Recently the ADL and other leftist JINO (Jew in Name Only) organizations attacked the tea party movement and conservatives in a vicious smear. Well it appears that Sarah Palin, an icon of the tea party movement, is more committed to Jewish causes than them.

In today’s interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters, Sarah Palin was asked about her opinion regarding Obama’s position on Israeli “settlements”. Her response was the most decisive and unequivocal of any conservative politician:

“I disagree with the Obama administration on that,” Palin told Walters. “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”

Palin is the only potential 2012 candidate with the authentic conservative view on Israel policy. The fringe media and leftist JINO (Jew in Name Only) organizations are already ridiculing Palin for her bold stance. The socialist Jewish Telegraph Agency sarcastically declares:

[Palin] demonstrates she’s not familiar with the term “natural growth” that much of the debate has revolved around

This is to say that they misconstrue her categorical opposition to a Palestinian terror state as a lack of familiarity with the issue. The fact of the matter is that she fully understands the issue, and unlike the Democrats and wimpy Republicans she is the only one honest enough to affirm Israel’s right to all of the Holy Land. She understands the folly of the creation of another Palestinian state (the first being Jordan) and yet another arab terror state that will make the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan look like a group of girl scouts. While the leftists in the US and Israel will ridicule this position, Jewish and Christian conservatives will appreciate Sarah for having the guts to speak truth to this age old “conflict”.

The liberal media will point out that even the Israeli “leadership” supports the creation of a so called Palestinian state. While we can’t prevent Israel’s corrupt politicians from selling out their country, we don’t have to encourage it. It appears that a Palin administration would be the only way to stop this mad rush to create the most violent, repressive, terrorist regime in the history of mankind.

As Doug Hoffman continues to surge in the NY-23 congressional race, the liberal establishment Republicans are continuing to peddle disingenuous defenses of their support for ACORN Republican Dede Scozzafava. The clowns at the NRCC are now comparing Doug Hoffman’s candidacy to Chris Daggett’s spoiler run for governor in New Jersey, which might cost Republican Chris Christie the election. They claim that just as conservatives are playing spoiler for Christie by running on ideological purism versus electoral realism, they are similarly deluding themselves in supporting Hoffman over Scozzafava. This argument is so preposterous and is false on every premise. Lets look at the facts:

1. There already has been a primary in New Jersey and Christie won it handily. Conservatives tried to win with Steve Lonegan and were unsuccessful. Frankly, I liked Lonegan and would have voted for him, but Christie won an election of Republican voters. If Daggett has such a big mouth and really represents conservatives he could have run in the primary. NY-23 was a different story. Being that this is a special election, there was no primary and the people never had a say in choosing their nominee. Scozzafava was picked by a few local party bosses with absolutely no transparency. This is what we are protesting with the Hoffman candidacy.

2. When choosing whether to run a conservative challenger against the “mainstream” establishment Republican candidate, it is very important to consider the demographics of the given electorate. New Jersey is a very Democrat state with a strong inertia against electing Republicans to statewide offices. NY-23 is a Republican district (not the most conservative, but definitely more Republican) and has elected a Republican to congress every time since the Civil War. While some might argue that it is less likely to succeed in electing a real conservative to statewide office in New Jersey, it is a natural fit for NY-23. In fact, if Scozzafava would just drop out Hoffman would crush the Democrat.

Furthermore, there is no way that we can succeed in New Jersey with a significant percentage of the Republican vote splitting two ways, but we can still win in NY-23 even with a split vote. Again, if the radical leftist Scozzafava would just drop out then we would definitely win. As for their claim that Hoffman cannot win, well there is a new poll out that actually has Hoffman leading everyone.

