As Bob Dylan wrote the times they are a-changin'. The campaign model that work for republicans in the past will not be as effective in the future. The internet has had a larger impact on this than most of us would have predicted. If the Barack Obama campaign in 2008 is not evidence enough of this, with his rumored 13 million email adresses, consider that the largest online fundraising day was set by a little known congressman from Texas who managed a marginal showing in the majority of Republican primaries.

When I undertook the challenge of launching a new club for young republicans in the Bronx I opened up my MacBook and did a little research on young republican clubs. I looked at not only on the existing local New York City area clubs but other clubs and federations around country. I wasn't just researching ideas for our website but also ideas on how to make a well rounded and active club. Unfortunately what I saw was not only disappointing but appallingly bad efforts by local clubs and state federations alike. Not that the national federation was any better.

How bad is it out there? 17 state federations have no website. Alaska's YR Federation website still has Frank Murkowski listed as governor of the state even though Sarah Palin has been the governor for over two years. The Texas YR Federation website has links that have been dead for over a year. California's federation isn't even listed has having a website by the Young Republican National Federation. If that isn't bad enough consider that Ohio, a swing state in the three previous presidential elections, is a federation without a website.

What does it say about republicans if our national and state federations auxiliaries can't manage to put up websites or keep even the most basic information up to date? Is it that we don't understand the value of the internet or is just laziness?

Over the past four years the functions of websites have moved beyond just providing information towards hubs of social and business networking where people engage one another individually. It is time for us to take it to the next step. Political networking.

It is unlikely that more than a handful of local young republican auxiliaries would have the means to create the sort of websites we saw from the Paul or Obama campaigns. However this is exactly what we should expect from the state federations. None of the state federations offer websites that have a networking component. Most don't even use a content management system. Few offer regular updates such a blog or calender.

I'm not sure what the future holds for the Republican Party but I do know if we don't bridge this gap that has emerged in the last election we will continue to struggle in state and national elections. We have to make a better effort to present our message online because younger people are trending towards the internet to gather their information on politics. This divide won't be closed solely by a better online presence but it will continue to broaden if they can't find us, and we can't keep then engaged, when they come looking for our message, candidates and auxiliaries.

The times they are a changin' and so must we.

In her brief time in the national spotlight, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, if nothing else, has rejuvenated the debate in this country regarding certain fundamental values. Interestingly, not all of this stems directly from the candidate's spoken statements but rather from a number of comments made about her by her Democratic counterpart Senator Joseph Biden.

From comments made on Fox and Friends mentioned in an Associated Press article titled “Biden says Palin family is off limits to critics”, voters learn that, to the Delaware Senator, government and politics are the ultimate and perhaps only source of values, truth, and hope.

In analyzing Palin’s acceptance speech, Biden remarked, “I didn’t hear the phrase ‘middle class’ mentioned. I didn’t hear a word about healthcare. I didn’t hear a word about what we’re going to do about the housing crisis, college education, and all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now.”

Maybe these things were not mentioned because for the most part they are not much of the government’s business. If anything, government involvement for the most part tends to exacerbate the problems in these perplexing areas.

For example, why is it the government’s responsibility (and thus ultimately the taxpayer’s) to bail you out of bad real estate investments? By subsidizing education to such an extent where it is available to just about everyone whether they really want it or not, its value has been undermined to the point where a bachelor’s degree may actually signify less actual learning than a high school diploma from previous generations.

Traditionally each social sphere oversaw the affairs in its own domain and exercised caution when venturing into the waters overseen by the neighboring spheres (especially if the one doing the intruding was the government). However, to liberals such as Biden, now as the government reaches into additional corners of our lives in the name of supposedly making our lives better, ultimately government and politics will be the only sphere that remains or be the sphere that ends up controlling all the others even it terms of the attitudes that these institutions will be permitted to express.

If the Obama campaign wants to refrain from commenting on the propriety of the daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate being expectant with child outside the bounds of marriage, that is the prerogative of the Obama campaign. After all, there are platoons of the far more deviant in the Democratic Party such as Chelsea Clinton who has been shacked up for years living in what used to be called “sin”.

