It has become a family tradition to attended the Waukesha Republican's "Victory" party at the Country Springs Hotel.  Various local candidates stop in and give a pep talk along with Waukesha Republican leaders. This year most of us hoped for good news but were braced for the bad.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner addressed the crowd first. He quipped something to the effect that after 8 years of Democrats blaming President Bush for everything, with them in charge of the legislature and the White House, we'll be able to pin the tail on the donkey. (Donkey being the symbol for democratic party.)

I am not so sure anything will stick, but I enjoyed the imagery.

Next up was Congressman Paul Ryan. I think most Republicans in the room see Ryan as the future of the Conservative movement. Ryan outlined a path for the next few years that went something like this: Stand up for what you believe in. Work with Democrats when they are going in the right direction and when they're wrong, propose alternative solutions. (My emphasis) 

Congressman Ryan, if you recall, came up with a plan to reform the entitlement problem of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, called "A Roadmap for America's Future". The Democrats just ignore the impending insolvency of that costly trio.

Last to speak was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He too urged that Republicans present clear, conservative alternatives to liberal tax and spend policy. He is living proof that conservatism, when properly communicated, will sell even in very Democratic territory!  The key was presenting that conservative message in a clear and concise way--something almost everyone in the room knew the McCain campaign never did. 

As John McCain gave his concession speech the room was quiet. Not much disagreement when McCain said "the failure is mine." There was cheering when he thanked Sarah Palin.

The road ahead is steep, very steep, for true conservatives. But Scott Walker is living proof that people will support the conservative message if it is presented clearly enough.

I fear most Republican politicians and party officials still don't get it.

These might be of interest: It was a great victory - but not for the Left and

It made me feel better: PALIN 2012 RYAN
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I've been wondering about this for some time. Are some independents reluctant to voice support for John McCain because they don't want to take flack for supporting the Republicans? Democrats have incessantly talked against George Bush during this election cycle, as if they are running against him, even though George isn't running.

Amongst African Americans, I think there is a Bradley effect. Remember J.T. Harris telling McCain that he was taking a ...whipping for supporting McCain? J.T. continues to feel the heat.

The Investor's Business Daily poll isn't as hopeful for McCain today as it looked yesterday, but Obama still isn't 5% points ahead of McCain or above 50%. There are still 9.5% not sure. Are they really not sure or are they just not saying?

One interesting sidebar, there is another segment obsessed with George Bush. al Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": (Hmm, I wonder who they want to win?)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting...

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama or Republican John McCain.

...Others say his [Obama's] planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

The only real poll that matters is the vote tally on election day. Go out and vote.

PS From Drudge: Interesting question: Can Obama win popular vote but lose election? And do remember that the early exit polls favored Kerry in 2004.

Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote.

But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too.

If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way — both big ifs — that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yet, there are those supposed Republican elitists who look down their noses at her with disdain. Some go as far as throwing their support to Barack Obama. Can someone who says they are a conservative or Republican really be for Barack Obama? Does that ring true?

Well, to put it in local context, it rings about as true as former Republican Mayor Kate Bloomberg and husband Frank Urban* endorsing Democrat Jim Sullivan for State Senate over incumbent Republican Tom Reynolds in 2006. From my Bloomberg's endorsement shows her true "blue state" colors:  

... in Bloomberg and Urban’s opinion, the Democrat they are endorsing is running to serve and represent the people of the 5th district effectively, “whether they are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between”. Think about that. How is that even possible? On every major issue, I disagree STRONGLY with that candidate’s position.

How is it I would be satisfied with him [Sullivan] representing me? How could a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believer in lower taxes, pro voter photo ID, anti-benefits to illegal aliens, fiscal conservative like me ever be represented by someone whose platform is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, opposed to voter photo ID, opposed to requiring welfare recipients to prove their legal US status, and pro-taxation?

Any Republican espousing those liberal values would be an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. But then, I asked myself, how well did Mayor Kate reflect my values? Not very well. So, why would I give any credence to her endorsement now?

And so, I give the same credence to these elitists' criticisms of Gov. Sarah Palin and endorsements for Barack Obama. Come to think of it, Obama's platform is much the same as Sullivan's--so just substitute the elitists names for Bloomberg and Urban and Obama for Sullivan. The issues are the same.  

There was a great editorial in Investor's Business Daily Friday, Palin and the Elitists. It contrasts those "Republicans" who don't approve of Palin with others who do and the reasons why.