3. There is another egregious fallacy to the premise of this argument. The RNC is claiming that Scozzafava is like Christie while Hoffman is like Daggett. This cannot be farther from the truth. Scozzafava is not just a RINO. She is a Nancy Pelosi radical leftist who is supported by ACORN and the Daily Kooks blog. In fact, there is no assurance that she would even caucus with the Republicans. It is clear that with her super liberal record, there is no doubt that the Democrats would offer her incentives to be a powerful Congressman in the majority than a no name official in the minority. Christie on the other hand is about as conservative a candidate that we can get elected in New Jersey at this point. There are definitely flaws with Christie but at least he is against tax increases and is pro life. Despite his many flaws he is no Scozzafava. Christie might be a moderate but Scozzafava is a Pelosi/Obama Marxist. Also, we had a crack at it in the primary but unfortunately came up short.

Now let’s take a look at the other side of the equation. Chris Daggett is no Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is one of us. A true tea party leader, movement conservative, army veteran, businessman, and across the board rock solid conservative patriot. It is scandalous to compare Daggett to Hoffman. Daggett is an absolute social liberal, being pro abortion, pro embryonic stem cell research, and pro gay marriage.

Daggett is more like an Independent than a conservative. Even on other issues where he might claim to be conservative, he will never be a movement conservative. Anyway, I never trust someone who is so liberal on social issues to be so conservative on fiscal issues. I’ve seen that trick pulled off too many times with local candidates. So please. If I am going to play spoiler and vote for someone who will cause the Republican to lose let that guy be a real conservative like Doug Hoffman. It is also important to point out that New Jersey is an incumbent election. Therefore, Daggett is not only splitting the Republican/Conservative vote, but also the anti-incumbent vote as well.

We need to push back against these liberal Republicans. They are worse than the Democrats because they are preventing us from using the only viable political vehicle we have to succeed. The Democrats can’t effect our primaries and internal affairs. RINO’s can. Let’s help Doug Hoffman defeat all these liberals in one shot.

There is a new Rasmussen poll out today with very striking data.  It polls hypothetical general election match ups between Democrat Senatorial candidate Kendrick Meek vs Republican Marco Rubio or Charlie Crist.  The results are as follows:

Charlie Crist- 46%

Kendrick Meek-34%

Marco Rubio-46%

Kendrick Meek-31%

These results are profound and striking for one simple reason. In light of the current conflict with the RINO GOP establishment in the special election of NY-CD-23, these results must be disseminated to debunk a common misconception. There is a narrative that has been promulgated by the RINO cesspool that the more liberal the Republican candidate, the better chance we will have in the general election. This Florida poll totally disproves this fallacy. Think of it this way. If Rubio is able to poll better than the “supper star”, 100% voter ID, popular, incumbent Gov. Charlie Crist, then there are few places in which a moderate will definitely be more electable. Certainly, in NY-23 where we have a radical leftist who is virtually unknown to most voters and is unhinged, the conservative stands a better chance of winning. The fact of the matter is that if Scozzafava would drop out, Doug Hoffman would crush the Dem.

Update: Nevada Senate Election

There is a new poll out in the Nevada Senate race polling a hypothetical match up with Dingy Harry and Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian. The results are:

Tarkanian- 46%
Reid- 41%

Lowden- 47%
Reid-42%

Now I am not accusing Lowden of being a RINO in the likes of Scozzafava or Crist. However, it is clear that Lowden is the more establishment candidate who might be conservative on some issues but will not be down for the struggle as a movement conservative. Tarkanian on the other hand, is a tea party activist and passionate conservative. The numbers say it all. Tarkanian, who has never been elected to public office before is polling just as strong as the state Republican Chairman.

I am taking a meteorology course in college this semester and inevitably the professor has interjected with global warming a number of times.  He requested that we answer the following question:

There seem to be two schools of thought on Global Warming. One says we can control it through better use of fossil fuels, etc. The other says that it is here to stay and that we should begin preparations for living in a world that will result from these changes. Which school do you belong to?

The glaring point of his question is that it is predicated on the fact that global warming is a fact and we are causing it. The only question to discuss is whether we should legislate our behavior or face calamity.

