NARAL Enables Pro-Lifers Put Faces to the Movement

As NARAL lobbies the U.S. Senate, they have created a vehicle for pro-lifers to advance their cause. NARAL asked supporters to e-mail in pictures which would be automatically added to their flicker account. Pro-lifers quickly took advantage of this opportunity to spread the message of life, and very quickly the account was flooded with pictures telling a pro-life message. For more information and to take advantage of this effort to help spread the message of life, go to the following link.

Bob Marshall's Case to Ban Gays from the VA National Guard

Shortly after the U.S. Senate voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, Bob Marshall said he would introduce a bill blocking gays from serving in the VA National Guard. This quickly lead to criticism from people on both sides of the political spectrum as people argued Virginia did not have the constitutional authority to make that decision. Bob Marshall has stood firm in his decision, and recently explained how the states have the constitutional authority to determine who joins the ranks of its national guard.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story noted in his Commentaries on the Constitution: "Thepower over the militia ... was limited, and concurrent with that of the States. The right of governing them was confined to the single case of their being in the actual service of the United States ... . It was then, and only then, that they could be subjected by the general government to martial law ... . The power to discipline and train the militia, except when in the actual service of the United States, was also vested exclusively in the States; and under such circumstances was secure against any serious abuses."

In Virginia, the National Guard denies applicants who have more than five traffic tickets or if they use drugs. States can impose tougher standards than Congress. Will state legislators and congressional Republicans listen to the troops and their constituents?

While I can not support the legislation until there is a written version, something needs to be done about the relentless push to make Americans unquestionably accept as normal, and embrace a lifestyle that is morally repugnant. While people may argue allowing gay people in the military is no big deal, it is one battle in the assault on traditional marriage and families. If we keep surrendering the battles, we will lose the war.

To quote Tom Seeman a long time member of the LCRC, and Precinct Operations Chair in 2009.

Likewise, the debate about gays in the military is about a lot of things, but military readiness isn’t one of them. Progressives couldn’t care less about either military readiness or the institution of marriage. What they want is to force the acceptance of the gay lifestyle on society. They want it taught in the schools, they want it instituted in law, and most of all they want to silence all debate on the issue.

How Desperate is George Allen?

In less than two years Virginia will have a competitive election for U.S. Senate. It appears George Allen is all in as he fights to reclaim his old seat.

Regardless of your opinion on state central's decision to nominate our 2012 U.S. Senate candidate through a primary, the timing of the vote seemed to be politically motivated. While people were originally being told state central would vote on that issue in March, suddenly days before the November meeting Mike Thomas, a close George Allen ally, moved the vote to that meeting. While Mike Thomas denied the timing of the vote was politically motivated, a long time Allen ally ramming through a vote that would help George Allen seems to be a very political move.

As if setting the method of nomination in his favor weren't enough, it now appears George Allen is trying to clear the field of primary opponents. Corey Stewart is planning to run for U.S. Senate. He recently made some critical comments about a George Allen candidacy. (One of few high ranking elected officials to do that.) Days after making those comments, the Washington Posts that Corey Stewart may face a primary challenge in 2011. A few more days pass and we learn that George Allen may be behind this primary challenge.

Appearances suggest George Allen is setting the method for the nomination contest, and clearing the field of opponents. This smacks of some one desperate for power. George Allen has a record and connections. He should be using them to build support, and lay out a bold message for why we should support him, not manipulating the system so that he is the only option we have.

Corey Stewart Takes on George Allen

Now that 2010 is over attention is turning to the 2012 Senate elections in VA, and the effort to unseat Jim Webb. In a recent interview Corey Stewart points out the difficulties George Allen will have running for U.S. Senate. Both men are currently planning bids for U.S. Senate. Bob Marshall, and Jamie Radke are also currently running for the nomination.

Cuccinelli Supports Making Conventions Financially Viable

The State Central meeting at the Advance this weekend will be about one thing. Conventions. Cuccinelli is proposing party plan amendments to make conventions more financially viable. These have been debated and discussed by party activists since they were first unveiled in the summer. As a supporter of conventions, I support Cuccinelli's efforts. Bill Bolling and Bob Marshall along with others are opposing them.


