Romney Trying to Tame Perry

Last night the Party faithful watched as the Republican presidential battled it out in Las Vegas and, boy was it a show.

Analysts have been picking the winners and losers ever since the smoke cleared last night.  But, in my opinion, there was one line uttered by the “frontrunner” Mitt Romney that might just be a real game changer.

In full disclosure, I am not part of the 25% that like Mitt, I am a member of that “other” part of the Republican base.  That being said, I am truly looking at this objectively.

Perry needed to come out swinging last night, and he did. A known political brawler, Perry went for Romney’s jugular attacking Romney for hiring a company that employed and exploited illegal immigrants to do the lawn on his 2+ acre property in Massachusetts; a known-but-forgotten-by-some allegation.

Romney was cool and collected at first, and then he got flustered. He seemed angry and frustrated and he even got a little physical with Perry placing on arm on his shoulder as if he was pitying him. Then Mitt explained that he approached the owner of the lawn care service and told him:

“I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.”

And there it was.  A line uttered out of frustration that I believe might be his undoing or at the very least, the beginning of a long, hard-fought campaign yet to come.  Let me explain myself.

Why is it that Romney has had such a hard time establishing himself as a front-runner; why is it that he cannot garner more than 25% or so  of the vote in the polls?

The answer is a combination of adjectives.  Some if not most of Romney’s detractors or skeptics would call him: a flip-flopper, cold, calculating, too suave, too perfect, too polished, slick, slippery, an opportunist. Basically Republican voters simply do not trust him; he is more of a politician than a man who leads from conviction. And, this one line he uttered feeds all of those stigmas: he was more concerned about public perception during a campaign than the actual rule of law. After all, if he wasn’t running for office at the time, would he care?  Will he really bend to the will of the political winds at the time or can he ever lead from real conviction?

Folks are still shopping for the alternative to Mitt.  After Perry’s poor performance during his first few debates, some activists and operatives seemed ready to put their fears about Mitt to bed. However, after last night’s well calculated attack from Perry, all those fears will come rushing back.   And, folks are going to ask themselves: can we trust Mitt and what he says?  Will he really deliver what he promises, or, like our current president, will he disappoint?  Can we risk putting a spineless candidate up against Obama? Is Romney spineless?

These are all questions that a week ago may not have been asked.  However, after last night, voters will be rethinking their assumption that Mitt is our guy.

The real question for me is: will Perry benefit or Cain?

I was flipping through The Great Republic: A history of America by Sir Winston Churchill, one of my favorite historical figures. I love Winston not for his wit or because we both share a love for a drink and cigar.  There were plenty of folks throughout history with both of those traits – Mark Twain comes to mind.  However, Churchill’s greatness was in his determination to see good defeat evil, to stand by his convictions despite public humiliation and political suicide. He was truly a man who placed principle over politics before the phrase was popular on the campaign trail; someone who knew what the right course of action was and would do anything to steer his nation in the proper direction.  The freedom-loving world owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Mr. Churchill.  When the world was silent to the horrors of Nazism – he spoke out.  When the world tried to make peace with Herr Hitler, he knew that peace can only come at times from conflict – that demons must be destroyed.  There is a paragraph in this speech that I feel is properly relevant to the current events unfolding in the Mid-East. It is highlighted.  Please let me know how you feel about these words that -to me-  ring as true today as they did in 1938.

Broadcast to the United States and to London
by Winston S. Churchill

16 October 1938

From Churchill, Into Battle (London: Cassell, 1941), pages 83-91.
Renewal copyright Winston S. Churchill © 2001.

I avail myself with relief of the opportunity of speaking to the people of the United States. I do not know how long such liberties will be allowed. The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time remains.

