Redstate

Well said.

Shadegg won't just pay lip service to the conservatives.  Right now it just feels like that's what we're getting.  Is anything gonna change if we just elect the current leadership again?

I agree with the post by Blanton that the GOP should make some changes in the conference.  I saw marsha Blackburn on Kudlow's show last night (big fan of that show, and much better without Cramer) and they ought to put her up for conference leader.  She is a genuine conservative and she looks good, on tv at least!

Oh, having met her in person, I can assure you she looks good in person too.

I wonder if today is the day he must declare. NROnline has been posting the latest hints from the Boehner and Blunt camps to the effect that each now claims 100+/- votes, but with only a fraction (1/4 to 1/2) publicly committed.

With the election seemingly set for a few weeks from now, the pressure for public commitment will grow as the time for the effect of the declaration decreases.

If Shadegg declares today, the rumored support can freeze and reconsider. To the extent he cannot get the publicly declared, he probably couldn't have got them anyway, although it will be interesting to see if any are peeled off, particularly if Blunt is caught between wanting to move up AND preserve his present role just in case.

Finally, what are the views on opening up all the leadership for reconsideration (except Rep. Hastert, who justifiably enjoys considerable and deep support)?

1. What are Shadegg's chances to gain the support he needs as it stands right now?
   
2. If the support is not there right now, then what can be done, in addition to the redstate endorsement, to elevate his support? Should we call our republican congressmen? If anyone knows any congressmen personally, give them a call.
   

He'd be Shadegg-a-delic, baby!  We could live with either of the two current candidates.  But we deserve better.

We need to lead by example and not let the democrats use ethics as a hammer to pound on us in this election year.

We took over by pushing the fundamental values of fiscal restraint and responsibility and would be ashame to lose now due to indiscretions by some individuals.  I don't know who is actually guilty of what but at this point it is a perception problem we need to fix as well as calling out those who are guilty be they democrat or republican.

And the "tobacco money" incident was long ago.

Boehner's never supported earmarks - heck, he voted against some of the big spending bills.  If I were part of the House GOP, Boehner gets my vote.

I completely agree. I was just asking about Shadegg in another discussion. From what I know of him I really like. Here is an article from NRO (courtesy mbecker908, thank you).

I especially like his Enumerated Powers Act. Although it would never get passed for reasons which are obvious when you read it, it is a bold statement:

"The Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 2458, requires that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted."

Also appealing is his Health Care Choice Act which says in part:

...letting people compare insurance plans across the country and pick the one that is right for them.

Every state has a mind numbing amount of regulations such as guaranteed minimums like aromatherapy and acupuncture. This drives the base cost of insurance up. There are also regulations that keep companies from offering say, individual insurance, to every state, even every county within a state. This bill would let a New Yorker pick a policy offered from Kansas that fits their needs best.

I had the pleasure of hearing an interview with him and he seems like a great candidate for this position. Find out more about him here.

For those who read this string in the other forum and find it repetitive, my apologies but I thought it was worth repeating since this is specifically about him.

and urge him to run.

The number is 202 225-3361.

I believe that John will be big positive in both 2006 and 2008 nationally.  He is very level headed, very well spoken and is squeaky clean.  He's also a committed conservative who can work within the party.

Call NOW!  Thanks.

There has been a groundswell of support for Shadegg's candidacy in the last couple days but it has really gained momentum in the past twenty-four hours.  If you read Lowry's posts in the corner from the past couple days you will notice that Blunt and Boehner have more than doubled their support since yesterday...or so they say.  I believe they are mis-stating the number of votes in order to discourage Shadegg from running.  Let's hope he ignores it and runs.

I am deferring to the Shadegg's supporters as to his being the best alternative to Blunt and Boehenr...

The objective in my mind is for our Party to get back to the basics of 1994.....whether just perceived or real, the image of the GOP getting its pockets lined by lobbyists is just plain wrong....those who are guilty of this need to be thrown out immediately.....those who know about it and are overlooking it (Blunt and Boehner?) certainly do not need to be placed in positions of influence which may result in the "pocker-lining" re-emerging a few years down the road

Let's clean things up in one fell-swoop!!!!!!!!!!

At this point, the race is between Blunt and Boehner.  Shadegg's just too late to this party.  The way I see it, Shadegg would make a great whip under Majority Leader Boehner.