The other issue is that it seems Mike Thomas and others have decided to force a vote for a primary at the meeting. Bob Marhsall who seems inexplicably on a warpath against conventions is also supporting the vote for a primary, even though that will insure that he loses if he runs for U.S. Senate. Apparently he has a proxy and will be voting for a primary at the meeting on Saturday.


I will post more about the primary vote later. For now, here is Ken Cuccinelli's statement on the party plan amendments he is proposing.

MEMO – PARTY PLAN AMENDMENTS TO BE VOTED ON AT 2010 RPV ADVANCE
From: KEN
CUCCINELLI
TO: MEMBERS OF RPV STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

This memo is intended to share my perspective on the content and purpose of the two party plan amendments being proposed that will increase the financial viability of conventions as a method of nomination for statewide offices. These amendments to the party plan are being proposed in light of the 2009 convention, which left RPV with lingering financial obligations.

1. The first proposal being put forward is to allow the party to charge up to a $25,000 filing fee for candidates for all statewide offices.
2. The second is to allow the party the option of charging pre-file fees to delegates to attend conventions. The number being put forward is no more than $50 per delegate.

My reason for supporting these concepts may seem counter-intuitive. When you think of an entire nomination process - including the campaign itself, not merely the nomination election day - a very large convention filing fee, e.g., $25K for a candidate for statewide office will cost much more than a primary filing fee (approximately $4,000), but running a convention campaign can be done for a fraction of the cost of running a primary campaign.If you compare the cost of the 2009 Cuccinelli/Brownlee/Foster convention to the candidates – about $1 million total, to the cost of the 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary to the candidates – about $5 million total, it’s clear that even with significant filing fees, conventions provide the lowest cost access to a realistic, competitive nomination.

By increasing the likelihood that conventions will end up in the black financially, they will be even more viable as a nomination option. Following this page are some questions I’ve encountered about the need for these proposals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are these fees helpful?

In an ideal world, we would not have to charge fees at all in order to run for public office. Personally, I am in favor of keeping the bar to entry for candidates to enter nomination contests as low as possible. However, because the 2009 GOP Convention resulted in a financial loss for RPV, it would be helpful to make changes so that the State Central Committee can vote for conventions without serious concern that it will send the Party into the red.

Won’t these fees make it more expensive for longshot or low dollar candidates?

No, exactly the opposite. While these fees represent a significant increase from the 2008 and 2009 conventions, they are still significantly lower than the cost of running a statewide primary. For example, in 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary cost both candidates a combined total of around 5 million dollars, whereas in 2009, the convention contest for the same office cost less than 1 million dollars.Conventions are, by far, the cheapest method of nomination for statewide office. By far.If conventions are not more reliably financially viable – the alternative (primaries) will shut out many candidates who otherwise would have had a realistic shot in a convention.

Won’t delegate filing fees keep people from attending the convention?

While charging a fee for delegates to attend a convention is undesirable in some circumstances, it doesn’t mean it will substantially lower the turnout. For example, the 1978, 1993 and 1994 GOP conventions were the largest conventions in Virginia’s history, yet in all three the Party charged a pre-filing fee for delegates.

Will the Department of Justice approve these changes to the Party Plan?

Maybe. This is something that we will only know when an approved party plan amendment is submitted to the DoJ. Based on a case that arose in Virginia, the courts have said that delegate fees would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act. This is one of those that we just won’t know until we try.

Is there any alternative to charging delegate and candidate fees?

At the moment I believe these are the two simplest alternatives. Voluntary contributions to the party to help offset the cost of conventions are the other most obvious alternative; however, it may be dicey to rely upon that approach to generate the necessary revenue to pay for the event.It is important to remember
that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.ant to remember that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.

They Should Have Read the Bill...

The story of the healthcare bill was the story of backroom deals, thousand+ page long manager amendments forced on the full floor at the last moment, avoiding the committee process, etc... Al this resulted in congressman being unable to read the bill (something RPV helped Congress with), and inevitably things were surprisingly included and omitted from the bill.

