We are in the midst of a citizen revolution unseen in our lifetime.

People have marched, people have voted in the primaries, and people have taken over their state and local parties.

Here’s another idea along the same lines.

People all over the country emptying out there change jars and making a difference together.

The Theory

The theory is simple. Elections happen roughly every two years in America. If you toss fifty cents a week into your change jar and empty it September the 15th every even year, you’ll have about $50.

Can $50 change the world of politics and fund candidates that care about our long term American values?

The power of course lies in the math.

If a hundred people give $50 that is $5,000.

If a thousand people give $50 that is $50,000.

If a million people give $50, that is $50,000,000.

From January of every odd year till September of every even year

1) Get a change jar

2) At the end of the day, empty your purse or pockets of your change into the jar

3) Repeat

I’ve got my money now what do I do with it?

Count, roll it, and deposit into your checking account (but remember how much it was).

Next split the amount into two parts.

In the future, Change Jar Conservative may make some recommendations, but for now, let’s leverage off of some existing resources.

Below are links for the House and Senate races:

RCP’s House Race Ratings

and

RCP’s Senate Race Ratings

Use those lists and the guidelines below to pick two candidates in your state, a nearby state, or just two candidates who catches your interest.

The First Donation Feeds The Soul

Pick someone in the “Leans Republican” to support from either the Senate or House list. This is where the first donation goes.

Politics is a blood sport. Sometimes it only takes you one election cycle to learn that and sometimes it takes a few. It hurts to lose and it feels good to win.

The first donation will help out someone who has a good chance to win, but who probably still could really use your money. Backing someone who is a little bit ahead going into the last six weeks will give you a good chance of winning and recharging your desire to be involved in politics.

The Second Donation feeds the imagination

Pick someone in the “Toss Up” category to support from either the Senate or House list. This is where your second donation goes.

Winning feels good. Helping a longshot or upset victory feels even better (but happens less often).

The second donation has the chance to make a bigger difference, but also a chance to fail. That’s okay. If we don’t fail then we aren’t trying hard enough.

After you give, generate momentum

Help get the word out and generate momentum for the Change Jar Conservative Project.

Post a link to changejarconservative.wordpress.com or this article on your facebook or twitter account.

Follow us on twitter

Give us feedback

If you decide to follow the change jar way, email us the amount you gave and to whom at changejarconservative@gmail.com.

We’ll total it up whether it’s a big or small amount and post the totals on Election Night Eve.

Note to the Mods: I thought I wrote this last night and put a publish date of this morning on it so if it show up again, feel free to kill the one that doesn’t have this text in it

From the Diaries by Erick.

Introduction

My first political act was attending a Ronald Reagan rally back in 1980.

Since then I’ve watched with great disappointment the ability of the GOP to turn opportunities into wasted piles of crap and to push soft Republicans and weary independents into the arms of the Democrats or those who don’t vote.

Such moves have led to this kind of apathy among even people who would love to be dedicated Republicans: “Unfortunately neither party, once in power appears to be terribly concerned with limiting their own power” and “The only people I see truly dedicated to limiting government are the Tea Party, but I’m not so sure they can get enough broad support to make it happen” (both real quotes from friends of mine in response to a note I posted on facebook).

Let me ask you this question: If you were to survey ten of your closest friends who you considered soft Republicans (they either voted for Obama or considered it), what would they say the number one issue for the Republicans should be after they win in November?

I’m betting you either said “cut government spending” or “get rid of healthcare” or “make government smaller.”

Now ask them a different question. “Where did the GOP go wrong in the 1990s and the early 2000s when they had control?”

They will probably say one of two things “they spent too much” or “they wasted all their time investigating Clinton.”

At least that has been my experience in talking to my “soft” Republican and independent friends who lean conservative in their ideals.

Read More →

The Backdrop

One of the names that will quickly float to the top of the presidential discussion as soon as the 2010 elections are over will be Indiana governor Mitch Daniels.

The reason for that is that independents in particular and much of America is looking for a proven fiscal conservative who will cut the size of government and Daniels has done that in the past six years cutting the size of Indiana government from 35,000 to 30,000 employees and having enacted budget line item measures of the effectiveness to the state budget.

The question that many of us as social conservatives will have is how is he on social conservative issues. Daniels himself has made social conservatives suspicious by saying that we “need a truce on social issues” for 2012.