The American people have, it seems to me, formed a true judgment upon the disaster which has befallen Europe. They realise, perhaps more clearly than the French and British publics have yet done, the far-reaching consequences of the abandonment and ruin of the Czechoslovak Republic. I hold to the conviction I expressed some months ago, that if in April, May or June, Great Britain, France, and Russia had jointly declared that they would act together upon Nazi Germany if Herr Hitler committed an act of unprovoked aggression against this small State, and if they had told Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania what they meant to do in good time, and invited them to join the combination of peace-defending Powers, I hold that the German Dictator would have been confronted with such a formidable array that he would have been deterred from his purpose. This would also have been an opportunity for all the peace-loving and moderate forces in Germany, together with the chiefs of the German Army, to make a great effort to re-establish something like sane and civilised conditions in their own country. If the risks of war which were run by France and Britain at the last moment had been boldly faced in good time, and plain declarations made, and meant, how different would our prospects be today!

But all these backward speculations belong to history. It is no good using hard words among friends about the past, and reproaching one another for what cannot be recalled. It is the future, not the past, that demands our earnest and anxious thought. We must recognize that the Parliamentary democracies and liberal, peaceful forces have everywhere sustained a defeat which leaves them weaker, morally and physically, to cope with dangers which have vastly grown. But the cause of freedom has in it a recuperative power and virtue which can draw from misfortune new hope and new strength. If ever there was a time when men and women who cherish the ideals of the founders of the British and American Constitutions should take earnest counsel with one another, that time is now.

All the world wishes for peace and security. Have we gained it by the sacrifice of the Czechoslovak Republic. Here was the model democratic State of Central Europe, a country where minorities were treated better than anywhere else. It has been deserted, destroyed and devoured. It is now being digested. The question which is of interest to a lot of ordinary people, common people, is whether this destruction of the Czechoslovak Republic will bring upon the world a blessing or a curse.

We must all hope it will bring a blessing; that after we have averted our gaze for a while from the process of subjugation and liquidation, everyone will breathe more freely; that a load will be taken off our chests; we shall be able to say to ourselves: “Well, that’s out of the way, anyhow. Now let’s get on with our regular daily life.” But are these hopes well founded or are we merely making the best of what we had not the force and virtue to stop? That is the question that the English-speaking peoples in all their lands must ask themselves today. Is this the end, or is there more to come?

There is another question which arises out of this. Can peace, goodwill, and confidence be built upon submission to wrong-doing backed by force?

One may put this question in the largest form. Has any benefit or progress ever been achieved by the human race by submission to organised and calculated violence? As we look back over the long story of the nations we must see that, on the contrary, their glory has been founded upon the spirit of resistance to tyranny and injustice, especially when these evils seemed to be backed by heavier force. Since the dawn of the Christian era a certain way of life has slowly been shaping itself among the Western peoples, and certain standards of conduct and government have come to be esteemed. After many miseries and prolonged confusion, there arose into the broad light of day the conception of the right of the individual; his right to be consulted in the government of his country; his right to invoke the law even against the State itself. Independent Courts of Justice were created to affirm and inforce this hard-won custom. Thus was assured throughout the English-speaking world, and in France by the stern lessons of the Revolution, what Kipling called, “Leave to live by no man’s leave underneath the law.” Now in this resides all that makes existence precious to man, and all that confers honour and health upon the State.

We are confronted with another theme. It is not a new theme; it leaps out upon us from the Dark Ages – racial persecution, religious intolerance, deprivation of free speech, the conception of the citizen as a mere soulless fraction of the State. To this has been added the cult of war. Children are to be taught in their earliest schooling the delights and profits of conquest and aggression. A whole mighty community has been drawn painfully, by severe privations, into a warlike frame. They are held in this condition, which they relish no more than we do, by a party organisation, several millions strong, who derive all kinds of profits, good and bad, from the upkeep of the regime. Like the Communists, the Nazis tolerate no opinion but their own. Like the Communists, they feed on hatred. Like the Communists, they must seek, from time to time, and always at shorter intervals, a new target, a new prize, a new victim. The Dictator, in all his pride, is held in the grip of his Party machine. He can go forward; he cannot go back. He must blood his hounds and show them sport, or else, like Actaeon of old, be devoured by them. All-strong without, he is all-weak within. As Byron wrote a hundred years ago: “These Pagod things of Sabre sway, with fronts of brass and feet of clay.”

