I am a Republican BECAUSE I root for the little guy.

It is not the prosperous that I love. It is the opportunity that comes with prosperity.

Prosperity brings good things to the little guy. It brings a job. It brings innovation. We almost all have cars because someone wanted to figure out how to sell them to the little guy. It pushes us to be great. It allows any one of us to create a business.

I do not want a government that feeds me, clothes me, and treats me like a disadvantaged child. I do not want a government that treats our most productive people like milk cows. We cannot punish success without making it more scarce and we cannot reward failure without making it commonplace.

I like the little guy, because I am a little guy. I want the landscapers to find work taking care of the property of the wealthy. I want the painters to paint their houses too. I want the contractors to add a wing to the house, or even build a new one. I want every little guy to go home at night proud of what he has done for the day and a little richer for it.

I am a Republican BECAUSE I am an environmentalist. I do not believe that watching Judge Judy from your trailer, or driving a 12 year old rust bucket is environmentally sound.

I do not believe that 800 sequential days off because the jobs have disappeared is good for any person’s health, or any community’s health. I want the personal environment of every citizen to improve. I think that people who are in charge of their own destinies can afford better, less polluting cars, better housing, better water and better health. Their mental state will improve if they do not sit at the TV accepting government payments, food stamps and the sinking feeling that they cannot provide for their own families.

I am a Republican BECAUSE I believe in Liberty. I believe that almost everyone is an expert in their own lives. No one else can be more aware of the myriad of details that make life so rich. I do not believe that a government, any government, knows how to lead an individual life better, or more efficiently then that individual leading the life. Big government is a formula for wasting money trying to come up with one size fits all policies while common sense tells you that one size does not fit all.

I am a Republican BECAUSE any government powerful enough to give you everything you desire is powerful enough to take everything you have.

What do money markets, antiques, gold, corn, wheat, and stocks in companies like Google or Apple have in common? They?re bought by speculators.

And yet speculators, especially in oil, have become the bogeyman of economics. On tomorrow?s I Spy Radio Show (11-noon, kykn.com), we talk with Dr. Daniel Fine about America?s energy resources and energy policy. What role do speculators have in the price of oil?

And find out why those who think high gas prices might hurt Obama?s re-election may be in for a big surprise.

* Listen live on the radio, Saturdays 11-noon (Pacific time) via 1430-AM in the greater Salem Area
(Corvallis to Tigard, Lyons to Grand Ronde)
* Listen live from anywhere in the world via kykn.com (11-noon on Saturdays) via the “listen live” tab up
top of web page
* Download the show after it airs. Just go to the Current Show page. The download link becomes active
shortly after noon each Saturday.

Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses ?Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina.?

My first introduction to politics was at 10 years old, volunteering with my parents on a State House campaign. What hooked me on political involvement was that we lost by 12 votes on a re-count and I knew that even at 10 years old I could have found 13 more votes if I’d have worked harder. 

The promise I’ve made myself in every election cycle since is that no matter what capacity I was working in, I would give everything I’ve got and that win or lose, I would know there wasn’t anything else I could have done to send my candidate to victory.

For the last three years I’ve been working full-time in conservative grassroots politics, training activists, identifying and equipping candidates. That’s been my universe and Texas has been at the center of it. During that time I’ve had the privilege of training and interacting with thousands of TEA Partiers and conservative activists who wan’t to move our state and country in the right direction.

Hundreds of thousands of conservatives across Texas have dedicated millions of man hours to get conservative candidates on the ballot for state office and volunteering for conservative causes during that time. All of this work now stands in peril.

After three years of preparation for this battle, the volunteer showing, financial contributions and effort from Texans for these state level races is frankly pathetic.

I’ve discussed this problem with TEA Party leaders, candidates and outside observers and it’s clear that the perception isn’t some figment of my imagination. The fact is that after three years of demanding conservative candidates and promising that they’d charge into fire to get them elected, Texas conservatives are on the verge of wasting a unprecedented opportunity.