The best known mistake was Democrats omission of coverage of preexisting conditions for children. There was also the exemption of House and Senate staff from the bill.

However some conservative was able to sneak in $250 million in funding for abstinence education. I'm sure Democrat activists wish that aspect had been stripped from the bill. I tip my hat to the conservative with the spine and ability to include this funding in the bill.

Health Care Reform Vote Today... UPDATES

Schedule for the day... *note: "Deem and Pass" has been shot down by Dem. leadership and will not be used.

1pm - House Convenes

5-6pm - "Rules" vote: If the House clears the rule, they can move on to the next of the three important votes that will take place today.

8pm - Senate Bill vote: Note that for this vote and the next, the Minority and Majority leaders will actually be managing their respective sides when the bill hits the floor. This is unusual, as normally, the committee chairs do the honor.

9pm - Reconciliation Bill vote: After the Reconciliation vote, look for an unrelated vote, as you never want to end the day on a controversial bill in case of a miscount or other hiccup that may require Congressmen to be present for a recount. It wouldn't be good for half of the Congressmen to be boarding planes to head back home when you decide you need a recount!

For more interesting facts and tips on how to understand the procedures going on today, I would recommend going to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Healthcare".

Also, watch LIVE what happens on the Hill on CSPAN.

UPDATE 4:02pm: Bart Stupak has reached a middle ground with the President who declared that he would sign an executive order which would clarify the abortion language in the bill, therefore Stupak and his "block" have switched their votes to "yes". TEXT HERE.

UPDATE 7:08pm: Rules passed 224 yea, 206 nay. Roll Call HERE.

UPDATE 10:47pm: Senate version of bill passed 219 yea, 212 nay. Roll Call HERE.

UPDATE 11:04pm: Voting on Motion to Recommit HR 4872.

UPDATE 11:07pm: Motion to Recommit failed.

UPDATE 11:35pm: Reconciliation Bill passed 220 yea, 211 nay.

"Freedom dies a little bit today." Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

Cross posted @ WCTRC

Scott Brown for U.S. Senate

A month ago noone would have predicted this, but now almost everyone is saying that Scott Brown, a Republican will probably win today's special election for Massachusetts Senate seat. All the recent polls have him leading significantly, and many people are describing Martha Coakley's campaign as being in freefall. It was a campaign filled with gaffs and mistakes by Coakley in the final weeks, and increasing support for Brown from conservative activists around the nation. Hopefully when all the votes are counted Brown will be the winner, and Obama's healthcare plan will be dealt a major blow as Senate Democrats lose their 60 vote majority.

Marco Rubio, Someone who is Unafraid to be a Republican

In Virginia this year we elected Ken Cuccinelli, someone who was unafraid to run as a conservative and is unafraid to govern as such.

In 2010 we have that person in Florida with Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio is running against Charlie Crist for the Republican nomination for the 2010 Florida Senate race. In the following video Marco Rubio advocates a Republican party that stands up for conservative principles and runs on center right conservative values. Rubio is a conservative, he can win, and Republicans across the country need to stand with Rubio.

Newt: "We need leaders like Michael Williams"

Besides Ken Cuccinelli, one of the other rising conservative stars is Michael Williams of Texas who is running for senate. I hope you will join Newt Gingrich in supporting him in his senate run.

________________________________________________

Dear Friend,

Having been a part of the last effort to retake the congressional majority, I am convinced we don't have to wait 40 years this time to regain power. Democrats in Congress offer the same old, tired recipe of Democrats past -- big government hand-outs, bloated bureaucracy and big-time deficit spending.

The kind of change they offer is simply a return to the discarded practices of the pre-Reagan era.

Our problem is not that Americans are newly attracted to Democrat ideas, but that Republicans simply failed to live up to their own ideas.

Let me illustrate my point this way: while conservatives continue to embrace the conservative label, liberals have been re-marketing themselves as progressives. You can call a used car pre-owned all you want, but I will be just as worried about the engine going out.

