Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

So I thought I could run two political blogs. I guess I was wrong. Too bad. But I'm not giving up on this blog yet. I'm planning on returning to what I did before with this blog; writing about life, music, a little about politics (though mostly leaving that to Hoosier Access) and whatever else I feel about writing here. With those changes, I will also be looking to change the physical look of my blog. I may even switch to a different provider, though I kinda like blogger. I may look into wordpress. I thought about typepad until I realized you have to pay to use their product. So that was a no go on them. Anyway, I hope to make the changes soon, I'm just looking for the right three column format to use. For those of you who still do, thanks for continuing to stop by.

Vote “No” on Chaos

I love picking on Democrats. Rush Limbaugh loves picking on Democrats. Find me a Republican who doesn’t. But I have to take issue with Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos. Trust me, I love the premise. I love the theory, I love that it really rankles Dan Parker. What I don’t love is how Operation Chaos can hurt down ballot races in the coming primary. Consider our state reps and state senators who have primary battles. While I know that there are those who would love to see incumbents of all stripes taken down, I would hate to see good Republicans lose to unqualified opponents in the primary just because Rush Limbaugh wants to sent Democrat party leadership into a giant snit, while boosting his ratings at the same time. Don’t get me wrong here. I like Rush. I used to listen to him all the time, so I know he’s doing this as entertainment, to boost his ad revenue and to play with the liberals minds a bit. But we must consider the consequence of our actions. One of the Hoosier Access Directors and a person we endorsed in Jim Banks for County Council has primary opponents. Could Operation Chaos lead him to lose? What of my State Senator who is Bev Gard? Her opponent is running because he wants to save his job as a township assessor. That’s it! The list could go on and on around the state. Fellow Hoosier Access Director Brian Sikma brought up Jean Leising’s race down south when he wrote on this subject. Of course I also have feelings regarding a certain congressional race, but I think I’ve made my opinion known enough in this space for you to know where I stand on that! So I urge with our readers don’t bring chaos to the Democrats without considering the chaos you could bring to your own party first. Vote in the Republican Primary even if you do want to “throw the bums out”. Let the Democrats bring chaos to their own party.

Caught On Tape!

Excuse me Representative, did you vote for this bill? No, I did not. Um, apparently you did. I know this probably happens in most states and in Congress, but it’s deplorable to see. Rules should be enforced!

I'm Glad I'm a G&T Kinda Guy

I’m not much of a drinker. But when I do, gin and tonic is my beverage of choice (made with Bombay Sapphire…that’s the good stuff). But it looks like Absolut Vodka decided to stoke anti-American sentiment and is running the ad below in Mexico. Yep, you’re seeing that map correctly. According to the LA Times: The billboard and press campaign, created by advertising agency Teran\TBWA and now running in Mexico, is a colorful map depicting what the Americas might look like in an “Absolut” — i.e., perfect — world. The U.S.-Mexico border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 when California, as we now know it, was Mexican territory and known as Alta California. The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos in the U.S. Ucedo, who is from Argentina, said: “Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It’s very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea.” But he said that were the campaign to run in the United States, it might fall flat. Gee, you think? By the way, Absolut is running the ad in english in Mexico. I see the irony. Do you? (H/T - Drudge Report and Gateway Pundit)

Stop The Music! I Need Money!

Poor Hillary Clinton. She was the runaway front runner for Democrat nomination for President less than a year ago and now she’s being encouraged to drop out of the race (for the good of the party of course) and it turns out she’s practically broke. Ben Smith’s most recent post on Politco.com captured this doozy of a quote from the struggling Senator at a recent fundraiser in Los Angeles. At the end of the event, the music played to usher people out, but Hillary stopped the music and implored the crowd to donate. “I need your help. I’m being outspent,” she said. She’s being outspent, outraised, and to top it off, Clinton can’t pay her campaign health insurance bills. Who needs Operation Chaos, when you have stuff like this happening?

Vote Obama and Win a Free Car!