Plus, Boehner would allow the GOP to replace Pryce with a more conservative woman (Hart out of PA would be my choice), since the leadership would be too heavily weighted in Ohio at that point.

Boehner's pretty conservative, too.

I know him most through some very close, mutual friends.  

First, John is just a terrific guy and has a wonderful family.  He is steadfast in his beliefs and does not shift with the political winds.  It comes from his background, his family has been in Arizona for many years and his father worked on the Goldwater campaign.

Second, I have met several politicians over my years as a political junkie and I have an intuitive 'sleaze' meter that registers when I meet them.  The meter gets more refined as I hear from others around them or read of their actions over time.  I can tell you over the years that I have known of John Shadegg, the 'sleaze' meter hovers around ZERO.  He's as honest and likable as any politican I have ever met.  VERY few, I would place in the same league.  (Even though he went to the U of A, I cannot even hold that against him.)

I do have a concern about the 'punishment' someone with that level of visibility must take.  From both the media and the vicious Democrats.  I don't want John to run unless he and his family are committed and are willing to serve in that capacity.  He is an honorable and patriotic man and I expect that he would be willing to accept the challenge, however, I would understand if he does not.

If he elects to run, I will be his number one fan on his bandwagon; in fact, I wish I could drive his bandwagon.

Yeah - I just saw R. Lowry's most recent post to this effect - if anything, it may spur Shadegg INTO the race. I've seen the speculation that if he enters, it really blows the lid of, and could open up all sorts of others to similar actions.

Boehner is the one walking an fine line here - he has little to lose, and benefits as the underdog now, but also has a need to keep it a 2-man race. The one thing I love about him is always seeing him taking a drag on camera - sort of like watching pro golfers smoke, then put the butt down to take a swing, then pick it up and march down the fairway.

While I find Shadegg to be a very intriguing candidate, Paul Weyrich's endorsement of Roy Blunt yesterday, saying he was the true conservative, makes me a lot more comfortable with Blunt as our leader.  With grassroots conservative leaders behind him, I think he can do a good job of advancing the conservative agenda that seems to have stalled recently.

... and recommend it to everyone (although, if he hasn't yet decided to enter the race, a few phone calls are not likely to tip him over).

I've also called my congressman and asked him to support John Shadegg.

I'm no alarmist -- the party won't wither and die if either Boehner or Blunt gets the job -- but the act of electing a genuine reform candidate could be a real turning point for the caucus. They need to turn their hearts toward the principles that drove them to D.C. in the first place, and Shadegg could be just the one to give them back that focus.

that if he enters things will change drastically.  I was merely speculating that the vote totals from both camps are overstated at best.  I think it was done to discourage a run by Shadegg but it may have the opposite effect.  To me,, Blunt and Boehner have come across as school girls during this whole thing and neither one is too impressive.  However, I can agree with you regarding Boehner's public display of his vice.  Classic.

Man, I worked on her first congressional campaign in 1992, and there was no doubt she was a quintessential conservative babe. Her first words were, "I want to assure you, I'm not a feminazi."

And the "tobacco money" incident was long ago.

Was it further in the past than Alito's membership in CAP? I doubt the media will suddenly forget that.

I just don't think I'm gonna go there.

and urge him to support Shadegg for the good of the Party.

I just can't support Boehner because, with him, all hope of enforcing border security goes up in (tobacco) smoke.  Neither can I support Blunt, since having HIM run the "lobbying reform effort" reminds me of that whole fox/henhouse thing -- only that's an insult to the fox.

Shadegg. Shadegg. Shadegg. Shadegg. (or Pence, if he reconsiders).

whatever that is, Blunt can easily be construed to be "part of the problem in Washington" because he's been part of the currently tarred leadership.

At this time, the best move for the party is to separate the new leadership as far as possible from the existing group.  Clean house and cut their losses.  At another time, in different circumstances, Blunt may be a great ML.  But it's now, and Shadegg is the best possible candidate now.

I just can't support Boehner because, with him, all hope of enforcing border security goes up in (tobacco) smoke.  

What does tobacco money have to do with immigration?