No one must, however, underrate the power and efficiency of a totalitarian state. Where the whole population of a great country, amiable, good-hearted, peace-loving people are gripped by the neck and by the hair by a Communist or a Nazi tyranny – for they are the same things spelt in different ways – the rulers for the time being can exercise a power for the purposes of war and external domination before which the ordinary free parliamentary societies are at a grievous practical disadvantage. We have to recognise this. And then, on top of all, comes this wonderful mastery of the air which our century has discovered, but of which, alas, mankind has so far shown itself unworthy. Here is this air power with its claim to torture and terrorise the women and children, the civil population of neighbouring countries.

This combination of medieval passion, a party caucus, the weapons of modern science, and the blackmailing power of air-bombing, is the most monstrous menace to peace, order and fertile progress that has appeared in the world since the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century.

The culminating question to which I have been leading is whether the world as we have known it – the great and hopeful world of before the war, the world of increasing hope and enjoyment for the common man, the world of honoured tradition and expanding science – should meet this menace by submission or by resistance. Let us see, then, whether the means of resistance remain to us today. We have sustained an immense disaster; the renown of France is dimmed. In spite of her brave, efficient army, her influence is profoundly diminished. No one has a right to say that Britain, for all her blundering, has broken her word – indeed, when it was too late, she was better than her word. Nevertheless, Europe lies at this moment abashed and distracted before the triumphant assertions of dictatorial power. In the Spanish Peninsula, a purely Spanish quarrel has been carried by the intervention, or shall I say the “non-intervention” (to quote the current Jargon) of Dictators into the region of a world cause.

But it is not only in Europe that these oppressions prevail. China is being torn to pieces by a military clique in Japan; the poor, tormented Chinese people there are making a brave and stubborn defence. The ancient empire of Ethiopia has been overrun. The Ethiopians were taught to look to the sanctity of public law, to the tribunal of many nations gathered in majestic union. But all failed; they were deceived, and now they are winning back their right to live by beginning again from the bottom a struggle on primordial lines. Even in South America, the Nazi regime begins to undermine the fabric of Brazilian society.

Far away, happily protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, you, the people of the United States, to whom I now have the chance to speak, are the spectators, and I may add the increasingly involved spectators of these tragedies and crimes. We are left in no doubt where American conviction and sympathies lie; but will you wait until British freedom and independence have succumbed, and then take up the cause when it is three-quarters ruined, yourselves alone? I hear that they are saying in the United States that because England and France have failed to do their duty therefore the American people can wash their hands of the whole business. This may be the passing mood of many people, but there is no sense in it. If things have got much worse, all the more must we try to cope with them.

For, after all, survey the remaining forces of civilisation; they are overwhelming. If only they were united in a common conception of right and duty, there would be no war. On the contrary, the German people, industrious, faithful, valiant, but alas! lacking in the proper spirit of civic independence, liberated from their present nightmare, would take their honoured place in the vanguard of human society. Alexander the Great remarked that the people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned to pronounce the word “No.” Let that not be the epitaph of the English-speaking peoples or of Parliamentary democracy, or of France, or of the many surviving liberal States of Europe.

There, in one single word, is the resolve which the forces of freedom and progress, of tolerance and good will, should take. It is not in the power of one nation, however formidably armed, still less is it in the power of a small group of men, violent, ruthless men, who have always to cast their eyes back over their shoulders, to cramp and fetter the forward march of human destiny. The preponderant world forces are upon our side; they have but to be combined to be obeyed. We must arm. Britain must arm. America must arm. If, through an earnest desire for peace, we have placed ourselves at a disadvantage, we must make up for it by redoubled exertions, and, if necessary, by fortitude in suffering.

We shall, no doubt, arm. Britain, casting away the habits of centuries, will decree national service upon her citizens. The British people will stand erect, and will face whatever may be coming.

But arms – instrumentalities, as President Wilson called them – are not sufficient by themselves. We must add to them the power of ideas. People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like – they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home – all the more powerful because forbidden – terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind. Cannons, airplanes, they can manufacture in large quantities; but how are they to quell the natural promptings of human nature, which after all these centuries of trial and progress has inherited a whole armoury of potent and indestructible knowledge? 

