Marshall County Republican Party

While I am not a Duke fan, I have to say that Coach K hit the nail on the head this week.  When asked what he thought about President Obama’s bracket picks, the coach responded, “Somebody said that we’re not in President Obama’s Final Four, and as much as I respect what he’s doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets.”  I am glad to see I am not the only one thinking this.  For crying out loud folks, we have a lot of big issues to deal with right now, and our President seems more worried about his bracket picks and how he is going to look on Leno than he does about fixing the problems.

Oh, and while I am on my soapbox, am I the only one who thinks it is unbecoming of a President to degrade another President, whether former or sitting?  The Democrat Party has really latched on to this over the last few years, whether it be Carter, Clinton, or even Obama - they have all been very vocal of their criticism of President Bush.  Nevertheless, President Bush did not go to that low when he had the opportunity; instead, he stated, “I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him [Obama]. There are plenty of critics in the arena, he deserves my silence.”  That, in my opinion, is one mark of a leader who has his country’s best interests at mind.

Filed under: General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

According to FoxNews, President Obama and Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen gave a speech at the White House yesterday as part of the St. Patrick’s Day celebration.  Unfortunately, Prime Minister Cowen gave the same speech President Obama gave, at least for 20 seconds or so.  When President Obama came to the podium in a recovery effort, he then spoke again off the telepromter, thanking himself for inviting everyone.

This worries me in so many ways.  First off, let me say that I do not mind the leader of a nation using a teleprompter, but when the leader cannot recognize that he or she is giving the wrong speech, there is a problem.  Furthermore, if President Obama cannot come to the podium for a quick save without the teleprompter, we have a bigger problem.  Lastly, when President Obama doesn’t realize that he is reading a speech thanking himself, we once again have a bigger problem.

Filed under: General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

I know we beat our chests about this already, but this is just getting too weird.  Confirmed today, Gates stays as Secretary of Defense and Hillary gets the nod for State.  Can someone show me anywhere where there is actually change taking place?  Anywhere.  This is just sickening and really disheartening.  If we are going to have to deal with a liberal agenda for the next four years, why not take a shot and bring some new faces to the table?  Go Mitch go.  These “new” people need someone strong to fight for our rights.  “Our” being defined as normal tax-paying, married with kids, job-keeping, regular ol’ Americans.

I am not happy again.  I guess I should get used to being disenchanted.  The only positive?  2012, or 2010 to be honest, is only a few months away.

Filed under: General | No Comments »

One of the best stories that has come out since the election has been President Bush’s willingness to greet Obama with open arms and do his part to facilitate a smooth transition during his last months as our President.  I personally think this should not even be a story because these transitions should always go smooth, but this has not always been the case (see Clinton aides’ vandalism put at $15,000).  Despite the negative press our current President has been the subject of, I believe this is a sign of his desire for doing what is right and what is best for our country.  It is my hope that this sets an example for future transitions.

Filed under: General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to introduce you to our President-elect Barack Obama in his first press conference since being elected President:

For someone who is touted as being one of the smoothest speakers in our lifetime, this was a real mistake.  Making fun of any former President’s wife is incredibly tasteless for a President-elect.  Making fun of the wife of the conservative icon and one of the most wildly popular Presidents ever is incredibly dumb.

Filed under: General | No Comments »

I can’t tell you how proud I am of all the hardworking grassroots Republicans in the First Congressional District! WOW! What a GREAT effort! The once “Rock of Gibraltar” of the Kentucky Democrat Party machine is NO More.

AS A DIRECT RESULT OF YOUR HARD WORK, THE 1^ST DISTRICT ACCOMPLISHED GREAT THINGS IN THIS ELECTION – JUST LOOK AT THE DISTRICT RETURNS:

President:

McCain/Palin 176,804 61.9%

Obama/Biden 104,615 36.6%

U.S. Senate:

Mitch McConnell 158,793 56%

Bruce Lundsford 124,642 44%

U.S. House of Rep.:

Ed Whitfield 178,016 64.4%

Heather Ryan 98,596 35.6%

Kentucky State Senate we re-elected:

Ken Winters in the 1^st KY Senate District

Vernie McGaha in the 15^th KY Senate District

David Givens in the 9th KY Senate District (open seat of Richie Sanders)

Kentucky House of Representatives

PICK-UP!!! Brent Houseman WINS the seat in the KY 3^rd House District

Kentucky State House we re-elected:

Steven Rudy in the 1^st KY House District

Myron B. Dossett in the 8^th KY House District

C. B. Embry Jr. in the KY 17^th House District

James R Comer in the 53^rd KY House District

Jeffrey H. Hoover (Minority Leader) in the 83^rd KY House District

John “Bam” Carney in the 51^st KY House District (open seat of Russ Mobley)

Jimmy Higdon in the 24^th KY House District

Danny R. Ford in the 80^th KY House District

I also want to congratulate Tom Jones, Tim Thompson and Shawn McPherson for making great efforts in their races.