Some of this is due to behind the scenes disputes and friction between big egos. Resurgent apathy and frustration with Federal level politics also plays a role. Neither of these are acceptable reasons to stand on the side lines.

We can argue about hurt feelings after we win. Until then, nobody on the left cares and we’ll accomplish nothing.

The Texas Primary Election is less than 2 months away. May 29 is D-day. There will only be about 10 competitive state house races in November but there are more than 60 state house primary elections in play on May 29! In some we’re playing defense (as with James White and David Simpson) but in most races we’re playing offense and have got strong conservatives on the ballot who have stepped up to our call of the last three years.

In the face of these incredible opportunities, we’re about to do what establishmentarians have said would happen all along!

If Texans don’t step up and make a statement on May 29th then much of the last three years will have been wasted effort. The preconceived notions of liberals within the Republican party will have been confirmed and we will have sent a generation of conservative candidates to be used as cannon fodder.

The primary election is really the only time that the vote of conservative Texans matters. We will vote in November for a Republican President & Senator, only a few US House seats will be competitive (if that) and the state legislatures will only have a handful of seats in play.

I’m confident that if I asked any group of conservatives or TEA partiers whether they would give their life for their country that every hand would raise. However, if I followed that up by asking for commitments to spend two hours block-walking or phone banking for conservative candidates, the hands would rapidly fall.

We’re not being asked to die for our country, risk our sacred honor, or even give up much of our modest fortunes. What we’re being asked to do, and what we must do to win, is commit to dedicating a few hours of our time between now and May 29th for a conservative candidate near us.

No number of hours spent in October will make up for a missed opportunity this May. There will be no chance for redemption.

The beauty of our situation is that it doesn’t require some Herculean effort to make a difference. A few hours of your time spent volunteering for a campaign, talking to your friends, registering voters or driving people to the polls could determine the outcome of these state and local races.

If you’re a conservative who wants to impact Texas’ future then now is your chance. It’s time to take action!

For a list of State House and Senate campaigns you can volunteer for, go to the Texas Action candidate database. 

A progressive and I were talking.  I know that sounds like a pointless exercise, and largely, it is, but still, they amuse me, so I talk to them.

My progressive friend talked about how Obama was handed a terrible economy, and is trying to make good on it, while Bush was handed a strong economy and crashed it.  Obviously, I had to remind him that the year before Bush took office, NASDAQ fell by half, and the “tech bubble” was already creating losses which lead to a sharp drop in the DOW.  That is to say:  Bush did not inherit a strong economy, but he did make the best of what he was handed.

To which, my progressive friend asked:  “why can’t conservatives take responsibility for anything that goes wrong?”

I laughed.

But he makes a great point.  And I would like to answer him with a little story:

Lets imagine a world where Science, Economics, Reason and Logic simply do not work.  In this imaginary world, people still study Economics, and they develop the same theories that we have in the real world.  But the theories don’t work.  Mathematicians say that one plus one equals two, but not always.

In this world, you can raise the price of gasoline, for instance, and demand may not drop at all.  Demand might actually go up.  Same thing for taxes.  In this imaginary world we will call Libotania, none of the tools that conservatives use to evaluate and fix the economy work.  Instead, what does work is progressive ideas.  Anything a progressive can think of simply works, as though by magic.  Back to the gasoline example, if a progressive thinks that raising the price of gasoline by ten cents will cut demand in half, then that is actually what happens, no matter how contrary to logic and economics it may seem at the time.  If the progressive then declares that reducing the price of gasoline by one penny will cut demand in half again, that works too.  Libotania is a wonderful world!

In Libotania, the world is upside-down.  Progressives are always right.  Conservatives may occasionally get things right, but this is only by happenstance.  (much the way things occasionally work out in the real world for Democrats).

In Libotania, there are still Republicans.  They still run for office, and they are occasionally elected.  But when they are elected, unless they follow the rules laid down by a progressive, the economy usually tanks.  Everyone with any memory at all knows that this is what happens, and yet, somehow, Republicans still occasionally get elected.

