Democrats Dropping Out Of Walker Recall Election?

Archive for Tony Katz

Democrats Dropping Out Of Walker Recall Election?

May 16, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Unions have spent millions of dollars in Wisconsin in an effort to recall Governor Scott Walker, and those state Senators who have supported him. Activists from around the nation hurtled towards Madison, raging against the Governor for his prudent moves to end collective bargaining by public employees. The election on June 5th is seen as a bell weather to determine the presidential election in November. Yet, Democrats may have given up on the race, and on their future.

According to FreedomWorks and blogger Jim Hoft, Moveon.org is reporting that the DNC has pulled funding for the recall election, which puts Walker 9 points ahead against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Barret lost to Walker in 2010. Hoft writes:

Worse yet for Democrats, MoveOn.org reported in a mass email that the DNC has withdrawn financial support from the race. Via the Democratic Underground the MoveOn.org email reads:

BREAKING NEWS FROM WISCONSIN: The Democratic National Committee isn’t investing in the massive get out the vote effort in Wisconsin to recall Scott Walker.Wisconsin is ground zero for Democrats this summer—and there are only three weeks before Election Day—which is why this breaking news just doesn’t make sense.

The news couldn’t be more fascinating. If the DNC is out of the race, they have, in essence, “pulled an Obama” and thrown the activists and unions in Wisconsin under the bus. Getting out financially is a sign of defeat. In politics, money means importance. The more money involved in a race, the more the importance of the race.

However, Wisconsin is important regardless of the money. The DNC pullout means they see the writing on the wall. An important rule about money – don’t throw good money after bad. (Just ask Rep. Ron Paul.) The DNC may have looked at the poll numbers, the grass roots efforts from the Racine Tea Party and others, and the weakness of their own case and decided to pack it in.

The writing is on the wall, but the work still has to be done – in Wisconsin and for Election 2012. Democrats getting out means they have conceded defeat. The Unions wasted their money. The activists exhausted themselves for nothings – and they now know it. The Left’s favorite radical (No, not Obama.) Saul Alinsky, in his book Rules For Radicals, wrote:

(Rule #10 -) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition

The DNC is not keeping up the pressure. They took their money and left, leaving their supporters in the lurch. One wonders if that will have blowback in November.

If you are in Wisconsin, join us for the Racine Tea Party on June 2nd.

Tony On Breitbart.com; Desperate Newsweek Embarrasses President, Lies To America

May 14, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Here is Tony’s latest article on Breitbart.com. Newsweek came out with a cover that declared President Obama the “First Gay President.” Was the magazine trying to disparage the President, or simply lie to the American people?:

DESPERATE NEWSWEEK EMBARRASSES PRESIDENT, LIES TO AMERICA

Newsweek has provided a magazine cover that leaves one speechless. Not because of its amazing photography, nor for its deep intellectual insight. But rather because, in its attempt to praise President Obama for his coming out in favor of gay marriage, Newsweek has managed potentially to insult the President, to create campaign fodder that will haunt him until Election Day, and to deceive Americans into thinking the President has done something extraordinary.

Last week, under serious stress from high-level donors and Vice President Biden’s own “misstep” on Meet The Press, Obama came out in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts in favor of gay marriage:

…at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for
me personally it is important for me to go ahead
and affirm that I think same sex couples should be
able to get married.

The mainstream media and other doting sycophants exploded in fawning delight. They declared Obama brave. Roberts, discussing the interview with contraception-lover George Stephanopolous, said she was getting “chills” just thinking about it. On MSNBC’s Martin Bashir program, leftist pundit Krystal Ball referred to the announcement as “historic.”

Yet, as Bruce Carroll of GayPatriot.net noted on Daily Caller, what’s so historic about something that former Vice President Dick Cheney did back in 2009, which caused New York Magazine to call him a “Gay-Marriage Pioneer?” (Come to think of it, what’s so brave about being backed in to a position by your Vice President? A position that you were going to announce just before the Democratic National Convention? Also, what is so historic about a man vocalizing an opinion he held in 1996, only to put it–and gays–in the closet so he could become a Senator and then President, pulling those same gays out of the closet when it became politically expedient?) As Carroll noted:

After the initial glow, however, those of us who look at life more critically and through the prism of reality like, for example, the law and the U.S. Constitution, found Obama’s announcement to be anything but historic. All he did was state his personal perspective on a social matter. Did he say he was going to ask Congress to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act” signed by President Clinton? Nope. Did he urge all 50 governors to move toward same-sex marriage recognition in their state? Nope. Did he say he would back efforts for a gay marriage plank in the DNC platform at the Democratic Convention. Nope.