As for border security Boehner only objected to the portion of the bill that imposed a major unfunded mandate on businesses. That's not something conservatives are supposed to like or support no matter how convenient it is for their various causes. American immigration law is supposed to be enforced by the federal government (and Boehner did support those portions on the recent immigration bill which toughened up enforcement). If the feds can't or won't allocate funds to do their job, then it is very questionable, IMO, that private businesses or citizens should be forced to take on the role instead.

Shadegg will probably get behind Boehner if he doesn't run or make it past the 1st ballot.

Good post.  Shadegg seems like our best advocate.

Republicans are still going through a "refining fire" right now.  It started with Harriet Miers.  I feel this is just a nother leg in a long race to finally returning to Reagan politics.

Hey Directors, when's the New Redstate coming?  I think I read you guys are working on a new look for the site???

He likes me.  He takes my calls (or at least the secretary tells me that (s)he'll tell him what I said).  Why would I mess up a beautiful relationship like that?

Is the guy who has been pushing Shadegg the most...have you checked out his immigration stances?  What are Shadegg's public stances?

This is a good site to find out about an elected official or candidate. They list things like the persons voting record, public statements, interest group rating (always interesting) and the following:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP8155

The site calls it their National Political Awareness Test and they send it to all incumbents and candidates. I have noticed that many  dont even fill this out so the fact that Shadegg did is interesting. It is a pretty good barometer of how a person stands on the issues.

It includes an immigration section.

Business owners are already required to collect a SocSec number for each employee, for withholding of fed income tax, SS tax, and FICA, among other things.  The only "mandate" was to call an 800 number to verify that the darn thing actually BELONGED with the name of the individual applying for the job.  As "unfunded mandates" go, that one's pretty minor.  (And, apparently, the system is already set up.  It's just that bus owners aren't required to use it -- so why would anyone actually call in right now?  Ignorance is bliss, and preserves deniability...)

Without the call-in-to-verify requirement, ANY chance of ICE to actually perform interior enforcement by prosecuting unethical business owners who act as enablers of illegal immigrants, is impossible (or very very very difficult).  And Boehner knows it -- which is why he used this thin reed to justify his vote against.  IMO, he really doesn't WANT business owners held accountable: without the call-in-to-verify requirement, business owners can claim "hey, we didn't know the SS# was invalid or stolen, and we're not required to take ANY action to verify.  Plus, in some jurisdictions, we're specifically prohibited from doing so by [state|county|city] ordinance".  Presto, instant aquittal.

With the call-in req, they can't say that any more, which will help to cut down on the demand-side of the illegal illigration problem.  (cf: border, fence, for supply-side).

Now, I'm usually as pro-business and anti-regulation as you can get in most cases, but we're talking about a national security issue here.  Aside from the philosophical issue about the importance of regulated borders to the very meaning of a nation-state, the massive influx of illegals provides a nice sea for terrorist fish to swim in, unnoticed.  Drain the swamp of "good" illegal immigrants, and then you can more easily find those fish.  Besides, no matter the touted goodness-of-heart and supposed benefits to America of "most 'undocumented workers'", I don't want ANY person here whose first act is to violate about four federal felony laws -- and thinks that that is okay.  To do otherwise sanctions disrepect for the rule of law, which undermines the very fabric this nation was founded upon: a nation of laws, not men.

Enablers of those violations should be held to account -- but Boehner wants to preserve their "ignorance" defence (when it's usually pretty obvious that, currently, that ignorance is feigned: "you can't PROVE I knew he was illegal").  Well, with the call-in requirement, now we can prove it (in most cases; but let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good).

P.S. about the tobacco smoke thing: you're right, it has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Given both men's ties to the tobacco industry, I intended it to be a mildly amusing joke.  Instead, it was unfunny and detracted from my main point.  Sorry.

I just emailed my congressmen asking him to support JS.

 

As an alternative to placing the onus of businesses how about a real national ID card instead? I realize some people have major paranoia fits at the concept, but this could, I believe, be done right: a tamper-proof, free card showing name and photograph only, no other info which could be used by identity thieves, and no requirement the card be carried at any time except when using it as verification for employment or other citizenship purposes (e.g., voting, applying for a passport). This would put the expense and hassle right where it belongs, with the federal government not with business owners or, for the matter, the states which are already hamstrung figuring how to figure out how to comply with the absurdly complicated Real ID act in regards to drivers licenses.

It's coming soon.

