Obama's Loathsome War on WWII Vets Deserves Our Scorn and Fury

I'm sure you've all see the reports. WWII Veterans asked the White House for permission to visit the World War II Memorial in case of a shutdown. The veterans are part of the Honor Flights program that helps aging veterans visit the WWII Memorial.

Even though there's no cost involved, the White House chose to dishonor the veterans' request. It send forth "goons," in Senator Paul's works, to erect barricades around the memorial. The White House posted armed guards to keep the veterans at bay.

A Republican member of the House of Representatives went out and removed a barricade. The veterans flooded in. Some in wheelchairs.

Only a contemptible, loathsome snake of a man would use WWII veterans--in their late 80s and 90s--as political pawns in his game of dictator.

This is a man who brags of being a "Constitutional Scholar," then tells the American people that Congress is not allowed to choose what it funds. He knows better; he's lying.

This is a man who brags of being a "Constitutional Scholar," but insists that laws upheld by the Supreme Court can never be altered or abolished. He knows better; he's lying.

Loathsome. Despicable.

Democrats should realize they can reject Obama's reptilian ways without leaving their party. They can, for once, put human decency before party loyalty.

And Republicans should take note. When a leader of our party exposes himself as a poisonous snake, run away.

UPDATE: WWII Veterans from Toledo, OH, were told they'd be arrested if they attempted to approach the WWII Memorial.

The White House is playing with fire, now. And its lost the PR battle.

Tomorrow, Andrea Plunkett of Kansas City will escort 90 Missouri WWII Veterans on an Honor Flight to the Memorial. Stay tuned . . .

Shutdown Week Could Turn Into Big Win for Republicans

"I shouldn't have to offer anything."  Barack Obama on why he's shutting down the government. Obama keeps forgetting he's not a dictator. Or maybe I keep forgetting he is.

20130930-192349.jpg

Did you see that list of government shutdowns?

1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1995.

Those first four shutdowns came with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.

And none of them affected the next election. None.

John Boehner just gave the speech of his life on the floor of the House. He demonstrated what a belligerent, spoiled child Obama is. He explained what fair means. He described the numerous concessions and attempts to negotiate initiated by the Republicans.

And every single outreached Republican hand came back slapped by Obama and Harry Reid.

Why?

Because Obama and Reid want a shutdown.

Let them have it.

Just don't stop reminding people that the House has passed three bills to fund the government. All three bills reflected the will of the people. All three bills were less than conservatives wanted.

And all three bills were rejected by Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Tell @BarackObama to stop acting like a tin-horn dictator and start acting like a man.

BUT . . .

If the House caves and passes a "clean" CR, 2014 could look like 1974.

How the Condorcet Method Could Save The GOP

The RNC’s Autopsy report wants to do away with caucuses and conventions, replacing them with regional primaries. But I’ll propose a different reform that will make candidate selection more interesting, whether in a caucus or a primary.

A Word About The Autopsy

The idea of compacting the primary season and eliminating caucuses has some merit, but also a lot of downside. On the plus side are splashier events to showcase the party, fewer Tuesdays littered with politics, and, believe it or not, some economies as candidates can focus on one geographical region at a time. On the downside are some scary issues, like eliminating insurgent candidates, cutting out activists and grassroots, and favoring candidates with huge war chests. In short, the system would favor Establishment candidates.

FreedomWorks and other grassroots groups are furious over the the recommendations. They see the report as an attempt to eliminate the grassroots from the process, letting big money candidates favored by the Establishment to run the table quickly.

But I think a more basic problem with the presidential candidate selection system is the way we vote. I mean, aren’t you sick of seeing grassroots voters split their votes among three or four or six candidates allowing the Establishment’s candidates to skate through?

What If We Had To Vote On Every Candidate?

Instead of choosing one person from a field of six, eight, twelve candidates, why not vote for each pair of candidate in a head-to-head race?

Yes, each voter will need to punch more chads or touch more buttons, but each decision should be very quick. Here’s what it might look like, using some presumed candidates for 2016.