From past experience I have been pretty successful by fully challenging all liberalism in the classroom with unapologetic and well formulated arguments. I could tell that other guys in the room had some doubts about global warming but were too embarrassed to challenge it in public. The only way to stop the indoctrination in the classroom is to push back against it with full force.

I prepared the following report as a response. It is quite lengthy so I am posting it as a link on a website that I once published several years ago. I wanted to see what all you redstaters think. Is there anything that I should omit or add?

Note: I am not one hundred percent sure if this is a proper use of the diary section. This report has a lot of thought provoking questions and observations on the global warming movement. I think it would be useful for discussion. If not, feel free to delete it and I will know for next time.

Amazingly enough one of the most promising Senate pickups for 2010 is the seat of Dingy Harry Reid. In fact, Jim Geraghty over at Campaign spot has new numbersout on a potential match up with announced candidate Danny Tarkanian and likely candidate, party Chair Sue Lowden.
The unbelievable thing is that this poll was taken by the lunatic Daily Kooks and they still have both Republican challengers ahead of Reid. Imagine what the actual poll numbers are?

Several days ago I postedan analysis of the upcoming midterm elections and the need to be ahead of the curve and nominate the more conservative candidate in the primary assuming there is some viable chance at victory in the general election. We often look in the past in shock and outrage when we discover a newly electing Republican to be something less than a real conservative. Therefore, we need to look forward and be on top of primaries from the beginning in order to help promote the more conservative candidate. We are often to enthusiastic just to unseat the Democrat without paying attention to who the best candidate is. We wind up paying for it later. There are obviously certain states in the northeast that are difficult to field a solid conservative Republican in the general election. However, Nevada is not a liberal state.

This brings me to a potential primary between Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden. We need to have a dialouge as to who is the best candidate and most conservative one to defeat Reid assuming that Lowden enters the race. The news
today of her resignation as Nevada GOP Chairman is certainly an indication that she is seriously considering a run for Senate. My question to my fellow Redstaters is do we really need Sue Lowden to run? I have heard from others that she is not so conservative, but I would like to reserve judgment until I find out more info. Maybe other here have some good links on her issue positions.

In regard to Danny Tarkanian, I don’t know that much about him, but as an announced candidate he already has a website up and running. Having a lot of experience observing candidates websites, I’ve noticed that the degree to which they will identify themselves with conservatism on their website says a lot about them. I took a look at his issue positions and was pretty impressed.

In regard to immigration he writes the following:

Illegal immigration is a serious problem. Estimates run as high as 13 million illegal immigrants in this country. America is a country of immigrants, and we all respect and appreciate that. But the best way to honor those who come here legally is to enforce our immigration laws, even if that means a physical barrier or electronic fence at our border. I know there are many immigrants who are trying to come here illegally because they want to work – to help their families abroad. To them I say that we will do our best to talk to your country’s leaders about improving economic conditions in your homeland, but you must respect and obey our immigration laws. If you want to live the American Dream, please visit one of our embassies and apply for a work visa, just as millions of fine, lawful immigrants and naturalized Americans have done for decades.

I really like the way he approaches the issue as well as his position on the issue. He doesn’t speak of situations where he will acquiesce to illegal immigration. Instead he tells them if you want to come here then go visit an embassy.

In regard to foreign policy it seems like a really gets it.

I appreciate the value of using America’s “soft power” to defend our interests around the world, but we cannot base our entire foreign policy around being loved abroad. The truth is that there are people in the world who are at war with us and our way of life, and if we are going to defend our freedom we inevitably will have enemies. I also believe we must stay on the offense against those who have killed Americans here and abroad, and hunger to do so again.

This is not to say that he is guaranteed to be a solid conservative. We obviously need to learn more about everyone running at this stage as it is still to early to decide. However, I’ve noticed that most Republicans won’t even talk conservative. So its at least a start. Sue Lowden might turn out to be a good candidate as well. There are those here from Nevada that probably already know more inside information about the two candidates. I just feel that we need to get a dialogue going and decide which candidates to support.