Thanks to each and every one of you who worked so hard to make this happen, from a very proud 1^st District Chairman!

Thanks Again

Russ

Filed under: General, Local Politics, Presidential Politics, State Politics | No Comments »

This has been, without a doubt, a historic election; however, I am not talking about the same historic things others may be talking about today.  Our country, as a whole, has just taken a historic lurch left.  Barack Obama, our president elect, has a record as the most liberal senator in the United States.  The Democrats also increased their majority in the House of Representatives and Senate.  The House of Representatives is led by one of the most liberal representatives from one of the most liberal states, and the Senate is led by Harry Reid, another very liberal senator. 

All of these things add up to a lot of potential for some legislation that will impact this country for generations to come.  This includes the potential for a drastic change in our tax code, the attempt to silence the voices of conservatives, the implementation of a national health care system, and the nomination of activist, liberal judges whose impact will last generations.  America, you have asked for change, I just hope you do not get the change our new leadership has the potential to implement.

So, what should we as conservative Republicans take away from this?  First of all, the efforts to move our party to the middle did not succeed.  A conscious effort seems to have been made over the last several years to expand the Republican base by moving the party toward the center.  One result of this was the nomination of a candidate who did not excite the traditional base.  In fact, it is my estimation that more Republicans voted against Obama rather than for McCain, once again proving you do not win elections voting against a candidate.  People were looking for a reason to vote for McCain, but he never convinced them to do so.

Second, Americans are looking for a charismatic leader.  I feel like much of Barack Obama’s success is because of his charisma.  There was very little substance to his rhetoric, but it was presented in a way that made many people feel good.  If we intend on winning back the presidency in four years, Republicans cannot run a candidate solely on reason, but instead we must find a candidate with a solid conservative background and ideas who excites America with the message presented. 

Third, I believe our party failed to convince Americans of the abysmal job our current Congress has done.  I am not sure where this failure should be attributed, but it should certainly be evaluated.  In part, I think this comes back to the party focusing so much on winning the presidency and not enough on pointing out the flaws of the current Congressional leadership.  I never heard the Republicans bring to light things such as the failure of the current Congress to identify and prevent the financial crisis.  While there are many other issues that could also be criticised, this one was very substantial, and our current Democrat Congress is largely to blame.

Fourth, campaign financing will never be looked at in the same way again.  Reform is necessary in this arena.  Questionable donations and the lack of required oversight on the Obama campaign should be evaluated.  In addition, the current program for federal matching funds is inadequate.  It either needs to be updated or eliminated.  The oversight which is required for using federal matching funds should also be required for candidates who do not choose to use this money.  Lastly, the same requirements we place on our banks to positively identify their customers should be placed upon campaigns to positively identify campaign donors.

Even though we lost the presidency, the news was not all bad tonight.  Here in Kentucky we retained our senior Senator, Mitch McConnell, who is the highest ranking Republican Senator.  This is a big win for the Kentuckians and the Republican Party.  We also maintained other important seats, such as U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield’s, State Senator Ken Winters’, and State Representative Steven Rudy’s, here in West Kentucky.   

Despite the losses in this election, it is not a time to get down about our country’s future.  It is a time for us to continue to let our voices be heard by supporting the remaining Republican leadership and by letting our other leaders know our opinions and where we stand.  While our party is out of the limelight, it is a good time for us to find our footing and prepare ourselves for the races to come.  In two years we may have a chance to regain control of one or both chambers of Congress; however, it will not be enough to take back control because of the failures of the Democrat party, we must come back in two years with a resounding message that speaks to all Americans.

Filed under: Local Politics, Presidential Politics, State Politics | No Comments »

Well, we have finally made it to the end of the longest election cycle that I can recall.  Everyone is invited to join us at the headquarters at any time tomorrow to watch the returns come in.  We are serving a pot luck dinner tomorrow night starting at 6:30.  I intend to stay until the three national elections are decided (McCain, McConnell and Whitfield).  For those that have not had a chance to stop by the headquarters, we have a new large screen TV and have installed a wireless network for the office.  So bring your laptop and join the fun.

This one is getting very interesting…

See you there.

Michael

Filed under: General, Local Events, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Today I ran across a video of a July 2, 2008 speech that Barack Obama gave in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  The original speech as prepared for delivery was published on Washington Wire, The Wall Street Journal’s blog.  The prepared speech was to speak on the need for Americans to volunteer for AmeriCorps and the Peace Corp.  However, Mr. Obama chose to deviate from this prepared message and delivered the following message to the audience:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” - See the video below

Ladies and Gentlemen, if nothing else Barack Obama says scares you, this should.  Let’s analyze this statement just a moment. 