Dictatorship – the fetish worship of one man – is a passing phase. A state of society where men may not speak their minds, where children denounce their parents to the police, where a business man or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinions; such a state of society cannot long endure if brought into contact with the healthy outside world. The light of civilised progress with its tolerances and co-operation, with its dignities and joys, has often in the past been blotted out. But I hold the belief that we have now at last got far enough ahead of barbarism to control it, and to avert it, if only we realise what is afoot and make up our minds in time. We shall do it in the end. But how much harder our toil for every day’s delay!

Is this a call to war? Does anyone pretend that preparation for resistance to aggression is unleashing war? I declare it to be the sole guarantee of peace. We need the swift gathering of forces to confront not only military but moral aggression; the resolute and sober acceptance of their duty by the English-speaking peoples and by all the nations, great and small, who wish to walk with them. Their faithful and zealous comradeship would almost between night and morning clear the path of progress and banish from all our lives the fear which already darkens the sunlight to hundreds of millions of men.

Folks, two amazing, literally profound, events took place this week – and they are deeply intertwined.

Firstly, a new Republican candidate entered the race: Texas Governor Rick Perry. He is new and America is liking him, and liking him a lot. Just three days into his campaign and he has already surpassed Romney – the former front-runner – by double digits according to a new Rasmussen poll released today.

And, a day after Rick Perry’s fantastic announcement speech in South Carolina, partisan pit bull and chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz hit the airwaves slamming Perry on Meet the Press. I urge you to listen to the interview by clicking here because it is the ideal combination of humor and tragedy. Humor – because her statements are that absurd. Tragedy – because she is the public face of the Democratic Party which by simple laws of deduction would force one to conclude that these are the actual beliefs of Democrats and President Obama.

The interview begins with a clip from Perry’s annoucement speech where he criticized the president:

The fact is for nearly three years President Obama has been downgrading American jobs. He has been downgrading our standing in the world. He’s been downgrading our financial stablity. He’s been downgrading our confidence. He’s been downgrading the hope of a better future for our children. That’s a fact.

Now, I know that you cannot see me, but I am giving Perry a standing ovation as I type.  That bombardment of statements was probably the most truthful summary of the current day America offered from any candidate or politician.

And, when asked what was factually wrong with that statement, Wasserman Schultz begins with:

I am incredibly proud of the president…I think Americans are appreciative of the hard work and effort and accomplishment  President Obama has made. 

Really? She might just be one of the few folks out there feeling that way.  In a recent poll released by Gallup, only 40% of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance; his lowest numbers ever.  And what exactly is there to be proud of?

This was exactly what was racing through the reporter’s mind. Finally a mainstream media reporter calling out a Dem, and Wasserman Schultz nonetheless.

She asked the congresswoman: you have said repeatably that we are in much better shape since Obama took office, but unemployment was only ( we say “only” nowadays as if it was acceptable then)  7.3 % in 2008  and now it is above 9% – a 25% increase. Nearly 3 million – yes million - Americans have lost their job since Obama took office.  And,13 and a half million more people are on food stamps.

Now, I think anyone with half a brain can conclude: jeez, things have really, really gotten worse since this president took office.  But, what does DWS say in response?
Of cousre. she  attacks President Bush.  Obama inherited this problem created by the failed polices of a Republican administration. Hey Debbie! NO ONE IS BUYING THAT ANYMORE!  And, calling it a “Republican Recession” does not change the fact that we are in a “Obama Depression”.

And then she attacks Perry.

The reporter points out that 40% of all the jobs created since the recession where in Texas. What does DWS say? It had nothing to do with good governing by Gov. Perry. Nooooo. Not at all.  It was the “Recovery Act” that created those jobs.  So, let me get this straight, the Recovery Act, which the President himself made a wise crack about, in some twisted odd economic anomaly created more jobs in Texas than anywhere else in the union?  How does that work?

And she finishes her delusional journey in Never Never Land by saying that,  after looking a the polls,  Obama is in good shape.

Ok, sorry for the elongated summary, but here are some facts. All numbers indicate that Obama’s policies have killed our economy, made us  a joke on the international stage ( Syria and Lybia come to mind),  created panic in the markets and have forced millions of Americans to worry about how they are going to put bread on the table.  Our nation has lost our AAA rating from the S & P.  WE HAVE BEEN DOWNGRADED IN EVERY ASPECT. 