As we look ahead optimistically towards the 2010 midterm elections there are many specific races to focus on.  While there is a realistic scenario that we can take back the House in an unusual wave year reminiscent of 1994, the Senate is quite different.  The Senate often boils down to individual races and is not as prone to being as one sided as the House races are during tidal wave elections.  There are 70 Dems sitting on districts that are rated as R+1 or more by the Charlie Cook PVI and 35 of them are rated as R+5 or more.  With some viable recruitment in those districts by the NRCC (which they are already successfully implementing) there is an outside shot of winning back at least 40 seats, assuming 2010 to be a “wave” election.  This would be enough to grant us the majority.  At this point, it is definitely possible, albeit a long shot.  To take back the Senate, however, is all but impossible.

Due to the complicated dynamics of individual Senate races which tend to hinge more on incumbency, seniority, and name identification, they are not as easily swept up in “wave” elections.  This is especially true for Republicans because Democrats don’t hand out free senate seats like Republicans do.  They fight to the death for every seat.  Also, the fact that there are only a limited amount of seats up for election during every cycle, severely curtails the amount of potential turnovers.

Lets take 2010 for example.  In the House, all 435 seats are up for grabs and due to the super majority of the Dems, they are forced to defend 256 seats (59%).  In the Senate, there are 36 seats in cycle (two are special election), however despite the Dems 60% majority they only have to defend 18 seats (50%).  This automatically caps the amount of gains to 18 seats and this is assuming that we defend everyone of our seats.  Now out of those 18 incumbent Dem seats, there are a bunch of them that due to the political dynamics of the state and or the Senator and potential (or lack there of) challengers there is either no chance in hell of defeating them.  This holds true even in the most favorable wave elections for us.

Lets look at some examples.  There is no way we can take out Sen. Daniel Inouye in Hawaii.  Ditto for Mikulski in Maryland, Feingold in Wisconsin, Schumer in New York, Leahy in Vermont, and Bayh in Indiana.  This leaves us with only 12 seats to work with and we need a net gain of 11 to win back the Senate.  This would mean defending everyone of our seats (which is somewhat reasonable in a wave election) and turning over 11 out of 12 of the remaining incumbent Democrats seats.  Out of those remaining seats there is Ron Wyden of Oregon and Patty Murry of Washington.  Both are solidly entrenched in solid Democrat states with a lack of credible GOP challengers on the horizon.  It is very unlikely that these seats would get swept up in a wave by a no name challenger.  This leaves us with 10.

Out of the remaining 10 there are only 5 seats that we stand a good chance of turning over.  Specter in Pa, Reid in Nevada, Burris in Illinois, Dodd in Ct, and Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.  Even these five potential victories are based on several assumptions that are not guaranteed to be in place come next November.  There are other seats that depend upon a credible challenger.  If Castle runs in Delaware he would stand a good chance of winning.  If the NRSC can convince ND Gov. John Hoevan to run against Sen. Byron Dorgan, he might be able to unseat him especially in a wave election in a red state.  I could envision Boxer becoming vulnerable based on some of the potential candidates and current polling data.  New York will keep Gillibrand unless Pataki or Guiliani enter the race.  In Colorodo, we definitely have a chance to defeat the weak Sen. Bennet if the Republicans can get their act together and field some credible challengers.

It is pretty clear that although we stand a good chance to hold our vulnerabilities in NH, Missouri, and Ohio, while picking up 4-7 seats, we will not take back the senate.  This leads me to my next point.  Since we are limited to how many Dems we can defeat due to the demographics of some of the states, we must look towards the remaining 18 incumbent R seats.  Some of them are open seats and some are running for reelection, but they all deserve scrutiny.  We need to focus on net gains of conservatives, not only Republicans.  Even if we net more seats, many of them will be RINOs.  The only way we will win in Illinois, Delaware, and CT is with Kirk, Castle, and Simmons respectively.  They are actually all liberals.  I am not advocating wasting our time in those states.  If that is what it takes to win due to the political reality as well as the star power of the RINOs I am fine with that.  However, it is the red states we need to focus on.