However, though Obama might think he hands down stone tablets from on high with Biden taking them to the people as some kind of 21st century Moses, to say what the press and the people can and cannot discuss hints at a theoretical usurpation of the First Amendment even more offensive than an out of wedlock pregnancy or a recalcitrant segment of the public that does not sweep under the rug the moral values they have been taught simply because they have become an inconvenience to the elites that have set themselves up on a level above the rest of us.

The American people, through opinion-forming institutions such as the media, churches and now the blogosphere, must be the ones to decide for themselves this weighty ethical concern. For while the only right decision is to keep the baby, there are some so progressive in their outlook that they would ship to a Khmer Rouge-style reeducation camp anyone that does not reflexively embrace these new reproductive fads where the baby shower. To some of us, to takes a while to debate the consequences for any potential parental shortcomings when minors become parents before they properly ought.

There is indeed forgiveness and restoration in Christ. However, most of the time those stepping into these challenges are not up for consideration for one of the nation’s most solemn offices.

by Frederick Meekins

Let's get one thing straight.  The government and its misguided housing policies caused our current financial mess.  And, as a result, the government should help fix it.

That said, exactly "what" should have been fixed, "how" and for "how much" are the right places to focus our attention.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure everyone knows exactly how we got in this mess.

The origins lie in the Clinton Administration's misguided attempt to raise the percentage of homeowners in America by forcing banks to give loans to people with, shall we say, less than stellar credit, (those "sub-prime" mortgages you keep hearing about).

The Democrats keep repeating the mantra that the financial crisis is the fault of the Bush Administration and Republicans. When is McCain going to hit back and lay this mess at the feet of those who created it and refused to do anything to control it? Bill O'Reilly ripped into Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, last night for blaming everyone but himself and accepting no personal responsibility for this mess. In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

How many people are aware that John McCain supported a proposal for oversight of FMAE and FMAC in 2005 while Democrats refused to support it and wanted approval for more suspect mortgages? McCain and Palin should hit the Democrats over the head with this until they knock them silly! See: http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-supported-a-proposal-for-...

The bill was shot down by DEMOCRATS! Shove this right down their throats, talk about the push by Democrats during the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people who were not qualified to receive these loans. Repeat as many times as necessary that the very groundwork for today’s problems are rooted in Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act , and that in 2003 President Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis and was blocked by Democrats on party lines. Keep slamming Obama who has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000. Barack Obama and his allies took the money and, for years, did nothing to resolve the credit crisis.

John McCain needs to push back against the way the media has painted this as the fault of Republicans, including McCain himself. If he continues to roll over and say nothing about this, McCain will go down with the ship.

Come on John! Fight with me, stand up, fight with me! Fight!

Barack Obama is starting to make a dirty habit out of playing the race card during this presidential campaign.

As noted over at Politico.com at Jonathan Martin's Blog, Obama made comments while campaigning yesterday in Missouri, which were obviously thinly-veiled accusations that the McCain campaign and the Republican Party are using, or are going to use, race in their strategy to defeat the junior senator from Illinois.  Obama stated:

"What they're going to try to do is make you scared of me.  You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

When pressed on the issue, the Obama campaign put out a denial about their candidate's intent:

An Obama spokesman denied that the line about "dollar bills" was
related to the Democrat's race and the campaign said today that they
don't believe McCain is using the race issue.  Obama aides didn't
directly respond to the accusation that their candidate was doing the
same.

Hmm... So Obama was really just trying to say that the McCain '08 campaign has intentions of using the fact that Obama doesn't wear pouffy-collared shirts and powdered wigs against him?  Gotcha...

Obama Press Secretary Bill Burton went on to say the following:

"Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they’re using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he’ll continue to talk about."

If that's the message coming from Obama's campaign staff, they need to do some serious work on getting their messages coordinated with the candidate himself.  It was just over a month ago, June 20th, while campaigning in Jacksonville, Florida, that Obama levied this previous charge of racism against the Republican Party and the McCain Campaign:

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their
stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.  We know what kind of campaign they're going to run.  They're going to try to make you afraid.  They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and
inexperienced and he's got a funny name.  And did I mention he's black?"