Once again, Obama is all bluster, no bite. (I would have said, “All bark, no bite.” but I didn’t want to make the man hungry.) The cover is a two-fer, as it was designed not only to “praise” the President and lie to passers by, but also to take on the competition. AfterTIME magazine came out with its now-infamous breast feeding cover, Newsweek editor Tina Brown declared, “Let the games begin!” But this isn’t a game. This isn’t even rational. Is Newsweek calling Obama gay? Exactly what about supporting gay marriage makes one gay? Wouldn’t he still, by definition, have to have a sexual proclivity towards men? At the very least, wouldn’t Obama, like Carroll argues, have to do something more than make an awkward, calculated pronouncement? Newsweek is perfectly willing to label elected officials as needed in order to sell magazines. What covers are next in the Brown arsenal? The First Jewish President–next to a picture of Louis Farrakkhan, with a blue and white halo surrounding the yarmulke on his head?

The article within Newsweek is written by Andrew Sullivan who, for years, has been parading around as a conservative, in the same way David Frum parades around as a conservative…and Meghan McCain…and Sen. Lindsay Graham. From excerpts taken from the Daily Mail, Sullivan writes:

‘When you step back a little and assess the record of Obama on gay rights, you see, in fact, that this was not an aberration. It was an inevitable culmination of three years of work,’ Mr Sullivan said in a statement about the article. ‘He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family,’ he wrote, describing the similarities between Mr Obama and the gay community.

True, Obama repealed ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” True, he instructed the Justice Department not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. However, the only “inevitable culmination” over the past three years is that President Obama is a cold, calculating politician who will do anything necessary to help his re-elect, including pretending to give a damn about gay America.

Sullivan’s commentary is engaging a therapy session with America about his own coming out. I can only imagine doing so is difficult for many, but it’s not the basis for calling the President gay. A fantastic cover will sell magazines. But Newsweek hasn’t sold magazines here, they’ve taken labeling to a whole new level. Here’s a more accurate cover: Newsweek lied. Obama isn’t brave. Gay America got nothing except more lip service.

And there are 175 days until Election Day.

Tea Party Speaks, Lugar Out In Indiana

May 9, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Proving wrong the leaders of the Progressive movement and the MSM, the Tea Party has rocked the political establishment by driving Republican Richard Mourdock to a primary victory in Indiana over 36 year incumbent Richard Lugar.

Lugar, the 80 year-old, six-term Senator, conceded to Mourdock early into the vote counting. Mourdock took 61% of the vote to Lugar’s 39%. In his concession, Lugar stated his hopes that Mourdock will win in November. However, a statement released by his campaign had a stinging rebuke of both Mourdock, and, by extension, the Tea Party: (emphasis mine)

I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.

Those groups whose “prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party?” Lugar, of course, means the Tea Party. One wonders whether Lugar came up with these words on his own, or just crib them from Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) or Chuck Schumer (D-NY)?

This is why Sen. Lugar is the now “lame duck” Sen. Lugar, and why the Tea Party is so very effective. When Lugar speaks of straying from “orthodoxy as they see it,” is he referring to the Constitution? The Constitution is not orthodoxy, it is the values of a nation. It is the blueprint that allows free people to live free, and provides for the people the opportunity to safeguard those freedoms.

Is he referring to fiscal responsibility? In Lugar’s statement, he stated: (emphasis mine)

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets…

Those groups that would “target” Lugar for his votes? Just one – The Tea Party, and rightfully so! While others can argue the votes for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan (let’s see what happens with Obamacare, but no one can argue we knew far too little about Justice Kagan,) and for the START Treaty (an absolutely unnecessary agreement that hurts the United States with unwarranted formality, if not the full text of the treaty,) the Tea Party stands opposed to TARP, and to government spending. For the Tea Party, these are the votes that destroy a country. You Can Not Spend Your Way Into Prosperity!

For Lugar to admonish those who would be upset with these votes (which he stoically stands by) is elitist lunacy. The Tea Party has proven that its “orthodoxy” is nothing more than an adherence to the Constitution. The Tea Party will “target” those who engage in rampant misuse of the American People’s hard earned money. The Tea Party, regardless of the words of Reid or Schumer or Rep. Pelosi or MSNBC, has made a commitment to themselves, to America and to its future which is unshakable. The Tea Party is alive and well.