I realize that for some of you that makes Daniels a non-starter.

For me, I’m willing to give him some leeway as long as I can feel good about who he will select as judges which is what brings me to today’s topic.

The opening in the Indiana Supreme Court

Indiana recently had a Supreme Court judge step down. The process is for people to apply for the position and then for a committee to widdle down to three the number of finalists. That list of three then goes to the governor and he has sixty days to choose a replacement.

There is very little information on all of these candidates so some of what I say here may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I have looked for everything that I could.

Here are links to the notes on the final interviews. Each interview covers three candidates so you need to scroll a bit within the article to see what each one said.

Robyn Moberly
Karl Mulvaney
Steven David

The pressure to pick a woman

There is additonal pressure on Daniels to pick Robyn Moberly because the Indiana Supreme Court is one of only two state Supreme Courts that is all male.

Daniels has responded to this pressure with the following comment which is point 1 in his favor:

Gov. Mitch Daniels said Wednesday that he would like to use his first Supreme Court appointment to put a woman on the bench but not at the expense of qualifications and judicial philosophy.

“It would be gratifying (to appoint a woman), but it cannot be the controlling factor,” he said.

My Take on the Candidates

Here are some key quotes that I note from each one.

From Robyn Moberly’s section:

Mr. Trimble asked how (Justice) Moberly would resolve a conflict in Court of Appeals’ decisions. As a starting point she would look at the underlying doctrinal basis of each opinion and see if anything has changed. She would consider whether one approach has proven more or less workable, and consider such things as how one approach might affect commerce.
…
She reiterated her concern for “compassionate justice” and noted it could continue to be fulfilled on the Court.

Did a whole bunch of alarms just go off for you? They sure did for me “compassionate justice” and approaches that have “proved workable” sounds like a recipe for Judicial Activism.

From Karl Mulvany’s notes:

Mr. Mulvaney recited Chief Justice Roberts’ analogy of calling balls and strikes and specifically mentioned deference to the legislature. His experience as court administrator would provide a “good base” of understanding the work of the Court.
…
In response to Mr. Trimble’s question about apporaching issues of first impression, Mr. Mulvaney cited with approval the approach taken by Chief Justice Shepard in Bolin v. Wingert. Courts should (1) survey other states and (2) apply the statute based on the words of the statute. Although Mr. Mulvaney did not say whether he agreed with the result, he did agree with the approach.

…

Mr. Trimble asked Mr. Mulvaney about his view of oral argument. Mr. Mulvaney explained he prepares by anticipating questions and would do the same as a justice, asking “those questions that help make the law work the way it should.”

Quoting Chief Roberts is great although I’m not sure why he would “look to see what other states have done” rather than focusing on the second part of that which is “the statute based on the words of the statute.”

Finally, we have Steven H. David:

When asked what different perspective he would bring to the Court, Jude David cited his military experience (ability to work with people from all levels, knowledge of the federal rules of evidence) and his work as corporation counsel for six years. He can work well with others but also compete, be a leader, and stand his ground when necessary.

Ms. Keck asks to what extent “political, social, and economic” concerns should factor into a decision. Judge David thought the three should be separated. He noted the social considerations may be a factor in some cases but not others. When considering to appoint pauper counsel, Judge David noted the “community is served better” sometimes with deviating a bit from hard and fast rules. As to political considerations, Judge David does not “blog” or “Facebook”; his role as a judge is to make decisions without regard to political considerations.

I sure wouldn’t mind having an ROTC/military guy on a court and I’m also glad that he feels that his decision should be made without regard to political considerations.

A final note is that between the opening round of thirty-four applicants and after the announcement of nine semi-finalists, there were ten additional letters of recommendation from Indiana judges and all were written for Judge David — two of them came from people who had been passed over in the first round.

The Consequences

For Daniels to be acceptable as a presidential candidate to social conservatives, he must at the very least be “good on judges” and this pick will give us a window into whether we can trust him on that issue.

The pressure is on for him to pick the candidate who seems most likely to become a legislator from the bench since she is a female.

While I don’t think it will be a deal breaker for him to pick Mobley (unless we find out more seriously down the road that she was known to be liberal and he knuckled under just to pick a woman), I think that picking one of the others (David or Mulvaney) would show that he is definitely committed to doing the right thing on judges regardless of the outside pressures that be.