And it will make all of your life and existence that came before seem meaningless by comparison.

I concur.  Rep. Shadegg has my support in the Majority Leader race.

The problem with the current 800 number system is that it takes the SSA about 6 months to get back to you.  It is NOT an instantaneous response.  As an employer in the construction trades industry, I wish that illegal immigration rules were enforced.  We are scrupulous about who we hire, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage against companies that use illegal aliens.

Boehner's record on immigration is typically pretty solidly within the mainstream conservative modality of the Republican conference.  The reason that he voted against HR 4437, as he put it in his December 17 statement on the bill:

"We can't strengthen our nation's borders by strangling our nation's economy," Boehner said.  "This bill has many strong points and I wanted badly to vote for it.  But the massive employer mandates included in the bill ultimately made that impossible."

and

H.R. 4437 extends an "employment eligibility" pilot program created in 1996 to all employers.  American employers will be required to verify the employment eligibility of ALL workers - more than 140 million - through a federal database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.

In the 104th Congress, Boehner supported an amendment to H.R. 2202 that would have prohibited the creation of the employment eligibility database.  He has also actively fought against similar efforts to create a national database tracking America's college students.

"The vast majority of America's several million employers are law abiding and should not be burdened with another cumbersome federal mandate," added Boehner.  "Forcing them each to REVERIFY the work authorization of ALL previously hired employees is impractical, unfair, and does little to combat the illegal immigration HR 4437 intends to address."

Given that statement, and his record, it's completely unfair to call him an 'open borders' guy.  He was clear that he supported the vast majority of the bill, but he was worried about what he viewed as a massive unfunded mandate on employers that would have been unworkable.  He tried to get an amendment, but wasn't allowed (no surprise, few amendments are ever allowed), so he asked his colleagues to work that issue in any eventual conference to secure his vote in the future.

Admittedly, it's a big database, but ... it's the least complicated query there can be. There is no reason your wait time should be more than 15 seconds for an automated response. Discrepancies will take longer, of course, but those are pathological cases.

If the desired information is as simple as you state, then the bureaucrats at the SSA have no excuse. Do they offer any explanation for the delay?

We just had Congressman Trent Franks, R-Ariz on our weekly radio show and asked him specifically who he was backing for House Majority Leader and his response was swift: John Shadegg.  

Congressman Franks mentioned that he was in favor of Congressman Mike Pence until the recent announcement that Pence would not seek a leadership position.

Just in case you want to listen for yourself:

Today's  pre-recorded show will be aired on Saturday and made available at that time for live stream and podcast in downloadable MP3 and RealMedia formats which is available through free iTunes and RSS/XML subscriptions.  

with far too much inaccurate information in the SSA database. Sometimes this is the fault of the individual who fails to report name changes after marriage or divorce. But sometimes it's the fault of careless or lazy bureaucrats. There definitely needs to be some sort of backup documentation allowed since it would be a serious outrage for an honest citizen to be denied employment because of some fool clerical error.

(This is why I would prefer a new national ID to the use of existing records.)

or someone like him.

A true Conservative with no easy talking points on corruption to his record. I am sure there are other lesser known conservatives in the House who can take the higher ground no matter what is thrown their way. And trust me, the noise machine is going to be loud during the election of leadership next month from both sides of the aisle.

A really good candidate that I believe will get people back under the tent will be:

Appears not to be a career politican (I believe the American public is tired of business as usual in DC and someone outside the current power circle will demonstrate that the GOP does has other go to guys and that the problem of corruption {the biggest issue currently on the plate) is being properly addressed.

This will go a long way in ensuring that current seats are not only kept in the 2006 election, but maybe even more seats can be gained.

GOP has never demonstrated its dynamic side. Now would be a excellent time to do so.

but not the kind we need in a leadership post. He's not a "small government" conservative -- he's as close to a "no government" libertarian as we'll ever see in the US Congress.

I like and respect Ron Paul for his steadfastness in support of his notion of how we should be governed (hardly at all), but if anyone is a Republican In Name Only, it's him. He can't lead a group he's just barely a member of.

Yeah, I was throwing the most extreme Rep out there in hope that another Rep would pop as the obvious choice.

There has to be a go to guy between Ron Paul and Blunt that demonstrates the GOP moving forward and moving past the current corruption bubble.