Let’s assume these are the candidates in the Missouri primary in 2016:

  • Rand Paul
  • Marco Rubio
  • Chris Christie
  • Paul Ryan
  • Ted Cruz
  • Bobby Jindal

Under the current system, voters select one candidate and move onto the next race. But under the Condorcet method, each voter would vote for each pair:

  • Paul vs. Rubio
  • Paul vs. Christie
  • Paul vs. Ryan
  • Paul vs. Cruz
  • Paul vs. Jindal
  • Rubio vs. Christie
  • Rubio vs. Ryan
  • Rubio vs. Cruz
  • Rubio vs. Jindal
  • Christie vs. Ryan
  • Christie vs. Cruz
  • Christie vs. Jindal
  • Ryan vs. Cruz
  • Ryan vs. Jindal
  • Cruz vs. Jindal

I realize that I just turned one vote into 15 votes, but I’ve also forced the voter to actually think about each possible pairing. Additionally, voters will actually stack rank the candidates, which could be invaluable information for VP selection. And it really won’t take much longer to get through the list.

A Condorcet Sample Scorecard

The Condorcet winner would be the candidate with the lowest maximum votes against.  In a precinct with 200 votes cast, here’s how the scorecard might look:

image

Jindal wins with the lowest maximum votes against.  In other words, Jindal is unacceptable to the smallest number of voters. Put another way, Jindal has the lowest negatives when actually comes to voting.

Rand Paul came in second, followed by Rubio, Ryan, Cruz, and Christie.

(For the record, I just made up these numbers. They don’t reflect my expectations of an actual vote.)

Condorcet Voting Gives Insurgents A Chance

This voting method would allow the RNC to impose its regional primary format while negating some of the advantage of big money. Think about it.

Suppose the RNC favorite is Chris Christie. He goes into the primaries with lots of cash and buys lots of ad time. He has the highest name recognition by far.

In our current system, people walk in, scan the ballot, see the name they recognize, and punch it.

In the Condorcet system, they can’t do that.  They actually have to look at each name and compare Christie to every other candidate.  Since most voters are low-information voters compared to the readers of this blog, this may be the first time they realize a person they like is even on the ballot.

And because the winner is the candidate with the lowest votes against in any match-up, Christie is likely to rack up a high votes against total in at least one of the match-ups.

This gives insurgents a chance because name recognition alone isn’t enough to run the table.

Best Of All, Condorcet Eliminates The Problem Of Divided Votes

Do you really think Romney would have won the nomination if we added up the voters who didn't want him?

No. Romney won because conservatives (of various stripes) split their votes across a range of preferable candidates. In most of the early primaries, Romney never got above 30 percent. Romney was nobody’s second choice, but no other one candidate was anybody’s first.

In the Condorcet method, you get to vote for all your preferred candidates. Plus, as in the example above, you get to vote against Chris Christie five times in one day!

The Condorcet Method Spices Things Up

Besides leveling the playing field and forcing voters to actually consider the pairings, the Condorcet method would breathe new life into the system.

Sure, some will balk at the extra votes to cast. Many people hate to think. But we really don’t want them voting, anyway.  Not in a primary.  Caucuses weed out the casual voters because of the time and energy commitment.  Primaries make voting too easy.

By making voting a little harder, you’re going to favor the true base of the party and discourage the casual or cross-over voter from messing things up.

Injecting a little thought into the voting process will make primaries a big more like caucuses, punishing candidates with high negatives, and rewarding candidates to appeal to the the broader base, not necessarily the broader electorate.

I say let’s give this a try in 2016.  What do you think?

Here Is Exactly How The Special Election To Replace Jo Ann Emerson Will Be Conducted. (We Think)

I’ve gotten a lot of emails and comments asking for more information on the special election process in Missouri’s 8th Congressional District. So I went to the smartest person I know about this stuff: Frieda Keough. Here’ what I learned:

Eddie Justice, the Chair of the 8th Congressional District will call a meeting. Anyone wanting to be appointed to run for the 8th Congressional District shows up at the meeting and will be put before the committee.

Eddie Justice will call the meeting probably two weeks after the Governor calls for a special Election, once JoAnn Emerson resigns, probably February 1, 2013. The special election can be anytime between April and August. Eddie will call the meeting for nomination no less than two weeks after the announcement by the Governor.

This is what I was told by Eddie Justice. The MRP office in Jeff City told me that I had to write a letter with my information to Eddie Justice. Eddie did not say that.

How Does This Differ From Regular Elections?

1. No need for candidates to file with Secretary of State (as far as we can tell). Candidates just show up at the committee meeting and plead their case.

2.  Therefore, no petition drive is necessary.

3.  No primary campaigning, but there will be an election between the party nominees.

4.  No primary election, so people who want their views heard will have to express them to committeemen committeewomen between now and about February 20.

5.  Since the committee people ARE the party, “the party” has complete control. But, this crop of committee people are believed to be far more grassroots and far less establishment than in years past.