Congratulations to Richard Mourdock. Congratulations to the Tea Party. Bring on November! There are 181 days until the election.

An Email From A Ron Paul Supporter

April 24, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

From Tony:

Today, I received an email from a Rep. Ron Paul supporter upset with an article I wrote for Townhall.com. In the article, I state that the problem with Rep. Paul is not his policies but his supporters, and make mention of three different instances that, I believe, turn off potential voters (even if they are drawn to his economic message.)

I have received many emails and comments from Paul supporters infuriated with me. I knew I would. They specifically point out my last example regarding the attack video on then candidate former Ambassador Jon Huntsmann. I mentioned in the article that the video seemed odd, and was possibly a plant. It seems very unlikely that any Paul supporter made that video. Paul supporters hammered that part relentlessly. However, my other examples never got an email, or a mention.

So I wasn’t surprised when I received an email from “Josh,” who had just come across the article and was unhappy with me. He wrote: (emphasis mine)

I know this thread is old but it’s still bull crap. You pick a few people who put stuff on the Internet out of thousands and thousands of people. Your just a part of the establishment and don’t want to see your pay check slashed. Ron Paul is the only one that has a belief in something he wants real change. If 16 trillion dollars of debt isn’t enough to convince or the millions of innocent people we kill in these needless wars your a lost cause. Retire from journalism and pick a new career no one cares about what you say

At first, I was stunned. A Paul supporter emailed me and DIDN’T call me a neo-con? Is that even possible?

Then, I regained my composure. I found his email to the kind of thing that proves the point I was making. Disagreeing with me is fine…what if I’m wrong? If so, show me where? Explain it to me! Prove your point! But this was not about proving a point, this was about insults an insinuation.

Why mention a paycheck getting slashed? Who is sending me a paycheck? To Josh, since I’m not speaking in glowing terms about Paul, I must be getting paid to speak publicly by the “establishment.” He can’t prove it, but he, like others, don’t care about proof. Then, when there is nothing else to say, it’s a personal attack. This is not confined to Paul supporters, but is true of all people when they have nothing else, or are simply frustrated. It happens. But it’s an email. Take the time to get your thoughts together before you hit the “Send” button.

I responded to Josh in an effort to engage the conversation. I posted it here, in full:

Josh,

Thanks for the email.

To start (in no particular order,) I’m not retiring. To continue, anyone who disagrees with Rep. Paul is considered part of the establishment, right? Moving forward, what paycheck are you talking about? On another subject, the debt is disgusting and must be quickly address – we can’t indulge four more years of Obama or any big spending Republican.

My commentary on Rep. Paul supporters does, indeed, hold true. There is, indeed, an issue. I think that issue gets made apparent when you see how he is doing in the polls and in states where one would think his economic message would make headway. What causes people to shy away?

However, his supporters are also incredibly resourceful, and understand how to have a say in the conversation. In Iowa, Paul supporters are taking over the GOP – controlling chairmanships and placing their delegates everywhere. If Iowa manages to maintain their first in the nation caucus status in 2016, that will be a huge factor. I don’t think Iowa is alone in having Paul supporters making headway.

In the end, I appreciate you reaching out to me. You can hear the show everyday at 6pm EST onhttp://allpatriotsmedia.com/listen, and call in at 888-955-8669. However, if you think telling me that, “…no one cares about what you say” will get me to stop writing or doing radio, you are one daft bastard.

All the best.

- Tony

Tony On TownHall.com – Obama Is Making The Case For His Own Impeachment

April 5, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

2011-12-08T235525Z_23499544_GM1E7C90M9V01_RTRMADP_3_OBAMA

Here is Tony’s latest article on Townhall.com. With President Obama’s assault on the Supreme Court, unconstitutional recess appointments and open mic “gaffe” to Russian President Medvedev, is Obama making the case for his own Impeachment?:

Obama Is Making The Case For His Own Impeachment

The President’s latest tactic, taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare, following on the heels of last week’s “open mic gaffe” in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election, lead to one question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment?

Obama is no longer fit for the job. I don’t say this lightly. I don’t say it with glee or joy. And I don’t say it with malice. But rather with recognition that the Office of the President must be protected. And the citizens of the United States must protect themselves from a president who is either incapable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities to the American people and respect the Constitutionally proscribed limitations on his powers.