So, yes, DWS, Obama and his policies you so loyally champion have downgraded everything that made America great. They have transformed us from the land of opportunity to the land of the destitute.  Obama has downgraded us, and the time is coming for an upgrade in 2012.

And for any of you reading this, I urge you to follow the advice of radio talk show host Mark Levine and help Karen Harrington defeat Debbie Wasserman Schultz in 2012.  Let’s oust her lying Liberal lips and replace them with someone of character, principle and honesty. Someone who won’t be a mere puppet for partisan talking points. Visit  www.firedebbie.com.

Even before he was an official presidential candidate, Governor Rick Perry had a stigma to beat down: his Texas twang and swagger will be is undoing being that he sounds just like the Devil incarnate, George W. ( I can barley even type his name) Bush.

Or so the Dems are alleging, or praying. Depends how you look at it. Here is how any logical person would see it and I can promise you this: Obama and his cronies are inevitably seeing it this way as well.

Gallup, a non-partisan and relatively reliable poll had some shocking news. In a the most recent presidential job approval poll, Obama has reach a new all time low of 40%.

The poll, which you can read by clicking here, went on to offer some insightful analysis, something that should have Obama shaking in his boots, if he only wore them ( as a side note, every president since Jimmy Carter had a shinny set of boots in their closet at the White House except Obama). Since World War II only 10 incumbent presidents have sought reelection and none of them have won reelection with a job approval rating below 48%.   Now I am not a math guy, but I would imagine that that means the Big O is in big trouble.

Sure, a lot can happen in the 15 months left of this campaign season. But, one thing is very likely not to happen: a massive economic recovery that gets folks out of the unemployment line and back at the check cashing one.

But that is neither here nor there. Back to my point: people will be appalled by Perry because he is like Bush!

Well, maybe they are right. I don’t think so. After all, these days, the only thing worse to be than a reminder of George W. Bush is actually being Obama.

My gut tells me people will find the “twang” a friendly reminder of what American was not all that  long ago and of what we yearn for it to be once more: great.

For the last six months or so, nearly every conversation I had with my friends and associates would include two questions:   “Do you think we can beat him and save out country?” which was quickly followed by with: “But who do we have to run against him?”

Well, following Thursday night’s debate, I think it is fair to say that we have at least two candidates who I believe can bring the fight to Obama in 2012.   And then came Saturday.   A fantastic day for Rep. Bachmann, but an even more incredible day for Conservatives and Republicans around this great nation: Gov. Rick Perry formally announced his candidacy for the president of the United States.

I think it is worthwhile to take the time and listen to his speech, so I have posted it here.

One of the more common critiques from Democrat strategists has been that the average American independent voter is not going to stand for yet another Texan in the White House.  One pundit even said that Perry sounds so much like Bush that it made her sick to hear his voice.  Well, let me tell you something about that: Bush’s greatest strength was his likability, his trust factor, his ability to connect with the average America; a quality that is credited for his 2004 victory.   To this day, I know friends of mine who are middle of the road voters who rather share a beer with Bush over Obama.  In fact, Obama’s greatest flaw and possibly the trait that has made him extremely vulnerable in 2012 is his sense of arrogance, of speaking down to the people; his utter disconnect.   If you want my opinion – and I assume you do or you wouldn’t be reading this blog – America is more than willing to vote for a principled candidate with a swagger and an accent that represents America’s wholesomeness and our toughness all at once.  Check out the speech and let me know what you think.

This was an interesting view on the 2012 Republican candidates. I think Charles is one of the most brilliant and insightful political commentators out there. However, I must differ from him in regard to Palin.

Since 2008, Sarah Palin has been a busy bee- or a roaring Momma Grizzly, either way. She has clearly become a political force at the polls. She has exposed herself in numerous states as she campaigned in 2010 and she has built up a significant amount of political capital. Charles, and he is echoing the opinion of many, claims that her main liabilities is a lack of foreign policy and her inability to connect to the middle of the road folks.