We do not need to change our ideas, we need to live up to them. And when I talk about modernizing the Republican brand, I mean using tried and true Republicans principles in new ways to solve new problems.

The key to building a new Republican Majority is not simply branding Democrat policies as the destructive and discredited ideas of the past…but offering real alternatives that meet Americans where they are. And offering new leaders not bogged down by the old fights of the last decade.

We need conservatives willing to engage the Democrats on the field of ideas…willing to speak of a 21st Century conservatism…willing to stand and fight on principle. We need leaders like Michael Williams.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has already announced she will not run for the U.S. Senate again, and may resign her seat in just a few months to concentrate on her campaign for governor. As you can imagine, an open senate seat is a rare commodity, and people of both parties are kicking the proverbial tires to decide if they want to run.

But no candidate brings the energy, the proven conservative ideals, and the ability to take the liberals to task while rallying the grassroots of our party like Commissioner Michael Williams. Will you help send Michael Williams to the U.S. Senate with a contribution of $4,800, $2,400 or $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 right now?

As someone who has been elected statewide in Texas three times, Michael caught my eye by advocating the right energy policies for America's future. Unlike the liberals who want to bring fossil fuel exploration to a grinding halt and worsen the economic crisis, Michael wants to expand domestic exploration of both traditional fossil fuels as well as clean, renewable sources.

With regulatory authority over the oil and gas industry as Railroad Commissioner, Michael has strong credentials when it comes to both energy and the environment.

For too long, our party has ceded issues like the environment to the liberals. We are reaping the consequences of our own disengagement on the environment, education, urban renewal, and a whole host of issues liberals call their own.

Michael Williams would be a true game-changer in Washington. Not only is he an expert on carbon policy, he is an articulate spokesman for reforming education policy.

A former Assistant Secretary of Education under President G.H.W. Bush, Michael not only knows the importance of investing in technical subject areas like math and science, but he stood on the firing line as the lead official who opposed racial preferences in college admissions. Friends, for an African-American to stand up to the liberal advocacy groups on a combustible issue like racial preferences at the age of 37 shows rare courage.

But it doesn't stop there. As a member of the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael had a protective detail assigned to him after receiving a death threat for his prosecution of white supremacists in the South.

Rare courage has come to define Michael Williams. And such courage warrants our support.

I write to you today to ask for your contribution to Michael's Senate campaign. He is not exploring this race, he is in without reservation. Will you contribute $4,800, $2,400 or $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to the Michael Williams Campaign for U.S. Senate today?

Imagine the frustration of liberals in Congress debating energy policy with an energy expert, environmental policy with a knowledgeable conservationist, education policy with an education expert, and criminal justice with a courageous former prosecutor at the federal and local level.

They won't know what to do with someone who knows more about those issues than them, and who makes a conservative case for real reform.

As you know, I was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Conservative, Reaganesque principles still work in the 21st Century. But our party would be wise to refrain from rhetoric that sounds like we are tied to the past, and advocate a fresh conservatism that, while building on proven conservative principles, provides new ideas and new solutions for America's problems.

The Pelosi Congress is already doing its part to break trust with the American People, turning a stimulus bill into a pork-laden spending free-for-all. The Democrats seem to think that past Republican spending abuses gives them free license to triple the deficit and mortgage our children's future to Chinese banks.

This is fiscal insanity. The honeymoon will be over soon, and then we will be stuck with an amazing legacy of debt and wasteful spending for which this generation should be completely ashamed.

The first shot we can fire in response to the Democrats' spending abuse is to send Michael Williams to the United States Senate.

Will you help fund the first canon shot into the Democrats' firewall? Their fortress may look like it is made of concrete, but just past the outer layer there are large pockets of hot air. If we fight back with principled candidates like Michael Williams, their ivory towers will come crumbling down quickly.

So, what's it worth to you to prevent billion dollar daily interest payments on the debt? To prevent tax hikes on the order of $1 trillion? To elect a conservative who will fight for our values and help us take back the rhetorical turf on the environment, energy, education and the economy?

Is it worth $4,800, $2,400 or $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to you?