The current line up will get hammered by the media, well, like the Hammer did.

in 1988.  Didn't trust GB1 and hated Duke.  I figured if Paul got elected he'd shut DC down (same reasons I voted for Perot in '92), a good thing in my book.

That said, he's not the ML kinda guy.  He would destroy the conference because he's just too far out of ballpark.  He's actually in a different ballpark all together.

There has to be a go to guy between Ron Paul and Blunt that demonstrates the GOP moving forward and moving past the current corruption bubble.

Yes, there is. I think time is running out for his announcement, though.

Man becker, you could have gone your whole life without confessing that. You are one of the smartest guys here and you have thrown away two votes!

Not Trust a man with as sterling a character as any man that has ever occupied the White House?

You were young. forgiven

I did much worse things!!!! IN BACK SEATS

I just hope you didnt waste to much time figuring on Pauls election!!

SMILE BRO

Heck, who am I to talk, I voted for every democrat from carter in 80 thru Gore!!! Till God gave me a conservative epiphany in june 2001.

BUT YOUR CONFESSION HAS INSPIRED ME TO REVEAL A SIMILAR, THOUGH NOT AS TRIFLING AS YOURS, FETISH VOTE LATER TONIGHT FROM MY DAYS AS AN ANGRY YOUNG MAN!! I WAS A DELEGATE FOR A MAN FROM GREENVILLE, SC.

GUESS WHO IT WAS

I must say, that if I had to choose between an undefended anarchical Paul paradise and the opposite utopia in Cuba, I would probably choose to go live with mujadaddy in the former!

I had a similar choice  many years ago and I chose dads belt over the open hand!

But let me ask you this, you do agree that Boehner is better than Blount?

SSA claims that it "generally takes about 30 days to process" using their Employment Verification Service (EVS), but my experience is that it usually takes longer.  

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvadditional.htm

That's a tough one for me -- as far as I can tell, there's a stain of suspicion on both of them, and, from my vantage, I can't distinguish the relative darkness of the spots.

Both strike me as apprentice power brokers, full of themselves and looking to get fuller.

I'm getting tired of hearing accusations of impropriety against my caucus and often finding smoke, if not fire. I want them all to be beyond reproach. Is that too much to ask?

But his son is about to run for Mayor here in the large midwestern city I live in. Should be interesting.

We are all racists, sexists, bigoted homophobes by virtue of choosing to be republicans.

Now, I have no idea if either of them have committed a crime. Given their ages, that stain you see is the residue of life. And it would be nice if we could have a new born virgin babe Pence to be our face to the world, but the position here is majority LEADER, and the fact that he didnt choose to run proves he is not yet qualified. In fact, BY DEFINITION,  the only men qualified are the ones that chose to compete to lead!!

But I just think that Boehner is more of a Gingrich true blue reform conservative and he comes over better on TV. Although, the real talent needed is behind the scenes.

but who knows

As for  as smoke and accusations, the msm has waged an unrelenting campaign against Bush and the gop for 4 years and it will continue even if we appointed the Pope as the majority leader!

I heard the Pope spit on the side walk

yep, that was in 1984 when I was a young dumb trial lawyer and democrat activist. When I met the man, I immediately despised him, beacuse he is constantly looking around while he shakes your hand, looking for someone more important to shake hands with.

Hi, I'm Mike.  [hi mike]  In 1988 I voted for Ron Paul.  In '92 I voted for Ross.  [leave now mike!]

Actually, just so you know I am unrepentent, I clearly remember (because it wasn't yesterday or today) standing in the voting booth staring at the ballot after voting for every other office and agonizing.  I knew Mickey D would get wiped out so there was no "risk".  I just didn't trust GHWB to be a conservative (don't even tell me I was wrong!) so I voted for Ron Paul.  I have held forever that GHWB would have been the best Secty of State the Republic ever had and I still believe it.  It was the "vision thing" that bothered me and, I think, proved me right.

In 1992, I was disgusted with GHWB because I read his lips.  At the time I thought Clinton was probably more conservative that GHWB - with the obvious Roe exception - and that he would marshall with the R's in Congress to pass some legislation that would work for us.  And if Perot won, DC would shut down, everyone would just go home for four years.  I was kind right about Clinton, at least he passed Welfare Reform.  I won't go into what he did that I didn't like, there's not enough bandwidth.  I'm kinda sorry I didn't vote for GHWB in '92.  Just kinda.