If you asked a progressive in Libotania:  “why can’t progressives take responsibility for anything that goes wrong?”

The progressive would probably laugh.

In all the excitement of discovering who won the latest plurality of voters in the latest primary, it is easy to lose the forest for the trees, which is that the purpose of our Presidential primary system is to reflect the preferences of our party’s voters in the selection of our candidate for the President.

An examination of the voting thus far shows that we have established a classic relational triangle among the supporters of the three most viable candidates: (alphabetically) Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

Mitt attracts the cluster of voter preferences for those with a strategic focus: emphasizing factors such as electability, attracting swing voters (or at least not scaring them off), and tailoring the message to maximize acceptability.

Newt attracts those of a more tactical bent, who focus more on policy and program – who thereby emphasize coherent philosophy, putting conservative ideas into practice, leadership qualities – and combat skills in debate and pushing back against a hostile media.

Rick attracts those who focus more on the more intangible: values, faith, character, passion, scrappiness, strong convictions and blunt speaking – those expressions of a conservative ethos that have too long been suppressed – along with an associated greater willingness to overlook weaknesses in record and in media savy.

And each group of supporters believes that their priorities should prevail and offers the best chance for success in November. And thus far, each commands loyalty from a minority of the voters, with none reliably exceeding 40% or so.

I’m trying to be fair, and I’m sure many would have somewhat different descriptions of the clustering of preferences, but the larger picture is that we have developed a relational triangle because the predominant preferences for each candidate are distinctly independent of each other and have low correlation between them.

In other words, each group tends to be speaking a different language, languages which have little common vocabulary with each other.

This in turn has hitherto prevented the formation of a coalition between two of the candidates against the third and also has hindered accretion of support for any one of the candidates at the expense of the others – a reflection of the structural stability of triangles.

This stability we’ve seen expressed in the howls of protest when one group is asked to throw their support to another candidate, either “for the good of the party” or to block the victory of the third.

And this stability highlights the difficult challenge of ending up with a single winner without destroying the party structural beyond repair.

A Snapshot of the Race Today

I will leave to those with more expertise in analyzing polling date and understanding the intricacies of state election laws to develop detailed alternative scenarios.

However, it is clear that with a majority of the delegates selected to date plus a stronger campaign network and a preponderance of support from party and elected officials that Mitt Romney still has the advantage going forward and is in the best position to win an outright majority of delegates before the election.

Newt clearly has no way to win a majority of delegates, and thus his remaining in the race can only be an effort to deny a delegate majority to Mitt in the hope of exerting influence at the convention. It would seem improbable that he could be the nominee in a brokered convention, but in this volatile season of surprises, I suppose nothing should be ruled out.

Rick is in the peculiar position that Newt remaining in the race will almost certainly deny him the ability to assemble an outright majority, but may also make a brokered convention more likely than if he were to face Mitt one-on-one. He certainly would be the underdog in a one-on-one, but he would face a clearer path to the nomination if he could successfully defy the odds.

Much would depend on how Newt voters would redistibute themselves if Newt were to suspend his campaign, the outcome of which is by no means obvious. Moreover, given that Rick Perry’s endorsement seemed to have little impact on Newt’s candidacy, it’s unclear what would be the impact of an endorsement from Newt or his forming an overt coalition.

The Way Forward

The challenge then is how we can maintain a viable party structure through all this to compete effectively in the general election. While I don’t have a magic solution, I think that the above analysis offers several areas of guidance.

1) It is important that we recognize the existence of and try to find a way to bridge the gap among the three voter clusters so that the values and emphases of each group are at least heard and acknowledged and respected rather than being trampled on by zealous partisans of the other candidates.

2) Especially as we are likely to face and tightly contested campaign that may yield a narrow margin of victory in the delegate to the winner, should one end up with a majority, we must not so discourage those whose candidates end up on the losing side that they absent themselves from the general election. We need to take heed to the lesson of Pyrrhus.