Interested, but not sure familiar enough with Michael Williams? Take just ten minutes, andwatch a portion of his speech to the Republican State Convention in Texas, which I also attended. You will be sold - that's all it took for me.

Let's get to work, and bring substantive change to Washington, not the sound bite version that is ringing so hollow today. Let's elect Michael Williams to the U.S. Senate.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. A conservative like Michael Williams comes along only so often. He has the rare courage of someone who has fought the tough fights at a young age. He can take back the Democrats' turf on issues like the environment, energy, education and the economy.

I support Michael Williams. Will you join me by contributing $4,800, $2,400 or $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to his campaign for U.S. Senate today?

Sotomayor: Precedent or the U.S. Constitution?

One of the things that stood out in today's round of Supreme Court confirmation hearings was the absence of the U.S. Constitution. I watched most of the questioning, and for someone who takes an oath to uphold the constitution she hardly mentioned it. She seemed to analyze court precedent when answering questions instead of explaining what the constitution had to say about the issues. She was even asked what criterion she would use to interpret cases dealing with the 2nd ammendment and property rights, and refused to explain that. It is shocking that she is unwilling to explain how she interprets the document she is supposed to uphold.

Also if you would like to get some analysis of the first day of the confirmation hearings go here.

Does Creigh Deeds Care if his Constituents Lose Their Jobs?

One of the biggest debates going on in Washington D.C. right now is on the Cap and Trade bill. The House of Representatives recently passed this totalitarian bill, and now we are waiting on the senate to vote on it. Throughout this debate Bob McDonnell has voiced strong opposition to the job that will kill jobs, raise taxes, increase government control, and do nothing about the environment. Ever since the vote in the House of Representatives Republicans have been calling on Deeds to take a position on this bill. So far Creigh Deeds has taken no stance on the bill. Deeds' silence on this bill is even more curious because according to a recent RPV press release,

"One of the MeadWestvaco plants in his own Senate district stands to be directly affected by this bill. Many of the workers at the plant may lose their jobs because of the increased costs that will be imposed on the plant if the bill is passed in the Senate."

Assuming this statement is correct (we already know this bill will hit rural areas hardest) Deeds silence begs the question, does he care if his constituents lose their jobs? If he really cared about his constituents wouldn't he fight tooth and nail against this bill? Deeds refusal to oppose cap and trade tells Virginians he prefers partisan politics and standing with the national Democratic party over fighting for Virginians best interests. The Warner/Kaine administration was marked by partisanship. This is the tradition Creigh Deeds has pledged to follow, and sadly he is taking it to a new low by allowing Virginia to lose jobs in his support for partisan politics.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child Undermines the U.S. Military

Recently Obama began pushing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In light of this fact I have been exploring different things this treaty will do to America if we enter into it. The U.S. Congress has a tendency to pass legislation without fully understanding what they are passing. I want to make sure this does not happen with the UN CRC.

One thing this treaty will do is undermine our own military. It does it in two ways: restricting army recruiters access to highschools, and limiting the amount of money America can spend on national defense. In California the UN CRC is being used to keep military recruiters out of highschools because they are encouraging people under 18 to join the military. While the courts have yet to decide on this issue, it is frightening to see how international law is being used to trump federal law once again. When it comes to military defense, the treaty expects everyone to agree with the notion that protecting children is the most important thing a nation can do. One application is the idea that if you aren't spending enough on your children as a nation you are clearly not protecting them.

National children’s health insurance and other social programs would be created in order to comply with the CRC. The U.S. would have to curtail defense spending in order to keep in proportion with these social expenses. To a western European country whose defense our military has subsidized for decades, this would have no major impact. But the effect would be devastating to both our economy and our security.

If you want to yield national sovereignty to an international body support the UN CRC, if you don't please contact your senator and the whitehouse and ask them to oppose passage of this treaty.

The UN CRC will Almost Eliminate Gun Ownership

Earlier this week I explained how the Obama administration was beginning to push the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a dangerous international treaty that will strike a devastating blow at American sovereignty.