FWIW, I was SDS in college and voted for McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976.  Reagan in '80 and '84 and considered writing him in in '88.  I've gone from SDS to the point where I think RR was a liberal.  A good liberal, but nonetheless a liberal.  :>).

OK, Im impressed now with your evolution and eclectic safe election choices, given they are the prodcut of a more mature mind than mine and given the direction of its evolution!! I am just a party man, for the party I'm in.

btw, Im Mike too

Im kind of like a child since my 2001 conservative epiphany. I have had a belated Reagan worship experience because i had to try and hate him back then, but my change started when lib dems laughed at the evil empire speech and i realized that some of these folks didnt love this country and I thought that was insane!

If we could count on a dem to defend us and appoint the right judges, divided govt like we had with Gingrich and Slick is pretty good since they cant pass anything big!

So, who are we looking at for '08,

Tancredo

ZELL MILLER

THOMAS SOWELL

RUSH

???

I really wanted to vote for this bill, but...

Yeah, sure ya did.  When you describe adding one more step to the hiring process (to the already 20 or so required by the feds: W-4, WorkersCompRightsDisclosure, etc etc) as "strangling the economy", your rhetorical excess exposes the fact that you're light on substance.

If you're REALLY worried that the verification process is too slow and cumbersome, then the obvious response is...(wait for it...)

to propose an amendment PROHIBITING the creation of a database to solve that problem.

Yeah, Boehner was crushed, crushed, I tell you, about not being able to vote for that bill.  And I've got some PRIME real estate in South Florida to sell you.

Am I the only one who thought Boehner's name was pronounced "boner"?  I'm being serious.  I think that is a reasonable first guess at how to pronounce his name (I now know it's pronounced more like "bahner").

I don't want a major Republican leader called "boner" by most of the USA.  I can hear the adolescent jokes coming already....

I can't help it if you have some undefined ill-will towards Boehner (or perhaps just a blind devotion for Blunt) and aren't willing to give Boehner any benefit of the doubt, but you'd be better served to perhaps use some rational arguments, maybe a fact or two, to support your point.

You've got no evidence that Boehner is an open borders type guy, you've got no evidence that his claims about this bill are anything less than genuine, and instead you try to smear a guy who is trying to help the party recover from some serious blows over the past few months and years.  You may disagree with him, but there's no need for childish name calling.

What makes it absurdly complicated. (no sarcasm, honest query)

my uninformed opinion (today anyway) is that the only way a D will get elected is if the R's commit suicide.  W's favorable ratings may be in the low 40's, but that's only because there is no competition.  Put up a D with national name recognition, he would be in the high 50's.

Who will the D's run?  Hillary?  Her unfavorables are through the roof, she will motivate every center-right person with a heart beat (and probably some without) to show up on election day.  On the other side, all the radical fems will show up too.  Both of them.  So, who's left?  Kerry?  Kennedy?  Edwards?  Reid?  Pelosi?  Some obscure governor?

The key is not what the D's do, it's what the R's do.  They have to stay on offense and things like John Shadegg becoming ML are just the kind of things that will lay a proper foundation.

Perhaps you missed my first comment: "Neither can I support Blunt, since having HIM run the "lobbying reform effort" reminds me of that whole fox/henhouse thing -- only that's an insult to the fox."

"undefined ill-will towards Boehner"?  No, I don't know the guy from Adam.  He's probably a great guy to have a drink with, and politically a good conservative in most respects.  But I DO know that he voted against an important bill strengthening border protection and interior enforcement on what I consider to be spurious grounds.  My "evidence" against Boehner is two-fold (both of which I described in my earlier post): (1) specifically his vote on this bill -- in line with the WSJ OpEd page Open Borders position, while fobbing off the 80% of the country opposed with mealy mouthed, less-than-believable excuses, and (2) his amendment stripping funding for the creation of a database that would have solved his (spurious, just-an-excuse-IMO) objection to (1).  That's enough of a pattern to draw a rational conclusion.

Now, dplcleary, take your condescension, pop-psychology, and name-calling ("childish", "irrational") to someone who cares.  If I want to be psychoanalyzed on the basis of posts to RedState, I'll pay a professional with better reading comprehension skills.