to bring up Marvin Carlson or, better yet, the third Republican candidate, Brian Rooney, then we might have a better chance here. I like Rooney ( ) a whole lot. I wish someone would take his campaign over and help him get his message out.

MI – District 9 – Democrat Gary Peters is projected by EP to win slightly. Peters is another of the first term Dems who rode into D.C. on Obama’s coattails, but barely, with only 52.1% of the vote. The main reason he is still projected to win is because none of the Republican candidates has risen to the top of the pack yet.
Here they are: Anna Janek ( ) is the common folks patriot conservative. She has all the right views on all the issues.
Rocky Raczkowski ( ) is another strong conservative with well articulate plans. I don’t see a lot of difference between him and Janek on the issues.
Paul Welday is a former Congressional Aide and so he has some idea of how to work in Washington. He has a very well laid out action plan and is strong in fund raising and campaigning. He is very strong on the issues…on paper…we’ll see. He actually is in a very tight race with Peters. Peters is still projected to win, but Welday can take this seat. And he would not be a bad person to have in Washington.

NV – District 3 – Democrat Dina Titus is in trouble here, even though her numbers have improved noticeably over the past month or two (co-incidentally the time period that Reid has been rising in the polls through the use of his lying and smearing campaign against Sharron Angle). Titus is in a dead heat against Republican Joseph Heck.
Titus voted FOR Obamacare, either believing or openly espousing the lies about it helping to reduce the deficit, lower health care costs and premiums and allowing a patient to choose those doctor (all things that have since been proven to be false). She supported H.R. 2187 which is designed to make our schools “green”…and voted yes on H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade). And she voted for the useless Stimulus Bill.
Joe Heck ( ) is very conservative, especially for a district that included Las Vegas. But he is pushing Titus to the brink and can win this seat with our help. To me, this is a key district in a state where we also need to dump Reid from the Senate.
Think about this for a second. If we can push Heck over the top in Las Vegas, that will help topple Reid because Las Vegas is the key segment of HIS voter base. If we dump Reid, we have a chance to even take back the Senate. THIS IS A KEY DISTRICT, FOLKS.

NH – District 1 – Carol Shea-Porter is the Democratic incumbent. She is one of the worst Democrats in Congress. She is as far left as they come. She has not only voted in lock-step with Pelosi’s agenda, but has been hands on in making sure other Dems join the votes.
She was trailing Frank Guinta back in April, but is now leading him (as of 7/27). EP is still tilting this one towards Republicans, but this is now a tougher fight that it was before. Support Frank Guinta ( )

NJ – District 3 – Democrat John Adler is holding a fairly strong lead in the polls over Jon Runyan (former Offensive Lineman for the Philadelphia Eagles). Runyan is a good conservative. But apparently he is not a good enough conservative for certain elements of the Tea Party in NJ. Peter DeStefano, a businessman is pulling down 13% of the votes in the polls…just enough to give Adler back his seat.
Would we like to have DeStefano is this seat? Sure…will he win? Not likely at all. Will his presence on the ballot steal enough votes from Runyan to let Adler win back that seat and put a smile on the Libs’ faces who are HOPING the Tea Party will do this very thing? You know it will. It is getting way too late in the race to think that DeStefano can win this seat. And his presence is CLEARLY taking votes away from Runyan. What do we do, Patriots? I think this is one of those clear cut cases where we have to tell the TP candidate to step aside. Read Runyan’s site )and his view on the issues. He is on our side…he will NOT make a bad Congressman?

NM – District 1 – This is a seat for the taking…currently leaning towards Democratic incumbent, Martin Heinrich, winning re-election. However, the polls have reversed in just a few months. Heinrich was leading by 17 points in a May poll, but is now trailing by 6 points to Jon Barela in a July poll.
Heinrich is a freshman congressman who rode into D.C. on Obama’s coattails and 55% of the vote in 2008. He is vulnerable in every sense of the word…voting lock-step with Pelosi on EVERY issue.
Jon Barela ( ) has all the right views on issues like the economy and health care and smaller government that make him a good conservative candidate. He is on the rise in District 1 and would benefit from our support. This is a seat EP is still giving to the Dems, but can be switched with our effort.