Here’s the OFFICIAL Story From MRP’s Press Release

Frieda gave a lot more detail and her source is Eddie Justice, the guy who will actually preside over the committee meeting.

Still, you should know what the Missouri Republicans said in a press release today:

The process for selecting a replacement: The following process will occur once a vacancy is declared (in this case, it will not be until February):

Once the Governor and Secretary of State are notified of the vacancy, the Secretary of State will have 24 hours to notify the 8th Congressional District GOP Committee.

The Governor will select the date for the election, and according to RSMO 21.110, he must provide at least 10 weeks notice.

Once the 8th Congressional District GOP Committee is informed of the vacancy, the Chairman of the committee will call a meeting of the committee to select a Republican candidate to run in the special election. The meeting must occur within the congressional district, and a majority of members of the committee must attend in person.

What we don’t know is the method of voting in the committee meeting. It’s possible that the committee will decide those rules and procedures at the meeting. If I learn more, I’ll post it.

In the meantime, I’ll leave with one more pearl from Frieda.

All seems pretty loosey goosey and could be open to different interpretations.

I can’t argue with that.

 

How To Maximize Your Election Influence

Here's What To Do Today And On Election Day Tuesday is the most important election of your life, but voting is never enough. You can have a bigger impact by using social proof to increase your influence. I'll tell you how, and it won't take you long.

First, though, make sure nothing gets in the way of exercising your duty to vote.

Studies have shown that you are more likely to vote if you answer these questions before Election Day:

  1. Do you see yourself fulfilling your duty to vote? (Answer "Yes." Write it down.)
  2. What time do you plan to vote? (Write it down.)
  3. Where will you be coming from? (Work, home, etc. Write it down.)
  4. What will you be doing immediately before you go to vote? (A meeting at work? Dropping the kids off at day care? Write it down.)

Have a friend who might not vote? Ask him these four questions, and he's more likely than not to show up at the polls. But don't ask these questions of friends if you don't know they'll vote right.

Immediately After Voting

Voting empowers you with remarkable influence and credibility. You'll waste that power, though, if you don't put it to work. Here's what you need to do immediately after voting.

For each candidate or issue you support, tweet: "I just voted for [candidate] for [office]. [hashtag] #stltpc #election2012"

Examples:

I just voted for @MittRomney for President. #POTUS #stltpc #election2012

I just voted for @EdMartin4Mo for Attorney General. #MOAG #stltpc #election2012

I just voted No on Prop A. #PropANo #stltpc #election2012

Next, repeat the process on Facebook in a single post, but omit the hashtags. Studies show that twitter-style hashtags turn off Facebook users, making them less likely to Like, share, or comment.

Tell People You Voted

Finally, tell 3 people you voted and for whom. Check this out:

Even when we control for alternative sources of similar behavior, such as having the same income, education, ideology, or level of political interest, the typical subject is about 15 percent more likely to vote if one of his discussion partners votes [emphasis added].

Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2009-09-09). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (p. 185). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

You've just maximized the power of voting. Your influence will spread to at least 3 degrees of separation reaching hundreds or hundreds of thousands of people, depending on how connected your network is.

Which Barack Obama is Right?

  A genius is someone who can hold contrary concepts simultaneously in mind.

What, then, do we call a person who simultaneously argues two contrary concepts?

obama

How ‘bout “demagogue?”

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama told America’s business owners that they are not responsible for their success.  “Someone else built that.”

Today, the same Obama told Mitt Romney that there not many people who consider themselves victims.

Does Mr. Obama believe that people in dire straights are not victims of circumstances? It seems so. Obama’s telling us that if you succeed, it’s because someone else helped you, but if you fail, you fail on your own.

If that is Obama’s meaning, then his idea of cradle-to-grave government dependency would be, simply, immoral. You don’t systematically reward people who repeatedly fail.

I’d like to welcome Mr. Obama to the world of people who believe we are masters of our domains. But we know Mr. Obama is a demagogue, arguing both sides of the same point to secure himself another four years of dictatorial rule.

 

Apathy

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

--Albert Einstein

It’s easy to blame the subject for our apathy.  The candidates are uninspiring; the colors are dull; the task is boring.

Blaming the subject is easy because it relieves us, the objects, of any responsibility.  “I can’t make Romney less WASPy.”  “It’s not my fault that the issues don’t interest me.”

Of course, there’s another way to look at things.  We can ask what we can do, what we can make possible. We can stop worrying about the subject and start worrying about the object. 