I disagree. Firstly, it is hard to see how much foreign policy knowledge Palin as acquired over the last few years. One thing is certain: she has been studying. I think most people are going to be impressed with the amount of knowledge she demonstrates. Secondly, her base is clearly the Tea Party. While it is obviously a movement built on Conservative ideas, many Americans feel a connection on some level to the Tea Party.

Last month, Rasmussen released a poll which showed that while 50% of people on the East Coast think that the Tea Party is good for America while only 20% consider themselves part of the group.  In full disclosure, I am not a pollster.  However, it seems relatively clear that the theme of the Tea Party and its overall goal is something that resonates with Americans, even those on the East Coast.

Throughout this nation, more Americans are moving to the center of the Right, if not completely over the the other side.   Palin is the champion of the themes which have fueled this movement and which define our nation’s worries.  In 2012, hope in a better America will be the key issue.   People are forgetting everything that has made this nation great. They feel that America’s shine has dulled and all that made this the greatest nation on earth has eroded.  We need someone to restore our belief  in America and the American dream; someone to restore the shine to the city upon the hill.  Sarah Palin is the only candidate who has that ability as far as I can tell.

Craig Shirley, in his amazing account of the 1980 election Rendezvous with Destiny, describes the political climate that surrounded the beginning of the Reagan campaign.  Following the failed insurgency campaign in 1976, Reagan was viewed as “too extreme” to be elected. He constantly made gaffes on the campaign trail and the Republican establishment shuddered at the very mention of his candidacy.  Many of the elements that existed than prevail now and the traits that made Reagan the perfect candidate than exist now in Sarah Palin.  I will skim through the book and offer a more detailed explanation later this week. In the meantime, I am going on the record saying that if Palin runs, her assumed vulnerabilities are in actuality her strongest assets.

Well, in case you were wondering, pork is still on the menu in the Senate.

While the voters across this nation voiced a resounding “no” to government expansion, waste and spending in November, Harry Reid and his accomplices apparently were out of earshot.

The Senate – still controlled by the Democrats – issued a spending bill. At nearly 2000 pages, the bill is stuffed with hundreds of earmarks and pork spending amounting to a whopping $513 million dollars per page!

The House, on the other hand, produced a very tight, controlled spending bill abandoning all earmarks.  But, those special projects for the Democrats special “friends” did not vanish completely; they found life in the Senate bill.  Sen. John  McCain took to the Senate floor yesterday and spoke passionately against this devious act of his colleagues.  McCain also sent a letter to the President mapping out the more shocking earmarks. You can read this statement by clicking here.

Politically speaking, you might be scratching your head.  In fact, I have received a few emails and calls today from buddies who are really confused and were seeking some understanding. After all, why would Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate go this route, especially after the clear message sent on Election Day?  Isn’t this political suicide for the members who must face re-elect in 2012?

Well, you would think so.  However, keep in mind that Reid himself is safe for the time being.  The Democrats in the House realize that they face the new reality of working with a Republican majority in the next Congress.  Therefore, in an effort to start building those working relationships, they produced a spending bill the Republicans could accept giving the perception that the Democrats in the House are ready to play ball and rein in government spending.   But, what about all those favors they owe their special interests groups? What about all those projects in need of funding? What about the government programs that are in financial limbo?

So, the Democrat leaders thought up a scheme: Let the Senate take them on. After all, the Senate will remain in the hands of the Democrats next year.  They really don’t need to worry too much about  offending Republicans.  And,  who cares where the dollars come from, as long as the line the pockets of supporters and promises are fulfilled?   The hell with the American people and their will.  They can’t do anything about it until 2012 anyhow and by than the Anointed One will have saved our economy and folks will be feeling a lot better about the Democrats.

Strategically, they might be right.  The Senate Republicans will still be subject to the reign of Harry Reid.  They don’t have all that much leverage.  The Democrats in the House, however, needed to appear fiscally responsible to their Republican colleagues.  Electorally, however, Reid and Obama and even House members will suffer from this bill.  It will fuel the narrative that lead to the Democrats’ devastating results on Election Day.