3) A “brokered convention” is no panacea and could easily create a situation of deal-making and haggling that would give sausage-making a sterling reputation and could tarnish the legitimacy of the nominee. Be careful what you wish for.

4) Indeed, the only rationale behind pushing for a brokered convention would be if – to return to the triangle analogy – this would enable us to break into the third dimension and create a tetrahedron – a 4th point, a new nominee that could rest on the foundation of the existing triangle – that is, a nominee that all three groups could buy into.

So far that person has not been made manifest, and unless the clouds clear at this late date, we need to be very leery of embracing the brokered convention.

In the end, the voters for each of these constituencies will through their votes determine whether one of the remaining candidates will gain a majority of delegates before the convention.

In the remaining days, then, let us keep our eyes on the goal – to realign our nation to the vision of its founding fathers so that we can pass on to future generations the Blessings of Liberty that those who came before us have passed on to us, many of whom did so at the cost of their lives.

http://lafango.com/blog/brightfame_63/91311-the-democratic-party-agenda-is-hidden-in-smoke-and-mirrors

When a Democrat spokesman was asked if same sex marriage would be on the Democratic platform he said that it was being considered because “government” should not be allowed to determine the definition of marriage.  What he means is “state(S) government should not be allowed to determine same sex marriage in its’ own state.

Apparently, the liberal Democrats believe that the Federal Government should be able to govern and rule over state legislation if it doesn’t support their agenda of legislated social change.

http://lafango.com/blog/brightfame_63/72611-2012-presidental-elections-americans-making-it-right

We need a president holds ethical and moral values as the highest priority in this country.  Mit Romney is focused on economice recovery, as we all are, but what good is the best thought out plan if there is no integrity to follow through?

Mitt Romney has already proven that he will compromise his integrity and lie to the American people as well.

We already have that type of President and we don’t need a business manager. We need a president of integrity, honor, and duty. Rick Santorum is that man.

http://lafango.com/blog/brightfame_63/76251-a-vote-for-gringrich-or-paul-is-a-vote-for-mitt-romney

It is evident who will be the Presidental nominee if the Republican primay doesn’t become a two man race.

America, Do we really want elect another person as President who has already been proven that he will lie to the American people?

Gov. Jon Huntsman said that he supports Mitt Romney because he feels Rick Santorum is too honest. ” Too honest”……right!  “Too honest”.

Mitt Romney will continue to hold the lead as long as this is a four man race and since Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have their own interests at heart and won’t drop out to make this a two man race, the American people will have to throw their support behind Rick Santorum, that is, if they really want to have the choice of electing the best man for the job in the General elections in November.

Congresswoman Snow you are not a Republican. Please stop calling yourself one and make the party switch official.

In an article today on Yahoo! (found here) Senator Snow laments the Senate not working together to solve problems in this quote,

“And so it becomes more divisive and I think ultimately has manifested itself in the Senate and an overall process that lends itself to dysfunction and political paralysis that doesn’t allow problems to be solved.”

Congresswoman Snow we do not want your solutions. We do not think the government IS a solution (to paraphrase The Gipper 10 second video found here). We believe people are the best solution to their own problems. I respect your freedom to believe what you want and to voice those opinions. But please do not be disingenuous with which party you stand with because as demonstrated by your voting actions you do not believe the majority of what Republicans believe, and you certainly do not believe what Conservatives believe.

Andrew Breitbart died today at the age of 43.

You’ve already read about it. You’ve lamented over the sudden and premature death of a great patriot who was a tireless champion for liberty. You mourn for the family that lost a devoted husband and father.

You may even wonder if it’s a conspiracy; if Breitbart had dug up something truly scandalous. After all, he was so young, and while it’s not often that a prominent journalist is so deliberately silenced, if you’ve ever read the story of Don Bolles, you know it can and does happen.