Besides being used to undermine the ability to homeschool, the UN CRC will also undermine private gun ownership in America. Because the UN CRC is a self executing treaty, the UN interprets and applies it. People that advocate the UN CRC and its authors are clear that they believe gun ownership is dangerous for children.

And now we learn one more aspect of this charming treaty: guns.

Yes, guns. To put it bluntly, if you live in a community with children – and who doesn't? – you shouldn't have guns.

Allegedly the CRC's justification is to keep kids from becoming child soldiers in third-world countries. No argument from me. Afghanistan could use some lessons in raising kids.

But if the U.S. ratifies the CRC, then we must accept the UN's position to "believe, teach and promote the idea that all private gun ownership is dangerous for children, and children have the right to grow up in a community that is free from all guns" (emphasis added).

Those at the UN don't just believe in taking guns out of homes where childrens live, they believe they shouldn't be present in communities in which their are children. This is nothing short of an attempt to eliminate gun ownership. Dr. Michael Farris makes this very clear in his article "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:The Impact on Private Gun-Ownership in America." In the article he analyzes statements by the UN on children and gunownership. These statements include,

• In communities enjoying relative peace, children witness and are traumatized by the use of small arms and light weapons in domestic violence and in disputes. Children also become accidental victims because adults fail to keep the weapons out of their reach.
• Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life.
• Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children.
• Explore enacting bans on all handguns to civilians or certain cheap models that are attractive to youth

He points out that,

"Two crucial conclusions can be drawn from these assertions:

First, the UN intends to address far more than children in war; the object is to eliminate the “threat” posed by guns from the lives of all children whether their community is characterized as “in conflict,” “post-conflict,” “destabilized,” or “enjoying relative peace.” Guns are a threat “on the streets of cities worldwide.”

Second, the UN contends that the threat posed by guns violates the “human rights” of children."

and concludes that,

If the United States Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we will have become willing parties in a regime that obligates us to disarm our citizens, keep guns from children, and indoctrinate American children to believe in the utopia of world disarmament. This will cause our nation to surrender our own defenses and rest in the “security” of a world based on “individual and collective rights.”

Please join us in making it clear to the senate and the Obama administration that we believe in gun rights, and the UN CRC should not be adopted.

Sen. Sessions on the Rush to Confirm Sotomayor

Yesterday Pat Leahy the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that the confirmation hearings for Sotomayor will be moved up. Sen. Sessions the ranking Republican on the committee immediately took to the senate floor and delivered this excellent speech about the confirmation process.

Will Lady Justice Remain Blind?

Earlier I posted how Justice Sotomayor believes the predominant factor in deciding how to decide court cases should be personal experience, instead of case law. This was based on the Sotomayor quote that surfaced saying that wise Latina woman would make better decisions than white males as a result of the richness of her experiences. When the quote surfaced, the Obama administration responded by saying it was a poor choice of words. However, it seems Justice Sotomayor has a long history of saying things like this. As part of the files she gave the Judiciary Committee, there are a number of speeches which indicate that she has a long history of making these comments. She has a regular pattern of saying that experience enables a judge to make a better decision.

The idea of blind justice and equal protection under the law are some of the oldest concepts in American jurisprudence. If judges decide cases based on their experience then justice is no longer blind. We are ripping of the blindfold and dispensing with the idea of deciding guilt or innocence based on what the law says. Instead cases will be decided based on the background you came from.

In past judicial confirmations, much of the attention has focussed on the legal background a person brings to the table. This is important because we are giving someone a lifetime appointment to decide the law(or atleast that was the idea). By nominating someone who believes cases should be decided based on experience instead of case law, we are dispensing with the idea that legal experience is important. If we continue down this path, does it even matter if a supreme court pick attends law school? Maybe we should just find a poor oppressed minority in some homeless shelter and place them on the bench. I'm sure they have a rich experience to draw from to make decisions.

If you beleive that justice should be blind, and cases should be decided based on case law and not experience, then I hope you will contact your senator and ask them to vote against confirming Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Jeff Sessions for Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee

The following is an excellent post by Yankee Philip concerning an aspect of the fallout of Specter's party switch.

Call on the Senate Leadership. Tell them to remain "Robust".