But, there is a far more crucial element to this whole debacle than politics: government reform.

When a large-scale turnover takes place, as it did in November, a Party looses power, officials loose their jobs, egos are trampled. Feelings of legislative revenge emerge.  A small window of hope presents itself: the lame duck session; a last stand to fight. Agendas that face annihilation and extinction are quickly crammed through the system.  Votes are cast in a desperate attempt to implement legislation before it’s “too late”. And, not everyone has selfish motives.  We do have some noble public servants on both sides of the aisle who are ideologues and, at risk of watching their vision for America evaporate, panic neglecting the will of the people. Lame duck sessions are dangerous and they threaten the very existence of a representative government.

Our form of government works because it is built on accountability.  When a Representative in congress fails to adequately represent his constituents, he can be voted out.  Ever member of congress fears loosing their jobs.   That fear motivates them to act on behalf of the people.  In a lame duck session – especially one that follows a game-changing election – that fear is removed; the deterrent is gone.

Therefore, I believe we need government reform.  We need to limit the powers of a lame duck congress and president for that matter. We need to ensure that they can only enact laws that are imperative to the safety and security of this nation and legislation that ensures continuity during the transition of power.  Anything else should be put on hold until the new members – those recently selected to represent the people – are sworn in and can vote.  Maybe this seems radical to some. To me, it seems logical.

For weeks, folks have been talking about the “shady” manner in which Mr. Lowry funds his campaign, and now, after an investigation, the Federal Elections Commission seems to agree and they are demanding immediate action.

Mr. Lowry has been campaigning as the “constitutional conservative” and he regularly highlights his ownership and running of a few assisted living homes as evidence of his fiscal conservatism.  However, Mr. Lowry’s businesses are currently being sued for, amongst other things, hiring unqualified staff that wrongfully administered medications.

But, this is not a piece about the poor standards in Mr. Lowry’s assisted living facilities nor the numerous state violations these homes have garnered. This is about the manner in which Mr. Lowry maintains his campaign according to a independent investigation by the Federal Elections Commission.   I can concede a lawsuit might be baseless, but the FEC is pretty fair and the rules straightforward.  Violating them is truly a blemish on a candidate’s character, his judgement and his ability to surround himself with competent staff members.

As a fiscal conservative, one would imagine that Mr. Lowry would ensure that his campaign was in compliance with federal election finance law.  However, it is not and his records show a long history of neglect and utter disregard for the rule of law. As you read through the counts listed below, keep in mind that there are only two reasons why Mr. Lowry’s campaign would behave this way:  they simply are incompetent or, more likely, they decided to skirt the law in order to hide their funding

The FEC findings indicate numerous counts of neglegence that require immediate actions including:

• Illegal donations from corporations including one from Mr. Lowry’s own company
• Donations surpassing the legal amount
• Incorrect accounting; in other words, addition and subtraction
• The  balance doesn’t add up; more problems with the math
• Incorrect reporting of amounts; there it is again, that sticky math thing
• Incomplete donor information; laziness
• Incomplete expense reports; incompetence
• Not providing a full description of expenses and their purpose; what are you hiding?

The full report is quite interesting and you can read the full report here.

If someone cannot run an honest campaign, how can voters trust them to be honest a elected official?

That was a rhetorical question; the answer is obvious: you cannot.  This is by far the most inapproriate candidacy in 2010 and the Republcian Party should have flushed this fellow out last year when he demonstrated horrific judgement by scribbling the initials of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on a target and shooting at it at a local gun range.

If Florida Republicans want to have a true shot at defeating Debbie Wasserman Schultz in November, I suggest they vote for anybody else but Robert Lowry in Tuesday’s Primary.  A candidate with a current law suit, state violations at his assisted living homes, conducting a shady campaign that violates federal law and an individual who would have the utter disrespect for an elected official simply cannot win. If  you are inclined to cast a vote for Lowry, think of two more years of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, because that is exactly what your vote will be guaranteeing.

Since I seem to be receiving some positive feedback on my limited coverage of Florida’s 20th Congressional District, I figure I would do a quick follow-up based on the pre-Primary FEC filing.