Once again, just what was the comment made today by Obama's press secretary?  Seems it was something akin to... "Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue"?

Kudos go out to President Bush today as he has gone on the offensive on two of our most critical issues we face right now in America.

It was announced on Monday that Bush signed an executive order requiring all contractors who do business with federal departments and agencies to utilize an electronic verification system to check that all workers are eligible to work in the United States.  Not only will this system snare people working who are in the country illegally, but it will also catch those who have overstayed visas and those who came here legally, but are not allowed to work in the U.S..

As a worker verification bill has stalled in the Democrat Congress, President Bush is to be commended for taking such a common sense approach to finding solutions to this national crisis.  

To help us convince our national leadership how important it is to get this crisis resolved, please visit StopAmnesty.net and sign our petition!

Secondly on Monday, President Bush took the occassion of his departure for his final U.S.-E.U. summit to speak to the press from the White House South Lawn on the need for us to tap our vast domestic natural resources to help solve our expensive energy problems.  Bush stated:

"The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market," thereby easing gasoline prices for hard-working Americans," President Bush said on Monday.

He reminded Congress that he has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Continental Shelf to domestic oil drilling -- something that would "help us through this difficult period."

Sometimes it seems that life's most difficult problems have some of the most simple, easily attainable solutions.  It makes you wonder sometimes, just how common 'common sense' really is!

Now that Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it's time for him to answer some questions about where he stands on the issues that are important to the American people. Here are my questions for the senator:

First, you have made withdrawing US troops from Iraq the top priority of your campaign saying that you want all "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Are you still committed to this deadline for removing troops from Iraq regardless of the military situation on the ground? Are you going to ignore our own military commanders including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said your position could take "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight"? What are you going to do once our military forces have been withdrawn from Iraq should Iran and Al-Qaeda decide to take action to overthrow the Iraqi government by force? Do you not believe that US troop withdrawal will be seen as a huge victory for these two entities who have stated on more than one occasion that they see Iraq as the pivotal battleground against democracy and Western values? You have said that you would move US military units to other countries in the region so that they could quickly "re-deploy" to Iraq if necessary. Where, exactly, are you going to relocate our military? Are you willing to pay twice in American blood and treasure for military victories that we have already achieved? As Commander-in-Chief, these are difficult decisions that you will have to make. What is there in your background which suggests that you have the experience to make the military decisions necessary to safeguard America's interests in the Middle East and the rest of the world? You have promised that once you are elected you will reduce our military strength, you will cut spending on missile defense, and you will cut funding for future weapons systems. Do you believe this a wise course of action during a time of war and increased terrorist threats to America?

Secondly, we have heard about your personal relationships with terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who, as members of the Weathermen in the 1970's, bombed government buildings and attempted assassinations of US Army officers, and continue to say that they have no regrets for their actions and wish they had done more. Additionally, you were a member of the Trinity United Church for more than 20 years and attended many sermons where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright proclaimed the nonsense that America invented the AIDS virus to exterminate black people and that the government introduced crack cocaine into African-American neighborhoods in order to imprison black people. Your "spiritual advisor" (your description) also vehemently stated that we should not say, "God Bless America" but, rather, "God damn America" because ours is an evil nation. Reverend Wright has also praised the race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and the terrorist group Hamas. And, although you have recently resigned your church membership from Trinity United, you have not renounced the black liberation theology advanced by your former pastor. In fact, it was only after Father Michael Pfleger, another who you claim helped shape your moral views, made racist remarks from your church pulpit about the evil of white people and described America as, "the greatest sin against God", that you decided to leave Trinity United. However, you also said, "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church", adding, "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them". It sounds like you are leaving the church for political reasons only. Why can you not denounce a church which puts forth racist, anti-American sentiments? Do you or your wife who says she is "proud for the first time in my adult life to be an American" share some of these feelings? We still have not heard about all your dealings with Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord who donated $10,000 to your campaign from an alleged crooked kickback scheme and is now on trial. What are we to make of all these troubling relationships you have had for many years with terrorists, racists, and indicted crooks? You have promised a "change" in the political atmosphere but you appear to be just another politician who will associate with anyone who can help advance your career. Where's the change?