If you’d like to motivate and educate your object, you can start at the 3rd Anniversary Tea Party next weekend.

What Do Presidential Debates and Colonoscopies Have in Common?

At some point, each additional GOP Presidential debate becomes just a bigger pain in the . . . But science shows us that the last debate before a vote—and the last memorable event in the last debate—is paramount to how we remember the entire event. 

In fact, memorable moments at the end, not consistent performance throughout, determine who wins and who loses.

In this awesome TED talk, Nobel winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains the weird difference between our experiencing selves and our remembering selves.  And his research offers very important information for candidates and campaigns:

http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf

If you want to win, forget the experience; own the memory.

That’s why you can predict primary results from the last debate when the candidates are close and a lot of voters are only mildly committed.  (There’s a lot of great information about how committed minds defend their decisions, but that’s for a later post.)

Whether writing a blog post, planning an event, giving a speech, or just engaging in a conversation, the audience’s memory will not be the sum of the experience, but the memory created.  As Kahneman points out, memories of colonoscopies are better when the unpleasant experience lasts longer.

Newt Gingrich won South Carolina’s final debate and its primary. Then, Newt under performed in Florida’s final debate . . . and now he’s losing ground to Romney. Just like a protracted colonoscopy.

BONUS:  Candidates and parties worry about the spin as much as they worry about the presentation for this exact reason. The media itself determines who wins a debate, too, by dominating memory.  Most people don’t watch debates or major speeches. They get a summary from the news.  And that summary is designed to influence their memories. 

P.S.  I will be talking about the brain science of winning elections on Saturday, February 25, at the 3rd Anniversary Tea Party.  Don’t miss it.

The Two Key Roles in Social Media Activism *Update*

Have you ever studied human networks? I’m not talking about online social networks alone, but any kind of human network.

They’re amazing.

inmap

Networks tend to determine who we date, who we marry, and where we work. Our lives are more influenced by networks than we can imagine.

A network community can be defined as a group of people who are much more connected to one another than they are to other groups of connected people found in other parts of the network. The communities are defined by structural connections, not necessarily by any particular shared traits.

Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2009-09-09). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (p. 12). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

Most importantly, though, networks determine who wins elections.

A large body of evidence suggests that a single decision to vote in fact increases the likelihood that others will vote. It is well known that when you decide to vote it also increases the chance that your friends, family, and coworkers will vote.10 This happens in part because they imitate you (as discussed in previous chapters) and in part because you might make direct appeals to them. And we know that direct appeals work. If I knock on your door and ask you to head to the polls, there is an increased chance that you will. This simple, old-fashioned, person-to-person technique is still the primary tool used by the sprawling political machines in modern-day elections. Thus, we already have a lot of evidence to indicate that social connections may be the key to solving the voting puzzle.

Christakis, Nicholas A.; Fowler, James H. (2009-09-09). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (p. 181). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

Old fashioned, retail politics—knocking on doors, canvassing—creates human social networks.  By looking someone in the eye, you connect with them.

As Nicholas Christakis pointed out, Obama didn’t win because he connected with voters; he won because he connected voters to each other.

The After Party is how we’re beginning to build that network. One person acting alone is necessary but limited. One person acting in concert with one hundred others is powerful. Two or three 100-node networks quickly become invincible.

Above is my LinkedIn network. On the right is work. The orange is Tea Party. (Yes, I’m pulled in many directions.)

Seeing one’s network graphically helps you understand just large and important your networks are to getting anything done.  To give you some perspective, my Facebook network is at least 3 times the size and complexity of this one.

A recent study on social media confirmed and elaborated Christakis’s work. It found that two key social media roles can launch revolutions:  recruiters and spreaders.

Recruiters are highly influential starters, originators, movers.  They are not necessarily tightly connected to many people.  They are, however, connected and influential among very important types of people: spreaders.

Spreaders are connected to people with lots of connections.  They know lots of people. They have lots of Twitter followers or facebook friends. More importantly, their followers listen to them and respond. These are the people Malcolm Gladwell called “Connectors” in his fabulous book The Tipping Point.

From the research:

Researchers followed the posting behaviour of 87,569 users and tracked a total of 581,750 protest messages over a 30-day period. They found that the growth of the movement was driven by two parallel processes: the recruitment of users, started by early participants who provided what the study calls 'random seeding'; and the diffusion of information, which made the movement grow from those roots by means of the 'spreaders'. The latter were more central in the network not necessarily because they had a higher number of connections but because they were connected to others with equally good connections

Revolutions and movements start when a recruiter calls for a new action. Then the spreaders spread the call. People (nodes) in the network repeat the call. People start showing up—on the Arch steps on a cold February Friday.