New York – has seven seats, currently held by Dems, that are up in the air. Two, EP suggests will turn Republican (NY 24 and NY 29). One seat, EP thinks will have a fairly good shot at remaining Dem (NY-13) and the other four (NY 1, NY 19, NY 20 and NY 23 – yes, THAT NY23) EP thinks lean Dem. Let’s look at these four. As for the other three…If I have time later, I will look into them…but suffice it to say that NY 24 and NY 29 are strong potential seat gains for Republicans and we need to work to keep it that way. Richard Hanna ( ) is strong in 24. And in 29, Eric Massa’s old seat, Tom Reed, the Republican, isn’t the strongest conservative, but is WAY better than what’s there now. As for NY 13, the only reason EP is making this as close as they are is the fact that the table hasn’t been set yet…there is no clear cut opponent to what’s there now. We’ll know much more after Sept. 14th.
NY 1 – Democratic incumbent, Tim Bishop, is seeking his fifth term. Bishop boasts on his website that he made sure NY’s 1st District received more stimulus money than any other county. He voted for Obamacare and Cap and Trade. He is a true NY Liberal. The Republican challenger is yet to be determined, but polls show that Randy Altschuler is in a dead heat with Bishop, as far back as January of this year. Randy ( ) is another of young gun Republicans coming to the forefront of the party. He has some moderate views on Social Security and Medicare…but is pretty strongly conservative in everything else. For a relatively conservative Republican to win this seat in the heart of Long Island would be a major statement…and it can happen…we can push Randy over the top and take this seat.
NY 19 – Democrat John Hall is as left-wing as they come. Just read his letter to his “friends” on his website ( ) if you doubt me. He not only voted for all of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda…he is proud of it. With the Primaries still ahead, two Republicans are battling for the chance to face off against Hall. Nan Hayworth ( ) is a middle of the road conservative, strong on fiscal responsibility, smaller government and free enterprise. She would do fine in Congress. She may not be your cup of tea, though, on social issues. But first things first. Neil DiCarlo ( ) is the stronger conservative in the race. But being a non-career-politician makes it very difficult for Neil to beat out the establishment, especially in the heart of NYC. Neil would be my pick for the seat, but does he stand a chance against either Hayworth or Hall? This would be a miracle pick-up and something inside me is telling me to not give up on this guy.
NY 20 – Scott Murphy is the Democratic incumbent for this seat vacated by Kirsten Hildebrand when she ran to take Hillary Clinton’s old Senate seat. Murphy barely won this seat in that special election. So this seat is vulnerable to Republican take over. There is only one Republican even in the primaries (Sept. 14th), Chris Gibson. Murphy is slated to win back this seat. But EP is saying it is a thin win at best. So…with that being said…can we get behind Chris Gibson? His website ( ) indicates that he is primarily pursuing an agenda of job growth through targeted tax relief. His Issues page shows him to be a fairly strong conservative on issues like Health Care, 2nd Amendment, Taxes and Balanced Budget. I think he just needs to get his name and face in front of people. We can help with that.
NY 23 – This is a re-race between Democrat Bill Owens and Doug Hoffman. You remember this race from last year when Hoffman entered the special election as an Independent because the local Republican establishment place Scozafava, the ultra liberal Republican, on the ballot as the Republican candidate. Hoffman beat off the odds and forced Scozzafava to drop out of the race, where she immediately placed her support with Owens. Owens barely beat Hoffman in the special elections (some say by shenanigans). But here we are again, seeing if we can’t get Hoffman elected this time. EP is still giving this seat to the Dems (barely)…so helping to get Hoffman elected this time would truly add to the potential Republican landslide. Hoffman still has to win the primary…but he’s winning big there. Go to his site and volunteer to help him ( ).