Jefferson "Jeff" Sessions III is now looking to become the ranking member of the Republican Party on the Senate Judiciary.

There are calls from "establishment" Republican types to promote Chuck Grassley or Orin Hatch into that position.

If Grassley or Hatch get the job, it will take a "go along , get along" view of the party. Sessions is more likely to bring a leadership role to the position. He is more likely to take his job as leader of the opposition seriously. The others will more likely acquiesce to whatever Senator Leahy and his cronies recommend.

You know Leahy didn't bow down to the Republican majority. They fought tooth and nail. They fought hard enough to keep Sessions from the bench. Why should the Republicans do any less? Why should the Republicans become the lap dogs for the Democrats? Do we want another Supreme Court Justice that looks to Europe for guidance?

We need to urge Mitch McConnell to promote Sessions as the ranking member. We have to call Senator McConnell and let him know . We have to email him.

Mitch McConnell’s phone number is 202-224-3121. Video beneath the fold.. We must convince Senator McConnell to remain Robust.

Tedisco Concedes to Scott Murphy

On Friday Jim Tedisco conceded the contest for New Yorks 20th congressional district. After counting the votes Tedisco was down by 400 votes, and instead of dragging it out, he decided the proper thing to do was concede. In his concession speech he said,

“This was a closely contested election that perhaps lasted a little longer than anyone may have expected or wanted. Ultimately, it became clear that the numbers were not going our way, and that the time had come to step aside and ensure that the next congressman be seated as quickly as possible.”

This was a campaign I had the opportunity to work on, and I would have loved to see Jim Tedisco as the next congressman from NY-20. That said he worked hard, the vote counting was fair and accurate, and when he realized the votes weren't there he did the proper thing and conceded. While Democrats are trying to use Tedisco's concession to get Norm Coleman to concede in Minnesota, they are two different races. In New York the vote counting was fair and untainted. Minnesota was full of wierd practices like finding votes in the back of a poll workers car. Those are issues that have to be dealt with. Hopefully after everything is said and done Coleman will be retain his seat in the U.S. Senate.

For some excellent analysis as to why Tedisco lost click here. It is a very good reminder of the importance of sticking to principles over polls, something I hope McDonnell does this year.

For analysis of what this election means to the GOP as a whole click here.

Pat Toomey vs. Arlen Specter

In 2004 Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. With the help of Rick Santorum and President Bush, Arlen Specter won by just 2 points. Since being reelected in 2004 Arlen Specter has become very unpopular with Republicans for his stances. He did a poor job as judiciary chairman, allowing nominees to go without a committee vote for extended periods of time. However most recently he helped Obama pass his 787 Billion stimulus bill.

This and other actions have lead to a very negative opinion of Arlen Specter by Pennsylvania voters. In a Rasmussen poll released yesterday Pat Toomey lead Specter 51% to 31%. Specter's negatives 55% while Toomey's were only19%. These are pretty one sided polling results. If Toomey decides to run it sure looks like Obama will lose an ally, and one more RINO will no longer be in the U.S. Senate.

When it comes to liberal Republicans, a liberal Republican from a blue distrct is fine, but a liberal Republican who undermines his caucus like Specter has deserves to be primaried. I hope Pat Toomey is successful in 2010 and becomes part of an amazing Republican Senate class of 2010.

Chris Simcox to challenge John McCain for the US Senate

Ben Smith is reporting that Chris Simcox will officially announce his intentions to run against John McCain in a Republican bid for Senate in 2010. From a forthcoming release:

"John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation's borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness," Simcox said. "He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation's border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation's problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough."

Chris Simcox is the head of the Minuteman Project a group that is leading the effort to secure our borders. They recieved notoriety over the past couple year by being willing to patrol the border with Mexico that the federal government should be patrolling already. Chris Simcox is a real American who loves this country and will take some much needed commonsense to Washington D.C. To check out his campaign website click here. I hope he is able to defeat John McCain in the primary, and if we do not have a senate election in Virginia in 2010, I would love to go to Arizona to campaign for Chris Simcox.