What a day yesterday was to be a student at Indiana University. They get a new head coach in Tom Crean for their much maligned basketball team, Bubba campaigns for Hillary and to top everything off, Barack Obama gave away Dave Matthews tickets in exchange for student's souls. I mean, I have to give Barack credit. Why take a chance that your rhetoric will get exposed for the empty clap-trap that it is when you could give away free concert tickets? And like moths to a flame, the loony left and the "My ears are burning. Did someone say Dave Matthews?" crowd flocked to the Barack Obama HQ on the Bloomington campus to score themselves some free Dave Matthews tickets. Mind you, I am a Dave Matthews fan. Not a rabid one that has 80 bootleg concerts downloaded from Limewire, but I do have most of the studio stuff. I saw "Dave" a couple times in concert and that was enough for me. But let's be honest. Were the students checking out Obama and his "message"? Or were they standing in line for free stuff. I'm going to guess, it was the free stuff and here's why. Obama's strategy reminds of story I read on another blog about new Church's that use "creative messaging" to get people to visit their church. I'm sure you've seen them. They'll have the big gorilla balloon to get your attention. Or they will advertise a cool, rockin' worship team (excuse me as I gag and write that at the same time). Some have even resorted to offering new visitors a chance to register to win a new car. The slogan is usually something along the lines of "take our church for a test drive". All that is, is a gimmick to get you to show up once. What happens to the people who lose? What about the people who won? Does any of that guarantee a returning visit, or in Barack's case, a vote? The guy who wrote the post, who happens to be in advertising, made a keen observation: ...promotions like this are a little dangerous. And here's why, when it comes to advertising and sales, customers renew the way they first purchased. By that I mean, if a special sale is why you first bought your watch, then if that watch store ever wants to get you to buy again, they have to run a similar sale. Study after study has shown that we are creatures of habit. We repeat ourselves, so if you attract a big crowd with a car giveaway or hot new worship band or anything else, you create a relationship built on a reward not a redeemer (in this case, an Obamassiah). And when you try to take away that reward you'll lose a lot of your guests (or voters). You have to wonder, will those kids who stood in line for tickets vote for Obama? Will they even vote? The primary is held during finals week. Then again, if Obama can't sell his "message" without the help of a free concert, then what's his message really worth?

Way to Go Buddy!

I just have to take a minute to give a big shout out to a good friend of mine who I worked with in Washington, D.C. His name is Chad Bungard and before we worked together on Capitol Hill for Congressman Burton and the Government Reform Committe he got his start right here in the Hoosier state working for Jim Bopp’s law firm in Terre Haute before heading out to DC. I received an email from him today saying that he’s getting a nominated by President Bush for General Counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, for a five-year term. Chad has always been a good friend and I just have to say way to go Buddy! The President intends to nominate Brandon Chad Bungard, of Virginia, to be General Counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, for a five-year term. Mr. Bungard currently serves as General Counsel of the United States Merit Systems Protection Board. Prior to this, he served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the Committee on Government Reform’s Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organizations in the U.S. House of Representatives. Earlier in his career, he served as Counsel on the Committee on Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Bungard received his bachelor’s degree from Liberty University, his JD from Regent University School of Law, and his LLM from the George Mason University School of Law. View the entire press release here.