Next, you have proposed a "Global Poverty Act" which would give more than $845 billion of US taxpayers' money to other nations over and above the billions that we already give. You have said that, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to the elimination extreme poverty". I am afraid, Senator Obama, that the American people will be the ones experiencing extreme poverty once you have enacted all of your big government programs. In addition to a government-run health care program (estimated cost of $100 billion), you have also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program to establish a "green energy sector"; a $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to construct and repair highways, bridges, and other infrastructure; a government sponsored college loan program and federal pre-K nursery school program; more tax dollars for illegal aliens, giving them amnesty and allowing them to have drivers licenses, Medicaid and Social Security benefits; and a $340 billion tax credit benefit. And there's more…lots more. To pay for all of this, you have proposed a $2 trillion tax increase on all individuals (not just the "rich") and an increased corporate tax rate which is already one of the highest in the world at 40%, including federal and state taxes. You are also in favor of raising the capital gains tax rate to 20-25 percent. How is all of this going to help an already struggling American economy? Are you not afraid, Senator Obama, that your big tax-and-spend initiatives will drive the economy straight into a recession?

Also, despite your claims of support for the Second Amendment rights for Americans, you have pledged to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons". You have stated that the DC law which prevented citizens from defending themselves was "constitutional" and you refused to join with 55 other senators to support the Supreme Court case opposing the DC gun ban. In 1996 you supported "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" in Illinois. In 2004 you voted against the DeMar self-defense bill to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes and businesses. The bill was overwhelmingly voted into law despite a veto by the governor. You were one of only 20 state senators to vote against the bill. You have been endorsed by several anti-gun groups including the deceptively-named, American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). It appears, Senator Obama, that you believe American citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. How do you explain your anti-Second Amendment comments and actions?

On the cultural front, there is not a single issue on which you have broken with the positions of left-wing interest groups - from gay marriage, to abortion, to legalized drugs. Although you claim that you oppose gay marriage, in 2004 you said that you opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which was meant to prevent gay marriage from being imposed on the country without the consent of the American people. Shouldn't the people, rather than unelected judges, decide on the definition of marriage? You received a perfect 100% voting rating from NARAL over the past three years and you have stated that you oppose "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions". You have also said that you support partial birth abortions. If you are elected president will you attempt to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003? How do you feel about the millions of babies who have been put to death by abortion? Also, you have admitted to using drugs in the past and you say that you favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Do you or do you not believe that drug use is harmful to our children? If you believe it is harmful why would you want drugs to be more readily available?

You have expressed your intent to name justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter - judges who have made decisions based more on their personal, political and moral views than on constitutional and legal principles. You said that you want judges who have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old". You voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts - one of only 17 nay votes (all Democrats) - justifying your opposition by saying that difficult cases should be decided by "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy". As a lawyer, do you believe that issues should be decided based upon constitutional and statutory language? Or, should a judge make decisions based upon personal feelings? Do you believe that the will of unelected judges supersedes the votes of the American people?

Finally, you have made "hope" and "change" the centerpiece slogans of your campaign, promising fresh national unity and a higher purpose. The national media and young people, especially, love your idealistic rhetoric. But are you the unifier who you claim to be? Your voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate and you were rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, a non-partisan publication. Your policy agenda is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's or any Democratic nominee since George McGovern. The change that you advocate seems to be nothing more than a reversion to the failed big-government policies of the Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson administrations. If you are truly a unifier, which liberal policies are you willing to compromise for the sake of unity? What bi-partisan legislation are you prepared to support?

So far you have avoided answering any of these questions. The Democratic Party has nominated for President a freshman Senator with barely three years of national experience who most of America still barely knows. You are the least tested and least experienced nominee for the presidency in modern times. Are you prepared to do more than obfuscate, dodge and ignore the tough questions? America needs more than a smooth-talking, politically-correct, empty-suit President. What American voters want to know, Senator Obama, is who are you? Who, really, are you?