Then the signal jumps to other networks. Recruiters in these other networks relay the signal to their own spreaders who pass along the call to action.

The Tea Party failed in 2010.  No doubt about it.

The reason The After Party is so crucial right now, is that networks, not heroic individuals, will win the 2012 primaries, caucuses, and election.  If you’re not in a network, your influence is diminished. If you’re part of a network, your power is magnified.

Sign up here for the exclusive After Party mailing list.  You’ll connect to all the right people.

UPDATE  I forgot to make a key point.  Each of us must be either a recruiter or a spreader. Lurkers—those who simply observe—make up the vast majority of people on the internet.  So, if you see something important on Twitter, retweet it.  If you see an important blog post, tweet it or like it on Facebook.  Post comments on blogs and Facebook posts.  Get involved.

MoveOnUp.org was never supposed to happen

MoveOnUp.org co-founder Christopher ArpsThis weekend, MoveOnUp.org held its first conference. The location was the Crowne Plaza Hotel at the airport. The event launched the Sherman T. Parker Scholarship for African-American Political Science students. But that’s not the big story.

The big story is this:  MoveOnUp.org has cheated history.

Why “cheated?” Because the past 50 years of American liberal history has prepared American blacks for one purpose: compliance.

Using victimhood, welfare, crime, destructive education, and programs designed to destroy families, American liberals from Ted Kennedy to Barack Obama chained African-Americans to “Uncle Sam’s Plantation,” as Star Parker so aptly puts it.

The entire statist system, in fact, was designed to prevent blacks from ever realizing their personal or community potential. 

But this weekend in St. Louis, a network of African-American conservatives threw off the chains of government limitation.  Fighting through a barrage of racial smears—Uncle Tom, Sambo, self-haters—these champions of human dignity cheated history, defied their Democrat Party masters, and planted their flag in the heart of dying Civil Right Industry, Inc. ™

Adding insult to statist injuries, Martin D. Baker—a Navy veteran and conservative warrior—announced his intention to unseat 1st District overlord, Lacy Clay.  Here’s the announcement.

I could not be more proud than I am to have witnessed history change. Congratulations to Chris Arps, Martin Baker, Stephanie Rubach, Andre Harper, Stacy Washington, and everyone else, including attendees, who have begun restoration of the American promise.

Choosing Battles

For the record, I do not apologize for focusing on the most important battles facing self-government since the American Revolution. choose 1 red pill or blue pill

Earlier this week, McGraw Milhaven of 550 KTRS criticized Tea Partyers for not opposing Missouri legislation, introduced by and championed by Republicans, that will force insurance companies to cover treatment for children diagnosed with Autism and associated conditions.  (I personally oppose this legislation, by the way.)

Before that, a few Tea Partyers criticized me and others on facebook  for not doing “enough” to support the Missouri Healthcare Free Choice act, which recently passed both the House and the Senate. The Healthcare Free Choice Act will be on the August 3 ballot, making Missouri the first state in the union to hold a binding referendum on ObamaCare. (I support Healthcare Free Choice Act and will actively support passage of the referendum as time permits.)

The Tea Party’s Focus Has Been Federal

In spite of our work on state and local projects, the Tea Party movement didn’t come about to address Autism or state referenda. The Tea Party was born, according to my records and memory, to change the federal government, first by resistance, then by changing Congress.  Others described the movement as “a ten-round fight ending with a knock-out on November 2, 2010.” From my first reaction to the Tea Party of February 27, 2009:

The Tea Party was only the first step in a march that ends with a Congress that understands that America is not a land, it’s an idea. That idea is that human beings are the best judges of what will achieve happiness.  Free to follow that judgment, some will fail, but more will exceed their wildest expectations.

Now, I’m not the official mouthpiece of the Tea Party movement in St. Louis or anywhere else.  But a lot of people did ride to the sound of the drums Dana Loesch and I were beating in February and March 2009.  Nowhere in that rhythm did we pound out state legislative issues.  Here was my most exhaustive thoughts on the purpose of the movement from that period.

More recently, at the newspaper’s invitation, I wrote something of a vision statement for the movement on the Op-Ed page of the Christian Science Monitor. Again, I focused on the federal government.

While many local tea party organizations involve themselves in local or state issues and races, the movement’s primary interest lies in Washington. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans distrust the federal government, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among tea partyers, that statistic is closer to 9 in 10. That’s important because it highlights a very important common theme: a libertarian view of Washington’s role.

