|
Written by Alfred
Sanders
|
|
Thursday, 04 February 2010 22:24 |
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts raised eyebrows across this great nation and signaled changes in the political climate. Now the nomination of Mark Kirk as the Republican candidate for US Senate in Illinois this past Tuesday has raised even more eyebrows. Kirk, a US Congressman from Illinois’ 10th Congressional District has one of the most liberal voting records in the House. He was one of eight Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade, opposed the Iraqi troop surge and opposed expanded oil exploration offshore and in ANWAR. So what’s going on here? Some misguided Republicans saw Brown’s election as a signal that the tide was shifting back to their values, whatever those values are. The wiser Republicans saw Brown’s election for what it was, an indication that America is fed up with both parties. It was a signal to the Democrats, not the Republicans. The Republicans had already been handed their message in 2006 and 2008. Brown is a social moderate who supposedly believes in fiscal conservatism at the federal level and supports the concept that many of these social issues belong to the state and local governments. He opposes this one size fits all approach. Mark Kirk had six opponents in that senate race yet garnered 57% of the vote. Was this a vindication of his liberal ways? No. Many of the other candidates in that race did poorly because of budget constraints and thus had only local appeal. Patrick Hughes was the only potentially serious opponent Kirk had. Patrick was a true all around conservative who could have had plenty of appeal. So what went wrong? Hughes attacked Kirk on seven different issues. Obviously, three of those issues were Cap and Trade, oil exploration and troop surge, issues which resonated hard with most Republicans. But he also attacked Kirk hard on his stances on abortion, gay marriage and hate crime legislation. His web site boasted of nine different endorsements by right-to-life persons or organizations and no less than five well known conservative authors, talk show host and others who regularly push social conservatism at the public. He just couldn’t resist making these social issues part of the campaign. A full explanation as to the overwhelming support Kirk garnered is still a bit of a mystery but the parallels between what occurred in Massachusetts and the Illinois election are striking. The party and/or candidate who strongly embraced what is viewed as social issues lost. The resistance to the Democrats’ push for national health care cost them a general election in Massachusetts. Hughes' strong support for social conservative principals may have cost him the primary in Illinois. The ACP opposes social engineering by the Federal Government and issues such as health care, abortion, gay rights, etc, unfortunately are being used as political tools at the national level. The public is sick of listening to this rhetoric. The public wants to know they are safe and can make their own way in a free nation. This means concentrating on national defense and our economy. The voters of Massachusetts sent the Democratic party their message with Scott Brown. In the 2006 gubernatorial race in Illinois, Republican voters tried to send the party a message when a massive defection culminated in a protest vote against the nominee and propelled the Green Party over the hump to become the official third party in Illinois. It wasn’t a shift to liberalism, it was a message. The voters again appear to be reminding the Republican candidates in Illinois they are sick of the business as usual attitudes and will hold them to the same standard in Illinois as did the voters in Massachusetts. Now the question is whether they will understand the message. If they don’t and continue down this path of constantly tossing social issues in the face of the voters, it will pave the way for the ACP and similar movements and parties to replace the Democrats and Republicans with some common sense options. Barack Obama ran on the concept of change and the public embraced that idea. Unfortunately, the leaders of both major parties don’t seem to understand what kind of change the public really wants. It’s actually quite simple and an objective analysis of these elections and recent events tells the story - they want our leaders to get back to the basics, have some integrity, use some common sense and stop mortgaging our children’s futures with these huge deficits and if you want to promote social and moral values, that’s great, but promote it through your church or other non-profit organization and leave it out of our national politics. Sonny Sanders |
|
|
Written by ACP of Maine
|
|
Saturday, 09 January 2010 19:44 |
|
{Courtesy of The Patriot Caucus} Republican Scott Brown has become increasingly visible on the national political scene over the past few weeks. As the January 19th special election to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy draws near, Democrat Martha Coakley’s lead has slipped from double to single digits among several polls. A January 4th Rasmussen IVR poll has shown Brown within 9 points of Coakley as the survey of 500 likely voters, gave Coakley a 50%-41% lead.
With ten days to go, can Brown win the seat held for years by Kennedy in the most Democratic state in the country? The Democrats do not consider it a possibility, but many Republicans are hoping for a “Massachusetts Miracle.”
Like many states, Massachusetts is facing internal difficulties. Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick leads the state with a style that has not set well with many people and he has successfully led the state to increase its sales tax. Other Democrats, including the state House Speaker, have resigned from the state legislature over the past year as a result of scandal, giving voters the impression that they are out of control.
It is in this scenario that Brown has narrowed the margin between himself and Coakley. Will it be enough to close the final margin by January 19th? While the Republicans would like to think so, it will be very difficult. First of all, it is a special election where voter turnouts are historically low. Secondly, Massachusetts voters tend to get angry at individual politicians. Finally, Coakley has avoided making risky statements in her campaign that would alienate the voters. She is very popular with women and independents.
On Brown’s side, he does have momentum flowing in his favor, he has done very well in his fund-raising efforts and he is fiscally conservative. Throughout his campaign he has not been shy about denouncing the current administration’s financial and international policies.