They [the elitists] all seem to no longer connect to either the heartland or a new kind of leader who didn't make her way up through elite colleges or through a husband's or father's connections. Maybe that's too hard to absorb for those who inhabit the stratified, elitist political ecosystems of New York and Washington.

Those who say she isn't ready haven't bothered to "gather evidence of her 'unreadiness' ." "Their dismissiveness sharply contrasts to others [such as Bill Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Steyn] who've tried to find out who Sarah Palin is.  They find it impossible to dismiss her."

The editorial concludes with, "Maybe Palin's straightforwardness and promises of reform threaten some among the conservative commentariat. Bad news: If John McCain and Palin win this vote, they're in for a long four years".

The Republican elite didn't like Ronald Reagan either. When he ran, they dismissed him as nothing more than a B movie actor. History proved them wrong.

*I was unaware that Frank Urban passed away on Saturday when I posted this piece. My sympathies to his wife Kate and family. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

We value education in the United States. Parents often make sacrifices to send their children to good colleges. But do you know who is teaching your child? Do do you know what your young adult is learning at their school?

More and more information is coming out about William Ayers, the self proclaimed terrorist, member of the Weather Underground that bombed the Capitol, Pentagon, and police headquarters, and professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago. A terrorist, whose only regret about the bombings was "we didn't do enough," a college professor?

William Ayers has been in the news because of his connection to Barack Obama. I recently learned that Ayers hired Barack Obama to help distribute $50 million to Chicago schools, not to promote test scores or math, but to promote radicalism. 

In Ayers own words, he glorifies rebellion, "What is that spirit that we want to connect to? That spirit of rebellion, that spark of resistance, that spirit of insurgency." (Thanks Fairly Conservative) Don't you wonder what Ayers teaches in his classes?

Depending on the school, major, and class, some students are subjected to non-stop radical ideas and a strong liberal bias. UW-Madison is often referenced as the Communist Mecca of the Midwest or some variation on that theme. (Teachers stuck in the rebelious 70s was even spoofed in An American Carol.)

Often the bias isn't just in the classroom. Republicans at UWM found school policies to be different for them than for the Democrats when it came to voter recruitment. The Union told Republicans they couldn't even hang a poster! (I believe that has been remedied.) Last fall UWM tried to keep the Conservative Union group from bringing in former PLO member from speaking on "Why I Left Jihad."

I have heard students call up conservative talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity asking, what can they do about radical leftist teachers. If the student expresses his true conservative beliefs in an essay or on a test, they are penalized in their grades. Usually Hannity advises them to play along. It is still frustrating for the student.

But what about the student who doesn't even realize he is being proselytized?  

Talk to your college students about their classes--especially if they are taking classes such as sociology, philosophy, or history. You might be shocked at what their teachers are telling them. 

P.S. Radical agendas go on in elementary and secondary schools too. A Milwaukee school was reported to have Obama and donkey kicking McCain in the head posters in the halls. A Racine school is using Barack Obama's book in a class. Just this week School Field Trip to Teacher's Lesbian Wedding Sparks Controversy, but I'll save these for another day.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

On the news yesterday, I heard that John McCain and Sarah Palin will go to La Crosse Friday after their stop in Waukesha on Thursday. I think that is a good move. McCain will also be in Mosinee, WI, and Palin in Wilmington, OH later on Thursday.

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin said she wanted to go back to Michigan--she wasn't giving up on that state. That is good news for Michigan since The GOP in Michigan is still trying to "boost efforts" in the state.

I just heard about this PAC group, Our Country Deserves Better. They aren't willing to give up Michigan either. In fact, they are holding a 2 day web-a-thon to raise $500,000 by Thursday morning. In their first day, they raised a little over half of it according to their CONTRIBUTE NOW page.

Their logic is that if McCain just gives Michigan up, Obama won't need to spend any time or money there.

The 17 electoral votes will be lost to Obama/Biden.  Down-ballot races of candidates sympathetic to McCain will lose.  And Obama will be able to take money he had intended for Michigan and put it into other swing states such as Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Missouri.

We might be focusing on the presidential race, but the president isn't the only candidate on the ballot. The entire House is on the Nov. 4th ballot, and 36 Senators are up for election too.

The thought of an unbridled Democrat majority House and Democrat majority Senate with a Democrat President is enough motivation for citizens to shell out $254,000 (so far) to help Michigan. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

(See updates at bottom of post)

The word is, John McCain will declare his running mate tomorrow. I have come to terms with voting for McCain. To quote a colorful little saying of my father's, "He's a little better than the average...but the average ain't so good these days." The more I find out about Obama, the better McCain looks.