Filings can be extremely telling of three things: the campaigns’ health, the candidate’s character, and the candidate’s overall support in the district.

So, I took a glance at the three Republican candidates’ filings, Robert Lowry, Dona Milo and Karen Harrington and here is what I found.

Robert Lowry: Over the last few weeks, Mr. Lowry’s filings have become quite the issue as the Federal Elections Commission has confirmed that they are currently investigating Mr. Lowry’s campaign.   Every single time he has filed, the Lowry campaign has failed to fill out the forms properly leaving out mandatory information about his donors; items like: phone numbers, occupations, addresses etc.   causing the FEC to request additional information.

I understand how complicated these forms can be and that first-time candidates like Mr. Lowry are bound to make a few errors.  But, he has been in the race the longest.  You would assume that after nearly two years he would learn how to properly fill out the form or at least find a capable, competent treasurer who could follow the simple guidelines.  He apparently has not. His current filing lacks some basic donor information as well. But, don’t take my word for it.  You can see the whole report here.

Also, Mr. Lowry seems to be accepting illegal contributions from corporations including $7000 from his own corporation Bunny Hills Assisted Living.  The FEC has sent a letter to Mr. Lowry’s campaign asking him to return the contribution and report it as returned. You can read that letter here.

However, in the Pre-Primary filing Mr. Lowry fails to report any returned corporate checks. Why hasn’t Mr. Lowry given back the illegal donations?

Despite being in the race the longest, his campaign only reports $4662.85 on hand.  He has received a total of $31,502.23 this cycle. During this reporting period, he raised $5633.90.

Based on his report, I think another letter from the FEC is inevitable.

Dona Milo: She has been a very impressive fundraiser.  She is the newest candidate to the race. Despite being new to the race, she has raised  a whopping $40349.26 this cycle. This reporting period she raised $9225.06 and she has loaned herself $15,000 on August 13th.  She is here to play and has nearly $25,000 on hand.

Milo, like Lowry, received at corporate check of $1000 from Becai Electric. However, unlike Robert Lowry, she refunded the check averting an illegal contribution and escaping an FEC investigation.

Karen Harrington: Like Milo, Harrington entered the race late; announcing her campaign in February. Since than, she has had a very respectable fundraising operation.

She has raised $93,428 from donors.  Harrington has also taken her candidacy very seriously loaning her campaign $86,000.   I always respect candidates who are willing to put their own cash in the race; how can you ask folks to give if you yourself will not?  Harrington, like Milo, is a small business owner and this amount is very substantial for her I’m sure.  I commend her commitment.

This reporting period she raised $12,220 and she has $27,963.12 cash on hand.

With these numbers, here is my diagnosis:

Lowry:

Campaign’s Health: Weak; donations seem not to be coming in despite being in the race the longest. He doesn’t have enough cash on hand for even one mailer to all the Prime voters.

Candidate’s Character: I am discouraged by the fact the Mr. Lowry has not refunded the corporate donations yet. It is also shocking that he can’t find someone who can learn to properly file the FEC paperwork. How can he run a congressional office when he cannot file FEC reports properly?

Support in District: The fundraising numbers are dismal. If he has a strong base of support, Lowry should tell them to start donating.

Milo:

Campaign’s Health: She is running strong and is a real contender in the Primary.

Candidate’s Character: I am very impressed that Ms. Milo returned the illegal corporate donation. Her filings are complete and clear; a fine trait in a candidate.

Support in District: Based on her impressive fundraising numbers, I have to assume that she has had a swarm of support surge quickly.

Harrington:

Campaign’s Health: It seems that her campaign is stable, and donations continually come in.  She has raised the most money and therefore can do the most during the Primary. I would say that makes her a frontrunner.

Candidate’s Character: She has never submitted an incomplete filing and she has never accepted an illegal donation. Overall, she is clean and principled.

Support in District: Again, she has raised the most from the most amount of people.  I would be inclined to assume that she has the largest base of support.  Again, if I was a gambling man, I would put my money on Harrington.

Overall, these filings are very telling.  Voters have the right to know how candidates raise money and they also have the right to know where most voters are placing their donations.