This is a race that the Republican Party decided not to become heavily involved in. With decreasing donations and resources, the party is focusing on races where they are “for sure” in the running. The reason for making note of this is that Brown has closed the gap in the polls without the “committed backing” of the Republican Party. One has to believe that grassroots conservatives have played a key role indirectly through the attention they have brought to the liberal agenda of the current administration and the hope that they have brought back to the American people through their activism.
While Coakley is still fully expected to take the win, it is no longer a “certain” victory. Ultimately, it comes down to the voters on the side of life, liberty and freedom. We must keep our hands to the plow and never look back. Many Americans are listening to the voices of the grassroots movement and as the recent polls reveal, independent voters are hearing us.
Yours for liberty,
Tye (Mitch)
|
|
Written by Georgia Conservative Party
|
|
Friday, 08 January 2010 16:55 |
|
 The Georgia ballot access law for U.S. House is the most unique in the nation. The state requires 21,685 signatures or 5% of the total number of registered voters in the 9th district, along with a check for around $6,800 dollars (non-refundable). No other state has a ballot access law for Congressional candidates this tough.
Remember, the 9th District of Georgia borders sections of Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina, so even though the actual petitioners have to be from the 9th District of Georgia, the ACP motto is "think globally, act locally, and give nationally." So anything our members can do regionally and nationwide, Mr. Moon and the GCP can use your help. The petition drive begins January 14th, we will be having a kickoff ceremony on Friday, January 15th, 7:00 pm at the Gainesville Masonic Lodge. 621 Lake Shore Drive, Gainesville, GA 30501- everyone is welcome-for more information call 678.478.8386, email
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. |
|
Written by The ACP
|
|
Wednesday, 30 December 2009 20:42 |
|
They say there is a little truth in all jest... It was a year of Hope -- at first in the sense of ``I feel hopeful!'' and later in the sense of ``I hope this year ends soon!'' It was also a year of Change, especially in Washington, where the tired old hacks of yesteryear finally yielded the reins of power to a group of fresh, young, idealistic, new-idea outsiders such as Nancy Pelosi. As a result Washington, rejecting ``business as usual,'' finally stopped trying to solve every problem by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it and instead started trying to solve every problem by throwing trillionsof taxpayer dollars at it. To be sure, it was a year that saw plenty of bad news. But in almost every instance, there was offsetting good news: BAD NEWS: The economy remained critically weak, with rising unemployment, a severely depressed real-estate market, the near-collapse of the domestic automobile industry and the steep decline of the dollar. GOOD NEWS: Windows 7 sucked less than Vista. BAD NEWS: The downward spiral of the newspaper industry continued, resulting in the firings of thousands of experienced reporters and an apparently permanent deterioration in the quality of American journalism. GOOD NEWS: A lot more people were tweeting. BAD NEWS: Ominous problems loomed abroad as -- among other difficulties -- the Afghanistan war went sour, and Iran threatened to plunge the Middle East and beyond into nuclear war. GOOD NEWS: They finally got Roman Polanski. In short, it was a year that we will be happy to put behind us. But before we do, let's swallow our anti-nausea medication and take one last look back, starting with. . . . http://www.miamiherald.com/283/story/1397654.html
We hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas, and welcomes the New Year in with fun and festivity. 2010 is going to be an exciting year for the Conservative movement, but it's just the beginning of what it's going to take to bring our country back. Happy New Year! The ACP |
|
Written by Mick Griffin
|
|
Monday, 21 December 2009 16:27 |
Can you imagine? It is the middle of the night on Sunday and Senators are trekking to the Hill for a vote that could not wait until sunrise. Lets not forget that Washington, DC just got hit by a snow storm that virtually shut the district down for the weekend. But still Mr. Reid decided that he needed the vote while the rest of the nation slept. Why not let everyone get some sleep and let the road crews clear the snow and vote in the morning? Oh yeah, after the vote the Senate only has 30 hours of debate before the issue comes to vote again to move it forward and Christmas is Friday. The house is already gone and can not act of this until after the new year, but Mr. Reid wants in on their desks first thing in January. What is the rush? Could it be that opposition is growing against the healthcare bill? Could be. If that is the case then it is in the best interest of the Democrats to get the bill past while everyone else is busy with the Christmas season and are distracted from what the Congress is doing. This healthcare bill has opposition on all sides now, no one wants the thing but Pelosi and Reid want it crammed forward and put on the President’s desk as soon as possible. Health care reform is a very important issue and needs to be discussed at length not shuffled through in the middle of the night which is what Congress is doing which tells me that its not the best thing for this country. If your Senator or Congressman is voting in favor of this reform bill with out proper redress then maybe they don’t have your best interest at heart and should be voted out of office. Give it proper thought and really think just how important this is to you and your family now and in the future. Remember, we will get billed for it (taxed) several years before anyone can benefit from it. If there are any benefits to it. Tell Congress to slow down and do things right, you are their boss after all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 7 of 15 |