My bet is that he will pick Judge David if for no other reason than Judge David is younger than the other two. I think if the commission had really wanted to give the governor a chance to put a woman on the court than they should have sent at least two women finalists (there were five male and four female semi-finalists).

Finally, it should be noted that the departing Supreme Court justice is the one who tended to author opinions in “complex civil cases” and that was a key area that the nominees were questioned about during the opening rounds of the process.

He has already given himself room to pick someone else with his comments about

I have been completely behind the idea of replacing Bob Bennett with Mike Lee.

My political philosophy is “As Conservative As Possible” which for Utah is pretty darn conservative.  So no problem with the battle for this seat.

However, I also believe in giving credit where credit is due.

In their article about the Lee win today, The Corner notes:

Sen. Bob Bennett (R., Utah), a Bridgewater supporter, is ready to help. “I extend my congratulations to Mike Lee on his victory,” he says. “I will do everything I can to make the transition from my office to his as smooth as possible and will be as helpful as I can during the process.”

Good for Bennett and hopefully we will see the same thing from Bridgewater in the next day or so.

A brief history

I am a full slated conservative* and proud of it.

I have given money and time over the years like many hear and I have argued that we should react to every diary about a potential 2012 candidate with boilerplate attacks (though some will do it here).

My political history goes something like this:

1982 — Register Democrat to drive my (California) redneck father crazy.

1984 — Vote for Reagan, but be proud of being one of ten Democrats on my conservative Christian university.

1988 — Work for Al Gore on the final pro-life Democratic presidential campaign.

1990 — Register Republican and vote but do little else.

1998 — Get my second taste of campaigning but not too much.

2000 — Give several thousand dollars and probably 400 hours of time for Bush and GOP Senators.

mid 2001 — Be completely embarrassed by the largess of the Republicans.

2002 — Contribute to a few more GOP Senate candidates.

2004 — Turn into an occasional Redstate poster but pretty much lose respect for 90% of the party and watch my conservative independent friends say that they can’t tell the difference between the two parties any more.

2008 — Volunteer for Fred for about 2 hours in South Carolina and then drive back to Georgia, discouraged that best candidate can’t seem to decide if he wants to run or not and then watch George Bush fall for the TARP and the independents show the GOP what they thought of that (to their own demise).

Shortly afterwards, I wrote a diary here with one simple principle — this is our last shot.  The people will hand the reigns back to us and if we don’t fix things, we can pretty much look for a new party.

2010

Barring stupidity or the discovery of nuclear fusion, I believe that the GOP will do well in these elections.  Are we capable of screwing it up?  Of course we are — we’re Republicans.

However, when the dust clears in Novemeber, I expect at a minimum, GOP control of the house and a +5 in the Senate.  At a maximum, the GOP will gain 65 seats and go +11 in the Senate.  No, I’m not joking.

Mitch

I have to admit that I have been ambivalent about our current mentioned crop of 2012 contenders.

There are plenty of diaries that attack other candidates and I’m not even going to mention the candidates here lest someone start a fight in the comments seciton.  All human beings have failings and so it is with all candidates.

Mitch Daniels has sold me due to one great article in the American Standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ride-along-mitch

Here are the two money quotes:

Daniels gathered his agency heads on his first day and told them they were henceforth to pursue a single organizational goal—all successful businesses unite their efforts behind a goal, he said. His was this: “We will do everything we can to raise the net disposable income of individual Hoosiers.

And the second one:

The number of state employees has fallen from 35,000 to under 30,000, back where it was in 1982.

That’s impressive.

As I read the article, I actually wondered if Mitch was wearing a WWAD (that’s what would Art do … http://www.redstate.com/achance/2010/04/01/personnel-is-policy-the-house-rules/ ) bracelet.

Read the seven pages.  Tell me that this not the kind of person that you want in the White House during our time of economic implosion.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have someone run the federal government whose motto was “What can we do today to increase the net worth of every American?”

Someone who is willing to talk back to the Unions (read the article), make every supervisor justify replacement employees in government (read the article), and someone who has SHOWN (not talked about) A CONSISTENT COMMITMENT TO SMALLER GOVERNMENT AND ACTUALLY ACOMPLISHED IT.

The negatives

Rather than have them show up in the comment section, I’ll just hit the two negatives on Mitch that I have heard and one of which turned me off early on.

