President Obama vs. The Supreme Court

I did not watch the State of the Union speech last night. I had several other priorities. First, I was at church, where I am taking a Theology class (it is a 9-week course on the Trinity). Then, once we got home, we had to get the kids ready and sent to bed. After that, I watched the 2nd half of NCIS: Los Angeles, as I had fallen asleep Tuesday evening before the end of the show. Then, the season premiere of Psych was on. So I did have many other important priorities to attend to.

As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.

Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.

Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).

The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.

Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.

President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.

The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.

Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.

We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.

A re-birth of conservatism?

The people of Massachusetts have finally awakened from their lengthy slumber. On Tuesday, Scott Brown was elected by the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to finish the Senatorial term of the now-deceased Ted Kennedy. This is quite a remarkable occurrence.

Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.

Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?

Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.

But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.

So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.

Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.

So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.

We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.

The Top Conservatives in America

For those who know me, I am a Republican. But I am not just a Republican, I am a conservative Republican. Conservative is the key word. There are many Republicans in this country, but only a portion of them are conservative. Anyway, I came across a list last week of the 100 most influential conservative voices in America today. I found it fascinating that this list is from the UK Telegraph. I am not sure why the Brits feel the need to make this list, but I do find this list amusing, given some of the names that they put on the list.

Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):

1. Dick Cheney
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Matt Drudge - Internet gossip guy - Don't know about this one, but he should not be ranked this high
4. Sarah Palin
5. Robert Gates - Defense Secretary - I have no idea how he made this list
6. Glenn Beck
7. Roger Ailes
8. David Petraeus
9. Paul Ryan - Wisconsin Congressman
10. Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota Governor
11. Mitt Romey
12. George W. Bush
13. John Roberts - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
14. Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor and former head of the Republican Party
15. Eric Cantor - Virginia Congressman
16. John McCain - I cannot believe he is on this list, much less this high on the list. Where are his conservative credentials (in areas not associated with national defense)?
17. Mike Pence - Indiana Congressman
18. Bob McDonnell - Governor-elect of Virginia
19. Newt Gingrich - I don't think he should be this high on the list. He has strayed from true conservatism over the past couple of years.
20. Mike Huckabee - The Gomer Pyle of modern politics
21. Andrew Breitbart - Another internet news guy - He should be ranked above Drudge.
22. Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana
23. Sean Hannity
24. Charles Krauthammer - Columnist and political commentator - He should be on the list, but this is too high of a ranking for him
25. David Brooks - NY Times columnist - He is the token Republican on the NY Times editorial staff. He is a Republican, not a conservative. He has no business being on this list.
26. Mark Levin - He should be rated much higher, especially after reading 2 of his books (Men in Black and Liberty and Tyranny) this past year.
27. Mitch McConnell - Senate Majority Leader
28. Laura Ingraham
29. Joe Lieberman - Conservative? Really? This is one reason the Brits are not a player on the world stage.
30. Antonin Scalia
31. John Boehner
32. Karl Rove
33. David Frum - Writer
34. Michael Steele
35. Edwin Feulner - President, Heritage Foundation
36. John Bolton - He should probably be higher up on this list
37. Tom Coburn - Oklahoma Senator
38. Rich Lowry - Editor, National Review Online
39. Mitch Daniels - Indiana Governor
40. John Thune - South Dakota Senator (and the guy who beat Tom Daschle)
41. Ron Paul - Texas Congressman - I do not believe he belongs on this list.
42. Michelle Malkin
43. George Will
44. Clarence Thomas
45. Grover Norquist - President, Americans for Tax Reform
46. Dick Morris - Strategist - I do not believe that Morris is a conservative. He is an excellent strategist with incredible insight and instincts, but not a conservative.
47. Michael Savage - This guy is an idiot.
48. Mary Matalin (the wife of James Carville, one of the most liberal idiots in the U.S.)
49. Richard Lugar - Indiana Senator - He is too friendly with liberals, including the current administration.
50. Carly Fiorina - Former head of HP and current contender for Barbara Boxer's senate seat - It is too early to tell on this one.
51. Rick Perry - Texas Governor
52. David Keene
53. Kevin McCarthy - California Congressman
54. Morton Blackwell
55. Arnold Schwarzenegger - Conservative? He threw out any and all conservatism a long time ago.
56. Alex Castellanos
57. Steve Schmidt
58. William Kristol
59. Rudy Giuliani - Conservative on national defense and fiscal areas, liberal on social issues.
60. Jon Voight - Actor
61. Jeff Flake - Arizona Congressman
62. Frank Luntz
63. Jim DeMint - South Carolina Senator
64. Chris Ruddy - Newsmax Founder and CEO
65. Erick Erickson
66. Victor Davis Hanson
67. Joe Scarborough - This guy is an insult to conservatives and Republicans. He has thrown us under the bus after joining MSNBC, and he tries to redefine conservatism in his book.
68. Paul Gigot
69. Olympia Snowe - This one is laughable. She is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. She is practically a Democrat vote.
70. Michael Barone - He has tremendous political insight. I do not think of him as a conservative, but rather a political wonk.
71. Dick Armey
72. Tucker Carlson
73. Judd Gregg - New Hampshire Senator
74. Ann Coulter
75. James Dobson
76. Jeb Bush
77. Joe Wilson - South Carolina Congressman, famous for the "You Lie!" comment (which, by the way, was right on target)
78. Meg Whitman - California gubernatorial candidate
79. Lou Dobbs - More of a populist than a conservative
80. Michelle Bachmann - Minnesota Congresswoman - She should probably be ranked higher, as she is one of the few Republicans who will actually stand up to the Democrat establishment.
81. Marco Rubio - Florida Senatorial candidate
82. Jack Keane
83. Lindsey Graham - South Carolina Senator - He has become very moderate, and he backs amnesty for illegal aliens. He should not be on this list.
84. Thomas Sowell
85. Bill O'Reilly - Like Lou Dobbs, he is a populist, not a conservative.
86. John Kasich - Ohio Gubernatorial candidate and former congressman
87. Eric Odom
88. Patriuck Ruffini
89. Fred Thompson
90. Tony Perkins
91. Peggy Noonan - She should not be on this list. Just because she was a speech writer for Reagan does not give her the credentials to be on this list.
92. Clifford May
93. Charlie Crist - Florida Governor - He is becoming too moderate in order to win Florida Governor race.
94. Jon Huntsman Jr.
95. Liz Cheney
96. R. Emmett Tyrrell
97. Mark Thiessen
98. Mike Murphy
99. Tom DeLay
100. Mark Sanford - South Carolina Governor - Really?

What should Harry Reid do?

By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.

First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?

Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.

To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.