First of all, he says we need another organization to achieve national security objectives.  What objectives is he referring to?  Who set these objectives?  Have these objectives been shared with us?  What about the National Guard?

Second, he says this Civilian National Security Force should be “just as powerful, just as strong” as our military.  So, this Civilian National Security Force, whose purpose is to achieve objectives we don’t seem to have been made aware of, is going to be “just as powerful, just as strong” as our professional military.  What exactly is this group going to be charged with?  Why would they need to be as powerful and as strong as the military?  Would this security force be used for controlling immigration?  I don’t think so.  Obama has stated he is for immigration reform, but has indicated he is not in favor of patrolling the border or deporting immigrants.  Also, these tasks should fall under our current National Guard.  What about protecting our borders?  Again, this falls under the National Guard.  I am really having trouble thinking of a good purpose for a security force just as powerful and strong as our military.

Last, he says that this Civilian National Security Force should be just as well-funded as our current professional military.  According to my research, the budget for the military for 2008 is $482 billion.  I realize he intends on cutting our current military spending, but even cutting this spending by 30% would still be $337 billion.  If he plans on this security force being just as well-funded as our professional military, he plans on spending a lot of money on this.  Of course, he could mean that this group will have just as much money per person as the professional military.  Even though this amount would likely be much less, I still question the reasoning for this.  Our professional military has to have very expensive equipment such as tanks, jets, armored vehicles, weapons, etc.  Why would a Civilian National Security Force have to be this well-funded?  What equipment would this group require? 

At a minimum, Obama’s Civilian National Security Force means more taxes and a larger government.  In a worst case scenario is means he would like to have a security force that is just as powerful as our military controlling something we are not aware of yet.  Could this be a security force to control those who don’t agree with his philosophies?  Somewhat like an enhanced Fairness Doctrine?  I don’t know the answer to this, but I do think this is something a responsible media should be pursuing an answer to.  Without an answer to this question, people really need to think about the potential implications of a Civilian National Security Force before supporting this candidate.

The video of Barack Obama’s comments about the Civilian National Security Force.

Filed under: Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Despite what the media will lead you to believe, modern day political polling is anything but scientific.  In fact, these polls can be so easily skewed that any pollster could manipulate almost any data to produce results which “prove” the loser is winning.  For example, one item that has been rarely discussed this year is the poll sampling.  On Thursday, October 2, 2008, Rasmussen released a poll of partisan trends which indicated that 38.4% of the population considered themselves Democrats, 34.4% considered themselves Republicans, and 27.2% considered themselves to be independent.  However, in their latest tracking poll (October 31, 2008), the polling data indicates they polled 40.0% Democratic, 32.8% Republican, and 27.2% unaffiliated.  This poll found 51% support for Obama and 47% support for McCain.  As you can see, this poll does not sample the same partisan percentages as the population.

It stands to reason that registered Democrats are more likely to vote Democrat, and registered Republicans are more likely to vote Republican - independents being the ones that decide elections.  With that being said, if a pollster polls a disproportionate amount of any one people group, the results of the poll are skewed.  So, using the data above, Rasmussen chose to sample 1.6% more Democrats and 1.6% less Republicans than their own poll indicates there are.  The independents, oddly enough, are the same percentage as their poll indicates there are.  If you were to remove 1.6% support from Obama in this latest tracking poll and were to add 1.6% to McCain, then this election suddenly becomes a much different race.  The numbers could feasibly change to 49.4% Obama and 48.6% McCain.  However, this doesn’t end here.  Rasmussen chooses to round their results in this poll to the nearest whole number.  So, it is feasible that Obama actually only had 50.5% support and McCain had 47.4%, each of which would round to the numbers Rasmussen gave.  If that is the case, it is plausible that Obama’s support is really 48.9% and McCain’s support is really 49%.  That’s right, it is plausible that McCain is actually leading the popular vote by 0.1%. 

As you no doubt have already figured out, my analysis is very non-scientific in nature, and I don’t have enough data to know the percentages to the tenth of a percent; however, from the data I can access, it sure looks like there may be a significant flaw in the polling data.  I do think the possibility is there that the polls we are seeing are not reflecting the real statistics because of a flaw in the data collection.  What this should tell us is that this race is not over and each and every one of us need to be sure we vote this year.  We also need to do whatever we can to get other people with conservative values to the polls.  This has the potential to be a real squeaker and we don’t want to wake up on the 5th saying, “I wish I had tried a little harder.”

Filed under: Presidential Politics | No Comments »