I think as long as he doesn't pick a real loser of a running mate, most conservatives like me will take a deep breath and vote for McCain on election day. The fact that a number of pro-choice candidates have been hinted at however, such as Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman, to me destroys all the positive ground McCain gained since he became the Republican's candidate.

If McCain picks Lieberman or any other pro-choice running mate, I guess I will need an oxygen tank to keep me going on Election Day!

There is one V.P. possibility that excites me: Alaska's governor Sarah Palin. She is young, energetic, pro life, pro gun, pro small business, very pro oil...what's not to like? I doubt Democrats will bring up her lack of foreign policy experience because that would just point to Obama's lack of experience too. She's a mother of 5, her oldest son enlisted in the Army; her youngest was born with Down's Syndrome. So unlike Romney, who has changed his position, she truly believes in the sanctity of life and has demonstrated that by her actions. (Just so you know, I would be just as excited by her if she were male.)

Mitt Romney would be OK with me too. His speech on faith and his concession speech last spring were outstanding. He is pro-life enough for me and I know he would defend our freedom of religion, even though I don't share his faith. Many people do not see Romney in a favorable light however.

Tim Pawlenty's name has been out for a while. He would be good. He is young, pro life, and fairly conservative, but he is hook, line, and sinker an ethanol promoter. (What can you expect in Minnesota?) He comes from humble roots, so that would be a nice contrast. Since Pawlenty was for McCain all along, there would not be the 180 degree flip flops on McCain being a good president as Biden has had to do with Obama.

Another name tossed out there is Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator from Texas. She does not excite me, but at least she isn't a Lieberman or Ridge.

Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindall would be great too, but they are just a little on the young side for most people. (Next time?) 

Any of the above would be better than a pro-choice pick.

What I don't understand is why McCain would even flirt with the idea of a pro-choice running mate? It is pretty obvious that the pro-life issue is important. To many voters it is the #1 criteria.

Eyebrows are still rising over Obama's vote on the Infant Protection Bill. Others agree that a Pro Choice Veep Equals Political Suicide, (My emphasis)

I hate to rain on John McCain's parade right after he trounced Barack Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church forum, for which I heartily applaud him, but McCain's trial balloon consideration of a pro-choice running mate demands a response.

The prospect of an Obama presidency is so horrifying that many conservatives have temporarily put aside their misgivings about McCain to focus on defeating Obama.

They hold their noses on McCain's immigration record, his campaign finance reform zealotry and his newfound acquiescence to the propaganda narrative of environmental extremists. But they are profoundly appreciative of his tougher stance against tax increases and mindful of his undeniable superiority over Obama on foreign policy and national defense. Recent world events, including Russia's naked aggression against Georgia, magnify this already-glaring contrast.

But while national defense necessarily occupies the front burner, McCain would make a fatal mistake to assume that social issues, especially abortion, are ever off an equally blazing front burner for an inestimable number of social conservatives, the Republicans' most reliable voting bloc over the past three decades.

The pro life issue still has traction. Why give it away?

Because of McCain's age, the running mate becomes an even more important issue. Plus, wouldn't it be great to have a strong V.P. candidate that could step up when McCain fulfilled his term/s? 

In the meantime, I'm holding my breath and thinking, don't make a colossal blunder, McCain! 

UPDATE: After Barack Obama's speech tonight, the word on Fox News was that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty would be meeting with McCain in Ohio tomorrow. Other sources had a longer list of VP possibilities. Ugh, I hate waiting.

Friday morning UPDATE: Mitt Romney will be in Ohio, Tim Pawlenty is not the pick and is not coming to Ohio, Mike Huckabee said he was not vetted (phew), but there is mention of a private charter flight to Ohio from ALASKA! (Jay Weber) Drudge has a campaign button mock up with McCain Palin on it big as life. 

2nd Friday update: Fox News says it is not Mitt Romney. 

3rd Friday update: My hopes are dashed. Rumors of Palin being in Ohio are said to not be true. ABC says she is in Alaska and set to visit their state fair today. I suppose she could still be the pick? They could be wrong? I hope? There are other rumors that Palin has been spotted in Ohio--that a woman and 2 teens got off that Alaskan charter flight last night. The announcement will come at 11am today--at least I can exhale then.  

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna