I’m not sure why we are concerned about a 60 majority with Senator’s like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel the Democrats already effectively have a 60 seat majority. I wonder why Lindsey Graham had no primary challenge?

Two strengthen the party we need more primary challenges. Look at these useless Republican Senators. So many of them support these bailouts, and they are going to support Amnesty. It’s just so depressing. I can understand Maine, but even strongly republican states have Senators, that are so unresponsive to their voters.

I am also curious why the Republican Senatorial Committee spends money in Republican Senate Primaries.

I wish the RNC would change the primary calendar so we start in states like Alabama and Mississippi instead of Iowa and New Hampshire.

I read in USA today Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis want’s to be the RNC chairman. I thought the article was rather disturbing.

“Anuzis said the next RNC leader has to be familiar with the latest technology if the party is to rebuild. Given his familiarity with blogging, twittering and raising money over the Internet, he thinks he’d be the best to move the party forward.”

The article goes on the point out under Anuzis Republicans have lost 2006 governor’s race and the 2006 and 2008 U.S. Senate races six seats in the state House in 2006 and nine this year, as well as a spot on the Michigan Supreme Court and two congressional seats.

He‘s quotes as saying, “It is clear that the odds are stacked against us here in Michigan unless something is done to change the national perception of our party — which is why I seek the post of RNC chairman. I hope to change all that,” Anuzis wrote Wednesday in an e-mail.

Why would someone with a record like this put himself forward to head the RNC?

Am I the only person who thinks this is ridiculous?

Is this guy a better choice than Michael Steele?

What is he saying about the national party? Is Bush’s fault, or Social Conservatives, or Palin, or Abortion, or Low Taxes? What do you think he means by “national perception of our party.”

I happen to be a Navy veteran. May father served in the Navy for thirty years. When I joined the Navy in 1988 President Reagan’s goal was I believe a 600 ship blue water Navy, with 13 carriers and 6 months tours.

My understanding of the mission of our Navy was to be forward deployed and to maintain shipping lanes.

A few news reports have given me pause. First, I read the report of a Saudi vessel caring crude oil was taken by Somali pirates. Next, I read the 5th Fleet have given Britain responsibility for that area. Then today I read Admiral Mullen was surprised that the Somali pirates could take such a vessel. He also said that once the vessel was taken there was nothing the Navy could do, that owners would likely pay a ransom to get the vessel back. Finally, I read the British Navy was only protecting the world food organizations food relief to Somalia.

I recall reading that Prime Minister Blair had reduced the size of the British Navy.

Has the U.S. Navy lost the ability to maintain shipping lanes? Should this just be the concern of Saudi Arabia? Should the US allow these pirates to freely attack commercial shipping vessels effectly allowing them to tax our goods and services.

What say y’all is this the responsibility of the U.S. Navy?

I think this is ridiculous, but I saw it at American Thinker. PBS has a survey up asking: Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?

She was up 51 48. It shouldn’t be that close.

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html