A House Divided Against Itself Still Stands

Reading the article on former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton endorsing Barack Obama, got me thinking. At the height of the abolition movement in America, in a speech accepting the Republican nomination for Senate in Illinois in 1858, Abraham Lincoln uttered one of his many famous quotes, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Since George Bush won in 2000 (electoral votes, not popular votes matter liberals, so get over it) all the political rhetoric I’ve heard is that we are a divided nation. In fact, Lee Hamilton used the phrase when giving his endorsement of Obama. From the Indy Star: “I begin by asking myself what kind of leadership the country needs at this juncture and I think, for me at least, the answer is that you want a candidate that will try to bring together a country that is very evenly divided, a country in which partisanship has been very sharp and to try to get a candidate who will create a new sense of national unity and will try to transcend the divisions within the country,” (emphasis mine) I believe Rep. Hamilton was referring to the fact that our nation’s voting block is closely divided, but it’s similar rhetoric that has been used over and over through the years and through almost every war we’ve been a part of and every social issue that has caused marches on Washington DC. Yet we find ourselves still standing. In no way am I advocating for protracted division. I do hope that at some time we as a nation can foster some sort of unity. But these divisions, whether caused by political parties, the media or movements, have existed since our very founding. We were a nation divided on whether we should fight for our liberty or continue to stand under the oppressive regime of King George. What I’m saying is, that for all the talk of being a “nation divided” we find ourselves still standing. A candidate like Barack Obama, who had one of the most liberal voting records in the Illinois State Senate and took those same liberal ideals to the U.S. Senate where he still has one of the most liberal voting records cannot foster unity. He can’t even do it in the Democrat party running against a moderate, by comparison, like Hillary Clinton (I never thought I’d label Hillary a moderate). What makes us think he could bring unity to a nation so split on so many issues that we wouldn’t continue to be a house divided? A bunch of celebrities making a youtube video and singing a speech of his? His empty rhetoric of change and hope? The fact that he’s diametrically opposed to all the issues of the party that’s running against him and Hillary? (Something tells me there’s still division there) By the way, can anybody tell what his change or hope will be? Is it just replacing our current president who is term limited? If so, then John McCain could bring the same hope and change and frankly, I want him answering the phone at 3:00am and not Obama. Sorry, Obama Girl. In the end all of our politicians say we are a nation divided. It’s true and yet we still stand. But it does make for a good sound bite.

Stop Congress from Stealing Our Light

Okay, honestly, I didn't see the big deal about Congress mandating that we use a certain light bulb by 2012. I know that directly contradicts my libertarian leanings about government being less involved in my life, but I don't mind florescent light bulbs. But then I read this post from the Republican Study Committee blog: Without fanfare or forethought, Congress slipped into law a ban on the common household light bulb last year. They did so based on claims that it would be good for the consumer’s pocketbook and good for the environment. But in the days since, as the American people have discovered, they’ll soon have to pitch their ordinary light bulbs and replace them with high mercury content, higher cost new light bulbs, we’re starting to learn just how unsubstantiated these claims are. For instance, according to the Washington Post, at least one report found a potential link between these new light bulbs and a higher incidence of breast cancer. And questions about the impact of the mercury in the bulbs on our environment and public health are growing. Well, believe it or not, but Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has introduced H.R. 5616, the Light bulb Freedom of Choice Act. I know it sounds silly, but after reading what needs to be done to clean up after one of the new florescent light bulbs, you have to wonder how these things are even considered safe! Plus this would reinstate long standing Republican ideals about less government intrusion. And I have to say, I'm all for that.

Protect This!

Protect bloggers and blogging that is. Congressman Jeb Hensarling from Texas and Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is seeking to protect bloggers from future unruly FEC regulations. From the RSC Blog: Two years ago, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued regulations that protected bloggers from being hampered by certain campaign finance laws. Under these regulations, bloggers cannot be considered to have made a contribution or expenditure on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate simply because they link to campaign websites or write about the positions of federal candidates. Additionally, blogs are treated as any other publication under the general media exemption from most campaign finance restrictions. Without such protections, bloggers could be subject to various limitations and reporting requirements under campaign finance law. But these blogger protections are just regulatory—they are not in statute. As you may know, regulations can be changed without congressional action, and there’s no telling what a future FEC might decide to do. Furthermore, the FEC is currently defunct because of vacancies and a lack of quorum. Therefore, we shouldn’t put the freedom of bloggers in the regulatory hands of the FEC. Congress should protect them in law. That’s why next week I’m introducing the Blogger Protection Act of 2008—to put the FEC’s regulatory protections of the freedom of bloggers into law. I encourage all bloggers in Indiana whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or Independent, Conservative, Moderate or Liberal, to call your congressman and to ask them to sign onto or support Hensarling’s legislation.