States Have Limited Power Against Congress

Maybe you think that we should focus more on Missouri legislation and less on electoral politics. Fine.  But federal law usually trumps state laws,and this White House will fight this Missouri law at every turn.  The feds might do so unconstitutionally, but Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama couldn’t care less about our Constitution.  Nor could Elena Kagan, for that matter.

I am focused on changing the government in Washington because that government has become destructive of and abusive toward the people and the state of Missouri.  Missouri laws cannot stop Washington until we change the people in Washington. It’s as simple as that.

The Tea Party Must Focus

The Tea Party movement is comprised of mostly ordinary people with little spare time or money. We fight an enemy that’s funded by the richest billionaires on earth. (And this battle isn’t new.) We can either focus on one battle and win it against the odds, or we can diffuse our focus get our asses creamed from Maine to California.

In The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)

I learned that even massive amounts of money (and four billionaires pumped $10s millions into a few  races in Colorado in two cycle), changing political tides is very, very difficult.  Without money, disciplined focus is paramount.

We have far more people on our side than the progressives in Colorado had on theirs.  We have the numbers to make this work. And we have the passion. We do not have the people, the time, the money, or the energy to change everything at once. We can change Congress in 2010.  We can improve Congress and change the White House in 2012.  By 2014, we’ll start seeing a difference in the courts. By 2020, we might see a budget surplus and diminishing national debt.

But we won’t see any of these wonderful goals if we split ranks and fight 57 enemies.  And we sure as hell won’t win if we keep fighting each other.

Focus on Washington

Elena Kagan might be a socialist.  She might also be an all-out Commie with a picture of Chairman Mao tattooed on her left rump.  Unless ten Democrat Senators turn against her, she will be voting on whether Missouri’s Healthcare Free Choice act can be enforced.  And there’s nothing we can do about that.

The reason there’s nothing we can do is because a leftist President is calling the shots, and his party controls both houses of Congress.  Nothing that happens in Jefferson City, Missouri, will change that.

But we can do something about the future.  We can make Kagan Obama’s LAST socialist Supreme Court appointee.  We can do that by getting conservatives elected to Congress.  In Missouri, in Illinois, in Kansas, Oklahoma, Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, Wyoming, Colorado, and everywhere else.

I didn’t help form Ensuring Liberty because I was bored with too much time on my hands.  I did it because we need something like the NRCC formed by and operated by Tea Partyers.  That’s what Ensuring Liberty is.  We help get people who resemble Michele Bachmann and Todd Akin elected to the House.  It’s noble mission and I wish you’d join us.  While you might live in a safe district, America needs your time, energy, and money in other districts, maybe other states.  It doesn’t matter where the 216th vote for ObamaCare came from.  We need 290 votes to pass a veto-proof repeal of ObamaCare.  Two hundred ninety.  We need 67 Senators, and we have 41.

Don’t Forget Home

Please don’t think that I don’t care about home.  I do.  I care enough about St. Louis and Missouri and Illinois to fight the Washington invader that threatens everything we have.  I want the Missouri legislature to be more important to us than the US Congress is.  I want the right Missouri candidates to win on August 3 and again on November 2. In no way should anyone turn their backs on our local races in 2010.

But our attention to state races must be proportional to the candidates’ needs and the importance of that office.

John Kennedy, when running for President, was accused of buying the White House with is father’s money. (His father was billionaire Joseph P. Kennedy.)  At a Gridiron dinner, Kennedy said:

I have just received the following telegram from my generous Daddy. It says, "Dear Jack: Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.”

So win all the important races. Win a with an uncontestable margin. We need a landslide of races won, but we don’t need a landslide in any one race.

The Enemy Is In DC

Until Washington cuts spending, eliminates entitlements, balances its budgets, and obeys the law of the land, we must focus on taming that beast. Yes, we will keep an eye on Missouri politics.  We will support smart legislation and oppose stupid things.  But we cannot turn our backs on the most important Congressional elections in US history in order to pass or oppose bills in Jefferson City. At least I can’t.

Now, to those who have worked so hard on Missouri legislation this past year, thank you.  Thank you and congratulations. You have made a real change to our lives—change for the better. I just hope you’ll understand that with the limited time and energy I have, I feel my calling is in helping conservatives take back Congress. If we don’t do that this year, we might not get another chance.

Now, let’s get to Block Captain training, grab our Pocket Constitutions, and go out there to win one for the Gipper.