Obama’s pronouncement about the Supreme Court was so disingenuous and divisive as alone to warrant impeachment proceedings. Obama, a one-time senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told a group of reporters at a Rose Garden news conference that since the Affordable Care Act was passed by a “strong majority,” a finding of unconstitutionality would constitute “judicial activism.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Judicial activism is when judges exceed their appropriate powers and legislate from the bench. Judicial review, in contrast, is one of the Supreme Court’s primary functions.

As Leon Wolf of RedState asks, has the professor never heard of Marbury vs. Madison (the 1803 case affirming the Court’s right of judicial review)? Further, if Obama believes the Court has no right to review – - and invalidate if necessary – - a law, so long as it was duly passed by Congress, what does he believe IS the Court’s role? What exactly did he teach his students at the University of Chicago?

On the international stage, Obama stunned US citizens and allies with his thinly veiled promise to Medvedev that he would put the missile shield – - a key component of our defense strategy – on the back burner after he’s re-elected, said with disdain for Americans. This stunning statement is worthy of a conversation about treason. A conversation that should take place in front of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Obama was undaunted by the fact the mic was open, and every disgusting word was caught on tape. Since then, he has twice joked about the conversation and the open mic. TWICE! Once, though completely improper, could have been dismissed as self-deprecating humor; trying to make the best out of a bad situation (it would not have worked, but it could have been dismissed.) Twice means not only does Obama not think it’s a big deal, but no one around him thinks it’s a big deal. How is that not dangerous?

Obama sees himself as above the law, and sees the Law as a detriment to his “moral” goals. As Ben Shapiro (also a Harvard educated lawyer) pointed out:

President Obama has made it his mission to wield the club against the other two branches of government in a manner unprecedented in American history. Yesterday, Obama, rejecting the heart of judicial review for purposes of his own power, stated, “I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That, of course, is precisely what the Supreme Court does on a daily basis….But for Obama, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to his own power.

In August, 2011, I wrote:

President Obama is actively engaging in a pre-meditated attack on the United States Constitution, and the American way of life. His words are not missteps, like 57 states or the insulting inability to properly pronounce the word corpsman. Obama is attempting to plant the seed into the already vitriolic and boisterous Progressives that the problem with America is the thing that makes America great – the rule of law that does not allow government to rule us.

Nothing has changed. In fact, with this latest round of assaults on the Court, they have gotten worse. Add to this Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments. How long until we say aloud – The Nation Is Under Attack From Within?

Obamacare Exposes Left On Left Violence

March 30, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Obamacare’s run through the Supreme Court has been a disaster. It has been described as a “train wreck.” Justice Antonin Scalia asked if it means that the Federal Government can order people to eat broccoli. Even super-sacred-cow-swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy admitted that this “fundamentally” transforms the relationship between the citizens and the government. However, the story not told is the Lie told by Leftist Leaders to unsuspecting Rank and File Leftists. It’s Left on Left crime, and it is just awful.

When Obamacare was passed in a hail of gunfire, under serious time constraints and without any possibility of sufficient review…..wait, that’s not how it happened. That’s just how the Left made America feel about it. The Affordable Care Act (it’s official title, like “BFD” Joe’s official title is Mr. Vice-President) was the most important piece of legislation ever enacted by man. Over 2000 pages, Obamacare was the attempt of Progressives to move America more towards European Socialism, with the end hope being a full-on Statist regime….if not hope, then just the inevitable end result.

To move this unseemly proposition forward, Leftist Leaders represented by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Harry Reid had to introduce an individual mandate – All Patriotic Americans Must Purchase Health Insurance Or Pay A Fine! Then, Leftists Leaders had to do something else – lie to Rank and File Leftists.

The job of the Leftist Leaders was to mislead and manipulate the Leftist Rank And File (LRAF); get them to take to social media and blogs and tv shows and radio shows not only to tout the pure, raw genius of President Obama and Obamacare, but to viciously attack (through race and class warfare) those who oppose Obamacare.

The calls of “racism” were heard around the land. Opposition to Obamacare meant you hated black people, poor people, women, puppies; it meant you didn’t cry while watching Field of Dreams, you think Snooki makes some good points and that Simon Cowell should wear shirts that are “tighter and whiter.”

Eventually, 26 states found the backbone to challenge Obamacare and bring it to the Supreme Court. And there, the LRAF found themselves stunned. In just three days, in only six hours of arguments from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Obamacare was exposed for what it always was: an unconstitutional power grab against the citizens of the United States.

Two years of campaigning for it, two years of vitriolic hate speech, two years of eating up everything Leftist Leaders Pelosi and Reid sold them (with support selling from Schumer, Frank, Levin, Franken, Wasserman-Schultz and the entire MSNBC line up,) two years of being blind, all ended with a simple question from Justice Kennedy:

Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?

The lie is exposed. Not Obamacare, but that Leftists care about people. They don’t.

The Leftist Leaders proved that they can get their followers to do anything, say anything, blindly and unquestioning. What could be more violent than this? Does it need to involve fists or guns in order to be a horrific sight? The LRAF were used as pawns to try to intimidate the American people into accepting this egregious, unconstitutional law; a far reaching, soul thrashing, European Socialist agenda.

Other Leftist Leaders, including James Carville, care nothing for the LRAF, stating that losing in the SCOTUS is a good thing….”the best thing.” No Obamacare is a great thing? The LRAF has been victimized!

Soon, the conversation from the Leftist Leaders will be about why Obamacare didn’t work (see, racist Tea Party..or racist Republicans….or, just something racist) and why this proves that what America needs is Single-Payer Healthcare. Many of the LRAF will continue to engage this abusive relationship, relishing their Stockholm Syndrome-esqe state of being. We must help them.

Leftist RAF – Save yourselves! We, the Free and Thinking people of America recognize your plight. Left on Left violence is a horrible problem that must be addressed! Do not hide in the shadows! Do not be ashamed! Do not let Harry Reid hurt you anymore. Do not let Nancy Pelosi tell you what you must do for your own good. Stand up and say to your Leftist Leaders “No More!”

LRAF of America – Reject The Left! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

WH Spokesman Jay Carney Calls Rep. Paul Ryan “Deliberately Ignorant”; Admits Clear Choice For Voters

March 21, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney went on a full-out assault against Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his 2013 budget plan, calling Ryan (and Ryan supporters) “…aggressively and deliberately ignorant.” In doing so, Carney laid down the line between what the American people believe and what the White House believes. It’s the line between reality and Progressive, Ideological Fantasy.

As reported by The Washington Examiner, Carney stated:

“You have to be aggressively and deliberately ignorant of the world economy not to know and understand that clean energy technologies are going to play a huge role in the 21st century,” Carney said after decrying the clean energy spending cuts in Ryan’s plan. “You have to have severely diminished capacity to understand what drives economic growth in industrialized countries in this century if you do not understand that education is the key that unlocks the door to prosperity,” he added.

Carney concluded that “the budget proposed by Chairman Ryan and supported overwhelmingly already by Republicans suggests that those problems” — aggressive ignorance and diminished comprehension — “exist in the minds of the supporters of that plan.”

It’s good to know that the “new tone” is still being demonstrated by the White House.

Let’s accept Carney at face value. Education is important. It is vital. It is imperative. What have I learned from my three year education of President Obama? That spending $535 billion of the people’s money on Progressive, Ideological Fantasies (i.e. Solyndra) gets you nothing, does not increase our knowledge of how to harness solar power and only drives the nation further into debt.

You would have to have “severely diminished capacity” to spend money you don’t have on a company that you were advised couldn’t survive.

Few would doubt the veracity of Carney’s statement that “clean energy technologies are going to play a huge role in the the 21st century.” But a person (or a political party) would have to be “deliberately ignorant” of the world’s reality AND the world’s economy. The world economy runs on oil, and the Chevy Volt catches fire. How’s that for reality?

The Open Market will bring new technologies online when they are viable. Carney, and, by extension, his supporters (and boss) are the ones detached from reality. Any one who thinks the nation can continue on this debt-laden, spending-prone trajectory is clearly not living in the real world; thus, the Progressive, Ideological Fantasy.

Three cheers for Ryan for bringing America back to reality. Time for Carney and Co. to put away their unicorns.

Is Romney Unstoppable?

March 21, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney won big in the Illinois primary, taking 47% of the vote and picking up 38 delegates, giving him 554 total. After winning the majority of states on Super Tuesday, and amassing more delegates than the rest of the candidates combined, one must wonder if Romney will be the GOP nominee? The answer is easy; not yet.

Romney has done well in obtaining delegates. Even when he doesn’t win, he wins. In Mississippi and Alabama, where he came in second and third respectively, he still took 23 delegates. Those loses were tempered with wins in American Samoa and Hawaii, giving Romney another 18 delegates. Romney came away from the week with more delegates than Santorum.

Add to that the 20 delegates he took in Puerto Rico, and Romney, just in the last week, took as many delegates as Santorum and Newt Gingrich combined. Rep. Ron Paul gained just 3 delegates in that same time period. Illinois just adds to Romney’s total.

Yet, still, the time is too soon to make a decision. Louisiana votes on March 24th, offering up 46 delegates in a proportional primary. One week later, political hotbed Wisconsin, along with Maryland and the District of Columbia, offer up 98 delegates in “Winner Take All!” primaries.

Rick Santorum has too many victories to be asked out of the race. He is favored to win in Louisiana, giving him (regardless of the delegates won that night) another state that he can claim wants him over Romney. A win there will also get him money, via donations, which he will desperately need to be competitive in Wisconsin.

A Louisiana win for Santorum will leave Gingrich looking in the mirror. He has pledged to take the race to Tampa, site of the GOP convention in August. However, the word is out that Gingrich is out of cash. Sheldon Adelson’s contributions to the Gingrich-leaning Winning The Future Super-Pac help, but having no cash on hand is a big problem. No victories or good showings since his Georgia win have left Gingrich unable to effectively fund raise.

Romney raised $12 million in February. Santorum raised $9 million.

The answer on Romney is, still, not yet. Lots of victories, lots of delegates, but still not running away with the nomination. A week ago I posited that what these candidates need is one more debate. Today, Ed Morrissey of HotAir came to the same conclusion, but on a two-man debate between Romney and Santorum. If Louisiana goes the way of the polls, he may get his wish as they’ll possibly be the only men left standing.

George Clooney Arrested In DC; What The Response Says about War and American Exceptionalism

March 16, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Protesting human rights abuses in Sudan, actor George Clooney was arrested at the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, DC, during a protest against the nation’s President Omar al-Bashir. Also arrested in the protest was Congressmen Jim Moran (D-VA), Al Green (D-TX), Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Clooney’s father, Nick Clooney.

The protest was over al-Bashir’s blocking of food and other aid from getting to the border area with newly-minted nation South Sudan. According to reports:

Bashir’s forces created the dire food shortage in the region–predicted by USAID to reach near-famine levels this month–by bombing fields and preventing villagers from planting crops in July and August last year

Clooney was in town for the State Dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron. He also spoke privately with President Obama to discuss the situation in Sudan.

There is nothing wrong with Clooney standing up for what he believes in. But one should ask what is the expected result? Rep. McGovern stated during the protest:

“We are protesting to make sure the Sudanese government knows that the world is watching,” states Congressman Jim McGovern. “The United States Congress is watching. And we will be back again and again until they stop using food as a weapon; stop slaughtering innocent men, women and children; and stop spitting in the face of the world community.”

A consistent level of pressure might make a difference in Sudan. It’s exactly the methodology of the Tea Party, who continue to push elected officials on both sides of the aisle to end the reckless spending in Washington. Protesting is an important function, and should not be eschewed for political reasons.

However, what role should the United States play in Sudan, and what role do the protestors want America to play? Rep. McGovern talked about pressure, but not US involvement. Tom Andrews, President of United to End Genocide, stated a different opinion:

We need to hear the outrage from President Obama and see robust international leadership. The United States should immediately do everything in its power to get food to the region before people starve and increase sanctions on Bashir and his forces.

Considering the Hollywood angle Clooney brings to the protests, professional gossip Perez Hilton stated on his website: (emphasis mine)

This is a MAJOR issue that cannot go unnoticed!

It is UNBELIEVABLE how the Sudanese government is allowing this to happen!…We hope the United States steps in soon to help, before it’s too late!!!

Is Hollywood now making the claim that the United States can/should/must provide moral clarity around the world? If so, how? Exactly what should the US do? What would be stepping in? How does that work? Does it involve troops? How many?

To Hilton’s point, there are “MAJOR” issues happening the world over; Christians persecuted in Pakistan, women maimed under Sharia Law, the entire existence of the people of North Korea. If one “hopes the United States steps in soon” regarding Sudan, what of these other places and other people?

Clooney has the right to protest, and I applaud it. Protest, however, is different than our nation’s Armed Forces being put into combat due to one of many “MAJOR” issues. Perhaps it would be better to show the world, through our own actions, how to create a better society and foster individual freedom. Recognizing American Exceptionalism would be a great first step. Like this guy did:

Tony On TownHall.com: It’s Official! We Need One More Debate!

March 16, 2012 blog, Tony Katz No comments

Here is Tony’s latest article on TownHall.com. With Santorum winning in Alabama and Mississippi, Romney winning Hawaii and Gingrich edging out Romney for second place in the South, it seems clear: We need one more debate:

It’s Official! We Need One More Debate!

Mitt Romney missed a chance to wrap up the GOP nomination the other night, placing a disappointing third in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries. The delegate count is still in his favor, but the bigger story here is that the “front runner” lost to both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. This means only one thing – we need another debate.

This news will be hard to take for the establishment. But what isn’t hard to take for the establishment when they don’t get their way? (Their way, of course, being you accept Romney and shut the hell up already!) The reality is that the American people don’t yet have a candidate, and they reject the “electability” argument. They agree with Santorum’s view that the establishment, with support from the media, is telling us that Romney is our only option.

Romney has more than double Santorum’s delegates and triple Gingrich’s, but he still can’t deliver a knockout blow. After five years and untold millions of dollars, he still can’t win in the South. Florida notwithstanding (and Florida, in the minds of many, doesn’t count as South), Romney has lost Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. Louisiana is coming up fast.

The Romney campaign downplays these losses:

“It’s all about getting more delegates,” Romney told reporters Tuesday as he campaigned in Missouri, which holds caucuses Saturday. His campaign said he met his goal of claiming a third of the delegates up for grabs Tuesday.

So the goal of the frontrunner was to get a third of the delegates?

Delegates matter. The prize is 1144 delegates, enough to clinch the nomination. Each time the “front runner” comes in third, there’s less chance he will reach that magic number prior to the GOP convention.

What Romney needs – and he’s not the only one – is a debate. Romney needs a debate more than he needs oxygen, Kid Rock or Jeff “you might be a redneck” Foxworthy.

Sure, his lead is big, but it’s not big enough. With every third place finish the “front runner” has, the closer he gets to a decision being made for him at the convention. Does Romney really want to risk that? A debate can remove the risk, and allow him to – AGAIN! – restate his electability case to America.

He’s not the only one in need of a debate. Santorum lost Ohio, and, truth be told, badly. Three weeks before the primary, Santorum was ahead of Romney 42% to 24%. On primary night, Santorum lost by 1%. He went from +18 to -1; a 19 point swing in three weeks. With Wisconsin, New York and Pennsylvania fast approaching, Santorum needs to restate his case as well. “I’m Rick Santorum, I’m more than just the Heartland candidate and let me show you how I can beat Barack Obama!”

Only a debate can set one of these men free. Erick Erickson thinks a debate is a very good idea,especially for Romney:

The Romney camp signaled it was tired of the debates. But in the Florida debates the Romney camp largely destroyed Gingrich before winning Florida. In the Mesa, AZ debate on CNN the Romney camp ruined Rick Santorum before winning Arizona and barely Michigan.Both times the Romney campaign used good debate performances to rebound lagging poll numbers into real momentum. Then he decided to stop debating. Out of sight and out of mind, conservatives forgot why they thought he was the guy who could beat Obama.

Both of the those debates also highlighted horrible performances. In Arizona, Santorum showed himself as a Senator, not a President. In Jacksonville, Gingrich showed himself unwilling to fight back; rare for him, and deadly for his campaign.

Gingrich sits at a multi-pronged cross roads. He didn’t win in the deep South like he should have, but he beat Romney in both states. He has 1/3rd the delegates of Romney, but the talk of a Gingrich/Perry ticket could revitalize Tea Party supporters (of course, predicated on him lasting to the convention and getting past the first ballot, which is his entire plan!) To have a chance at his plan, regardless of the probability of success, Gingrich needs a debate.

We, The People, need one more debate. So, let’s have one! The Debate To End All Debates! Hosted and moderated by conservatives. Get the candidates up there and lets not waste time with gotcha questions about contraceptives, the candidates’ private lives or their religions (which, of course, means Charles Blow won’t be watching,) but about concrete plans for increasing domestically-produced energy and lowering gas prices. Let’s get in a few questions in about Operation Fast and Furious, and a full segment dedicated to Constitutional government – what it means, where we fall short, and how we get back to it.

One more debate. Winner takes all.

« Older Entries

Archive for Tony Katz