NC – District 8 – EP has Democratic incumbent, Larry Kissel barely holding off Republican challenger, Harold Johnson. In sports crazy North Carolina, where they already elected Democrat, and former NFLer, Heath Shuler to Congress, Johnson has a chance. Kissel, is holding only 41% of the vote in June polls (far below any sort of safe position). Johnson Is still at only 35%, but coming up quickly. Let’s hope the firestorm of conservative voting this November is enough to turn this Dem seat into a Rep. seat.

Ohio has always been a battleground state and this year is no different. There are several seats up in the air in Ohio. Keep in mind that Ohio is also one of those bell-weather states. It pretty much indicates where America is going…and their returns come early on election night. So, if you can only help out in a few places this election year, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (as you will see shortly) are the places to go.
OH 1 – Steve Chabot is strong here for the Republicans in their attempt to take the seat from incumbent, Steve Driehaus. Steve Chabot is a former House member with a good track record of being fairly conservative…though, once he IS in office…let’s hold his feet to the fire…no more of the “cut-taxes, but not spending” mentality of the 1994-2006 Congress. EP has this seat leaning Republican.
OH 13 – Thomas Ganley (R) is trying to unseat incumbent Betty Sue Sutton (D). EP has this leaning Democrat barely. Ganley can win this. He is getting help from Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee. With some grass roots help, he can overcome the lead Sutton has in the polls right now. Ganley was leading Sutton back in February.
OH 15 – Steve Stivers (R) is currently projected to beat incumbent MaryJo Kilroy (D) to move this seat to the Republican side of the aisle. Keep an eye on this one…it is still in play.
OH 16 – Incumbent John Boccieri (D) is seen as barely holding onto this seat. His challenger is Jim Renacci (R). Despite a May poll which showed Renacci as a 13% leader over Boccieri, the pundits are still favoring Boccieri to win in November. But that poll in May tells us that Renacci CAN win this seat. His fundraising is good, though he did have to spend a lot of money in the primaries to win. So Boccieri still has more money in the coffers at this point. This guy could use our help…We Can Win This Seat.
OH 18 – shows second term incumbent, Zack Space, slightly favored to beat Republican challenger, Bob Gibbs (NO…NOT THAT ROBERT GIBBS). Gibbs is endorsed by Newt Gingrich. He’s taken the Legal Immigration Pledge to fight to protect our borders and resist amnesty to illegals. He is favoring a defunding of Obamacare as the way to beat it. He is a good candidate and could use our help. Space did not wish to run against Gibbs , as evidenced by the fact that he ran ads AGAINST Gibbs before the primaries. Gibbs barely held on to win the primary and immediately filed charges against Space for lying in his ads. The Commission voted unanimously to take the next steps in these charges. Despite the fact that this seat is still leaning Dem…it CAN be won by Gibbs. I really believe that…time to help out.

In Pennsylvania, there are several seats in play. Three of them EP is already leaning towards becoming Republican gains…PA 3, PA 7 and PA11. We’ll look at those first. Then we’ll look at the five other seats that EP is leaning towards remaining with Dems, but can be won. These are PA 4, PA 8, PA 10, PA 12 and PA 17.
PA 3 – Mike Kelly (R) has an 11 point lead over incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper (D). His campaign is getting stronger as it goes. Keep an eye on this one, as some pundits, not EP, are still giving this to Dahlkemper. Watch to see if Dahlkemper makes a push that changes things.
PA 7 – This is Joe Sestak’s former seat. Patrick Meehan (R) is running against Bryan Lentz (D). Although Meehan is showing a 21 point lead in the polls, pundits are nearly unanimous that this is a toss up seat. EP does show it going Republican. But obviously we need to keep helping Meehan.
PA 11 – Louis Barletta (R) is trying to unseat incumbent Democrat Paul Kanjorski. EP shows this leaning towards a Barletta. Several pundits are mixed in their views. Some show toss up and some show leaning Dem, despite a July poll showing Barletta leading by 19 points.
PA 4 – This one shows, by EP, as still leaning towards Democratic incumbent Jason Altmire retaining the seat. The Republican candidate is Keith Rothfus. Despite being down in the polls, Rothfus’ story is amazing. He had never run for office. He decided to run for the same reason so many of us decided to become active in conservative movements, like the Tea Party…he saw where we were going, looked at his six children, and decided he couldn’t just vote and send in checks to candidates anymore. The GOP in this district had already put their support behind a former US Attorney. But Rothfus just kept campaigning and ended up not just winning the GOP nomination, but by a 2 to 1 margin. He is one of those rare people who could turn around a deficit like the one he’s facing with Altmire, and win this seat….AND be a good congressman. This is a Doug Hoffman-like story. We need to support this man. Here’s his website ( ). BTW, Altmire is one of those Dems who voted, last minute, against Obamacare. He is one of those people we knew Pelosi let off the hook because she didn’t need his vote and knew he could use it to help him get elected in a relatively conservative district.
PA 8 – Republican Mike Fitzpatrick is trying to unseat Democrat Pat Murphy. Although this seat is being projected to remain Democrat, Mike Fitzpatrick is the former holder of this seat…swept out in the 2006 election. Now Murphy is the incumbent…fully supportive of all of Obama’s unpopular issues and facing the same wrath from District 8 voters. He voted 97% of the time with Pelosi. He voted for Obamacare ONLY because it was designed to help reduce the deficit…something the CBO now says it completely opposite the truth. This could easily turn into another pick up for the Republicans if we go in there and help.

PA 10 – Thomas Marino (R) is trying to unseat Democrat Chris Carney. This seat does not look good for Marina to win. Carney has more than 10x the money as Marino, name recognition and more. Carney’s gonna have to take a different than normal tactic to win this.
PA 12 – Mark Critz won this seat only recently in a special election when John Murtha died. We thought we might have a chance to win this seat back then, but we couldn’t get the heavily democratic district to think enough of the Republican opponent to vote for him. Tim Burns doesn’t have any more chance of stealing this seat this time either. The only way this changes is if something happens to open the eyes of these voters.
PA 17 – David Argall (R) will most likely not be able to unseat incumbent Democrat Tim Holden. Holden’s campaign is picking up steam and is already leading in the polls. And he has much more money.

SC – District 4 – Democratic incumbent John Spratt held a slight edge in a statistic draw back in May. Since then this seat has gone from slightly leaning Dem to a Toss Up, even though EP is still learning towards Spratt over his opponent, Mick Mulvaney ( ). Mulvaney could use our help.

TX – District 23 – You remember the Democrat in this seat, Ciro Rodriguez. He’s the one who went off on some people at one his town hall meetings for challenging his votes on some of the liberal issues. Francisco Canseco faces a hard road to defeating Ciro. But dang, would I love to see this twit gone. Primarily, Canseco’s biggest obstacle is his view on immigration and protecting our borders. He prefers to see the borders secured and immigrants to come here through legal channels. He is deeply opposed to amnesty as well. This does not bode well in a heavily Hispanic district. But there is hope if his message is allowed to be heard. Give him your support ( ). A poll in May, btw, show Canseco down by only 3 points.

VA – District 9 – Fourteen term Democrat, Rick Boucher ran completely unopposed in 2008. Yet, today, though his lead is secure (52 to 39% as of May), he is not shoe-in in a state that swang so heavily Republican in 2009. This is no sure thing for the Dems. And with some strong support from us and the rest of the Republican party in Virginia, this might turn around.

VA – District 11 – Keith Fimian (R) was leading incumbent Gerald Connolly (D) back in Feb. Today, the pundits have this seat leaning towards staying Democrat. But, this is a vulnerable seat that we think could turn Republican in 2010 with some help ( ).

WA – District 3 – This is an open seat because of retiring six term Democrat, Brian Baird. The August 17th primary will help determine what exactly happens here. In generic polls, Republicans hold a 7 point lead over Democrats here. But the winners in the primary will potentially change all that. The one thing I will say is this, with Dino Rossi fighting hard to unseat Patty Murray (D) from the Senate, if we can really push for the voter turn out in Washington, we could not just push Rossi into the Senate, but could also coattail things for this seat and a couple of others too.