#1) He will not take a no new tax pledge and he raised taxes temporarily at the beginning of his term in Indiana.  It happened and he doesn’t apologize for it.  His first goal was to balance the budget and his secondary goal was to reduce the size of government.  He has now done both and is running a surplus on a regular basis.

#2) He is a five foot seven inch tall bundle of knowledge but not a TV personality.  He is the anti-Obama.  It may be a plus with some people but it will turn off others.

He is the man we need

Daniels might not be the person for President at any time in history, but he is the one we need this time around.   We are in serious fiscal crap and Daniels has run a budget surplus, increased jobs and investment spending, and cut the number of government employees through attrition and justification requirements.

One more quote that shows how Daniels has implemented responsibility:

Every line item in the state budget has at least one objective formula attached to it to indicate how well each service is being delivered.

My wallet has been on the sidelines for four years when it comes to politics, but today, I’m starting a jar.  It may not be thousands but it will at least have hundreds by the time 2012 rolls around and it is money that I will send with a clear conscience and a warm heart to Mitch Daniels.

For many years, I have taken the pulse of groups of people around me.

Some are moderate Republicans.  Some are independents.  Some are moderate Democrats.

They are a strong bellweather for elections.

Almost all of them were on board for Bush in 2000.

The first inclinations that they were upset with Republicans was during the increases in spending during the early part of the Bush administration.

Most of them were ready to jump ship during the amnesty fiasco during the summer of 2005.

All but one of the ten voted for Obama with the final nail in the coffin being the TARP bill that Bush signed.

Most of them are back.  Chomping at the bit to vote against the Democrats in 2010.

But the vote comes with a caveat.

They don’t want Republicans to SCREW IT UP AGAIN OR ELSE.

While the polling, excitement, victories in VA/NJ are great, they are only an opportunity.

To ensure a real return to power, the Republicans have to be READY TO GOVERN AS CONSERVATIVES.

That means cutting pork even in your own districts.

It means returning to the time of Reagan on earmarks.

It means cutting regulations so that businesses can start up more easily.

Most of all, it means embracing limited government.

And the real key will be WHO we elect as President.  When I look for someone to support in 2012 with my tme and my energy and my money, it won’t be the best looking or the most conservative on every area (even though I am conservative in 95% of the areas), it will be who is dedicated to the idea of the smallest government possible …. and they better have the proof to back it up.

Because the next time the GOP gets control of the government and they DONT govern like conservatives — the moderates are going to be gone for a long time.

The lesson that I take away from the election this past week is that people are focused on the economy more than ever.  While the default conservative positions that we all know and love will make great back drop (conservative judges, pro-life, pro-gun), but people want specific tangible approaches to creating jobs.

To that end, I would propose the following five step proposal for the GOP to get behind.

1) A six month holiday from Social Security taxes for both business and individuals.

This will put money in people’s pockets and that money will get spent.  It will help individuals get caught up on debt, give them money to spend that will go into other industries (i.e. small vacations or eating out), or go towards investments.

Businesses will use that money as well.  I suspect at least some of them will use it for capital spending that they would have had to otherwise skip and capital spending means jobs.

2) Put a zero growth limit on all non-entitlement spending for two years.

Yes.  There are places that will hurt us, but if we believe that the free market is great and that governement tends to waste money, this is a place to start.

3) Fast track through permits for nuclear plants and other alternate fuel energy plants.

These are people who WANT to create jobs and are being held back by red tape.  Each of these projects will generate jobs from skilled labor down to unskilled labor.

4) Push use of the SS security database down to all companies larger than 20 employees as a requirement and enforce against those companies that don’t use it.  Follow through on raids of businesses that we already know are using illegals (or “strongly suspect).  We need a smaller handle for this one.  Previous raids have shown that once the illegals are cleared out, Americans do take those jobs.

5) Limit the number of visas for high end workers from over seas.

Yes.  I know this one isn’t popular but trust me I have enough friends who are high skilled workers and unemployed to fill all of your needs.  You will have to pay them more than $10 an hour though.  The visa for techincal workers started years ago as a real need, but it has degenerated into a way to get cheap labor.

Give that list to any candidate and I think they can use it or something like it to win in 2010.

I pose the question in the title, “Would you be okay with federal Romney-Care plus tort reform?” for three reasons.