I am not advocating that we knock off every incumbent R that is not conservative without worrying about the political consequences of a general election in certain states.  However, there are certain solid red states that we have full control over and need to maximise our “electoral potential”.  This means in my opinion that every solid red state should be like Oklahoma where we have two great Senators (Coburn and Inhofe).  If you look around the map, you will be hard pressed to find another solid red state in which we maximise our electoral potential like we do in Ok.  I’m not getting involved in the debate about challenging incumbent RINOs in blue states or RINO’s running for open seats in blue states that have been coronated by the NRSC.  I’m talking about solid red states in which there are fat old bull big government statists sitting on our seats.  We need to seriously look at those guys up for election and assess if there can be a credible grassroots support for a challenger.

Looking at the 2010 map with the 18 incumbent R’s, there are several obvious examples that are already in place.  The two open seats in Fl and Texas with Marco Rubio in Florida and Michael Williams in Texas.  These are two states with strong republican leanings (Texas more so than Florida) and there is no incumbent R.  So it is a no brainer to me that grassroots conservatives should be supporting them.  And I want to point out that this would actually be a net gain of two seats (conservatives+2).  I think all conservative activists are aware of Marco Rubio and Erick has written about Williams so I will not elaborate.

The race I am specificly researching now is the Utah Senate primary race of Sen. Bob Bennett.  He is the prototypical old bull, big government, lets make a deal with the marxists type of Republican.  Specifically, he is the biggest supporter of liberal Ron Wyden’s <a href=”http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S334:”>HealthyAmericans Act</a>.  He was rated by Human Events as one of the <a href=”http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31018″>topten RINO’s</a>.  His ACU rating for 2008 was a dismal 64.  And let me say one thing about ratings.  I’ve noticed with many squshy Republicans that they start of moderately conservative and then they make a conservative effort to start sliding south.  This is what happened with Voivovich, Specter, and Chaffee and it appears to be happening with Bennett.  His first year in the Senate in 1994, when the conservative revelution was still fresh he got a perfect 100% score.  In recent years he has dramaticly declined in a way that is indicative of the fact that he is now a Washington insider.

The thing that really irks me is that we are not talking about Illinois here.  I would have no problem with him if he were from a blue state.  But Utah???  For crying out loud, if we can’t have normal conservatives from Utah then where can we?  There is no reason for this. 

So I did a little research and found that there are several candidates running against Bennett in a primary.  I was partuculary impressed with Cherilyn Eager.  I checked out her website http://www.eagarforsenate.com/ and was blown away at her rock solid conservative crudentials.  I really don’t know much about her aside for internet research but I would welcome any fellow redstaters to help research more about her and see if this is someone who we can promote.  She was a marketing company VP, a talk radio host, and was involved in state political committees.  She appears to be a real viable candidate and a heavy weight.  Again, I have no real knowledge of her and would like for anyone to comment if they have any more information or inside knowledge about the Utah senate race.  There are several other state that can fall under this catagory, but I wanted to start in Utah.

In light of Senator Lisa Murkowski’s recent attack on Sarah Palin, I was wondering why in the world in there no primary challanger to her. She votes with the democrats who are as radical as ever 50% of the time. I know all of the arguments that in order to pick up or hold a seat in certain states like Kirk in illinois and Castle in Deleware, we must run RINO’s. But Alaska?? Please! Not only is Alaska a liberatarian state, they are disenchanted with the Murkowski name. If anything she is more of a drag on the prospects of holding the seat than any no name freshman candidate.

Its not just Alaska. The liberals are vulnerable in North Dakota and Arkansas. If we can find challengers why not find conservatives? It has always baffled me how we surrender so many conservative states to rats and rinos.