WV – District 1 – Fourteen term incumbent Democrat Alan Mollohan was defeated in his party’s primary. He went unopposed in 2008 and his ouster by his own party extends the impression that the Democratic party in WV is vulnerable. Most seats are considered very safe, but this one is considered a toss up by the pundits. Even EP doesn’t have this one on its radar. Michael Oliverio (D) is fighting against Republican David McKinley. Both have good name recognition is WV and either could win. I say we fight for this seat and simultaneously see if we can’t make things interested in the Special Election to replace former Senator Robert Byrd.

WI – District 7 – This is a seat I would love to take from the Dems. This seat has belonged to Democrat David Obey for 42 years. He’s retiring and it is now open for the taking. Wisconsin’s primary runs very late (Sept. 14th). So, once that is ironed out we’ll know for sure where this and District 8 are heading (see below). Current trends show Democrat leanings here to be weakening…yet this seat is still projected to remain Dem.

WI – District 8 – This is another vulnerable Dem. seat. The Primary will iron things out and make the picture a lot clearer. Incumbent Steve Kagen’s support here is waning. Let’s hope it weakens even more by November.

Here are some seats not mentioned by EP which are being projected to go Democrat for some reason I can’t figure…but the polls show the Republican doing well:

AR – 1 Crawford (R) is beating Causey (D) – 40 to 34 as of 5/24 (OPEN SEAT)
AR – 2 Griffin (R) is beating Elliott (D) – 50 to 34 as of 6/13 (OPEN SEAT)
IL – 17 Schilling (R) is beating Hare (D) 45 to 32 as of 7/12
MD – 1 Harris(R) is running even with Kravotil (D) in several polls (Primaries yet to happen)
MS – 1 Nunnelee (R) is beating Childers (D) 50 to 42 as of 6/8
NH 2 - Bass (R) is leading Swett (D) 47 to 30 as of 7/19 (OPEN SEAT)
NM 2 – Pearce (R) and Teague (D) are in a virtual dead heat (current)
NM3 – Mullens (R) is trailing Lujan by 36 to 42 as of present
NC 11 – Miller (R) and Shuler (D) are in a dead heat as of 7/22
ND At Large – Berg (R) is leading Pomeroy (D) 49 to 46 as of 7/12
OR 1 – Cornilles (R) is trailing Wu (D) 40 to 46 as of 5/27
OR 5 – Schaeder (D) is only slightly projected to defeat Bruun (R)
RI 1 – OPEN SEAT – PRIMARY STILL TO COME – virtual tie in generic polls
SD At Large – Noem (R) is leading Sandlin (D) 49 to 44 as of 7/6
UT 2 – Not sure why this one is NOT on EP…but Philpot (R) has a very good chance of unseating Matheson (D)
WA 2 – PRIMARY STILL TO COME – Koster (R) trailing Larson (D) 37 to 44
WA 3 – PRIMARY STILL TO COME – Generic Rep. 42 – Generic Dem. 37
WI 3 – Kapanky (R) is trailing Kind (D) 37 to 44 as of 7/18

From a rough counting (including seats not mentioned here that EP has strongly predicted will change hands), there are about 100 seats in play. Did you read that right? 100 seats could change from Democrat to Republican. Will that many actually change hands? You know what...with the way things have been going these past 18 months, I don't know. If the full force of the Tea Party movement comes out to help these 100 men and women win their respective elections, is a 100 seat turnover out of reach? NOT AT ALL. Certainly 50 seats is a reasonable target. I think if we get between 50 and 100 seats a definite message will have been sent to the far left in this country.

Goodness…this was a lot of work and I know I could have spent 10x as much time fine tuning it. If there is a race here that you would like more details on, let me know. Or better yet, you do the research and let US know how we can help. I am contemplating doing the same thing for the various governships. But we’ll see. For now, my eyes are weary and my fingers and wrist are tired from all this.