Finally, you cringe at the misfortune in the timing of his passing. Few conservative voices spoke as loud and clear as that of Andrew Breitbart, and we are approaching a critical battle where we need all hands on deck.

You hope that someone will fill the void. You resolve to honor his legacy in your own way.

But will you? Will you really? If ever there was a time to answer the call, it is now.

Few who answer the call to action are born into it. Most of us can point to an event, or series of events, that drove us to go further than our usual complaining around the water cooler. Sometimes is a major crisis, or an election, or an epiphany of some sort.

For me, it was a mistake by the Federal government that led me to step away from my computer and get out to do more.

The exact date was February 19, 2010. My wife forwarded me an e-mail that she had received from a family values organization urging parents to call their congressmen about a bill that would require public schools to “normalize” GLBT lifestyles and educate children as early as kindergarten on the matter – it was HB 4530.

Having just enrolled two children locally in kindergarten and first grade, I was curious enough to check the list of the bill’s sponsors. Surely, no congressman from Arizona would attach his or her name to such a piece of legislation.

I found the name Raul Grijalva. And, according to the Federal Congressional district locator database, he was my congressman.

For two months, I wrote letters to Grijalva’s office (that went unanswered) and vetted the candidates that were running against him in the November election. I decided to back the most qualified opponent, a Tucson rocket scientist named Ruth McClung. I made a financial donation to a political campaign for the first time in my life.

It was about that time that Grijalva made the moronic statement that he wanted the rest of the nation to boycott his own constituents in response to SB 1070. Suddenly, the untouchable incumbent was vulnerable, and McClung had a real chance.

I went to meet her in person at a GOP legislative district meeting in Avondale to offer my support. While I was there, it was suggested to me by another of her supporters that I look into becoming a Precinct Committeeman for the Republican Party. It seemed simple enough. I grabbed the paperwork, and by May of 2010, I was ready to get signatures.

It was then I realized the Federal database I’d checked three months prior was wrong. I actually live just outside Grijalva’s district. I wasn’t a constituent of his at all. My congressman was the very conservative Trent Franks.

But the die had been cast. I had seen enough of what the socialist left wanted for America, and I had adopted the motto of our second President:

“I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” – John Adams

For nearly two years now, I have studied. I have been active behind the keyboard, but, more importantly, I have been active on the street. I have attended party meetings. I have been to campaign rallies. I have spoken to friends, family, co-workers, and anyone else who will listen about the importance of getting involved. Of getting out to vote.

Despite the efforts of many dedicated supporters, McClung lost her election. It was in fact one of the closest races that her very blue district had seen in recent years. But I was not discouraged. The fall of 2010 brought a sweeping change to the House of Representatives, and we had been a small part of it. Grijalva was still in office, but he’d been neutered.

Now we are at a critical stage of a Presidential primary race. I have vetted the candidates, and decided to back Rick Santorum. My entire family has been active in his campaign. We’ve been to rallies, we’ve campaigned for him online, and on Sunday prior to Arizona’s primary, my wife and kids went out with me to blanket our entire area with Santorum signs.

Rick Santorum did not win Arizona. He wasn’t even close. But on Wednesday, I pulled the results for my local precinct from the county recorder’s website:

Rick Santorum won our neighborhood by 11 votes. In a state where he lost by double-digits just about everywhere else, he won our precinct.

We put our boots on the ground, and we made a difference. And there’s an opportunity in every neighborhood in America for one family, or even just one person, to make that same difference. You can get out and hang signs. Pass out bumper stickers. Go to rallies. Vote, and make sure everyone you know is registered to vote (you’d be surprised how many people aren’t).

There’s still time to become a Precinct Committeeman. Contact the Republican Party in your county. They’ll be happy to help you get started. If you’re not sure, ask me. I’ll help you get started.

But get started. Today. Not tomorrow. Not when it’s more convenient. Right now.

The next generation is counting on you to act, and the enemy is counting on your apathy.