#1) I probably would be okay with that (which I’ll explain later)

#2) I think that is where we may be headed

#3) I think congressmen of all stripes would be hard pressed to vote against it

Romney-Care (as used here)

For those who don’t know what RomneyCare is, it was then Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s attempt to cover everyone in Massauchesetts with health care coverage.

Some will say it was a failure (especially in the comments on this thread) while others of us see it as a not bad first attempt.

It contains among other things:

Mandatory coverage with teeth

Coverage options so that people can essentially buy only catastrophic care (i.e. very high deductables) if they choose to.

I haven’t followed all of it, but those two things jump out.

Our Current Road

One thing that I’m not sure if you’re observing is that Obama is working toward a Bi-Partisan bill not through normal negotiations but through giving in to the demands of the Republican protestors.

Republicans:  We hate your bill, no public option.

Obama: Okay, we don’t need a public option.

Republicans: Tort reform is the only way to reduce costs.

Obama: Okay, we can talk about tort reform.

Republicans: You’re going to cover illegal aliens

Obama: Okay, we’ll put in something about illegal aliens.

Republicans: If you cover pre-existing conditions, no one will by health coverage

Baucus (haven’t heard Obama on this): Everyone will have to have coverage

Republicans: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

What’s Our Next Objection?

The question may eventually come down to this:  Are Republicans willing to support National Healthcare in any form?

This could be problematic for Republicans because MOST people out there would like some sort of healthcare for everyone.

We need to understand where we stand on this issue because we could very quickly be backed into a corner by Obama and the Democrats and be looking at a large percentage of Americans wondering why we oppose health care for the poor when all of our objections have been answered by Obama.

As I’ve watched the debates and commercials unfold, there are several reasons that McCain can’t seem to get on track unrelated to the economic mess.

Here are my observations:

Read More →

Okay so I know this isn’t the usual Redstate Diary but I have these thoughts that go through my head from time to time and I thought you guys might be interested.

Read More →

So let’s start with the facts:

1) The polls are drifting toward Obama. I hear the complaints about the make up of the polls, but it doesn’t matter who you look at, they are trending Dem.

Rasmussen has Obama at +5 and that should sober you up (or in my case make me consider taking up alcohol).

2) The financial crisis coupled with the gas crisis in the Southeast (I’m in atlanta so this is really on my mind) has a lot of people leaning towards “Something needs to change” and that will invariably lead them to Obama.

So where does it leave McCain:

Read More →

We are all aware of the tremendous energy out there in the wake of the Palin nomination and the subsequent polling.

There is still time for YOU to get out and do something useful.

Right now, the best way that we can help McCain and Palin succeed is to register voters in heavily Republican areas of swing states or states with close Senate races. Even one additional Republican Senator could make the difference in blocking bad legislation from overriding a veto or help confirm a conservative judge.

Contact your state or county(parish) Republican party and ask them when you can help or push them to get something going.

Here are some states that either have close house, senate, or Presidential races and the deadline for registering voters:

Read More →

The Hill is reporting that Joseph Biden has said that

“I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think,” Biden added. “And that’s obviously a backward step for women.”

So he didn’t say word for word that “Palin is a backward step for women,” but you can rest assured that that is what a lot of women will here.

Conservative women are tired of the double standard between conservative and liberal women and moderate to liberal women have often been out in the work force and met the “Joe Bidens” of the world who use sideways rhetoric to belittle what they do and they will not be pleased with Joe’s statement.

We have already annointed her as the saviour of the McCain candidacy and in the long run of the Republican party.

You probably don’t want me to unfocus her and use her for something else, but I can’t shake the feeling that Sarah Palin could be the answer to Republican congressional woes in 2010 and maybe even a little in 2008.

Read More →

We have already annointed her as the saviour of the McCain candidacy and in the long run of the Republican party.

You probably don’t want me to unfocus her and use her for something else, but I can’t shake the feeling that Sarah Palin could be the answer to Republican congressional woes in 2010 and maybe even a little in 2008.

Read More →

Tonight Barak Obama electrified a crowd and perhaps the nation.

No, I’m not some shill for Obama and on my personal blog, I’ve already written why a speech is simply an exercise in teleprompter reading. Obama can read a teleprompter … I get it.

But I am not the typical American. The typical American is going to see the glitz, the hype, and the man and they are going to, in large part, respond to his call to “do something big.”

Read More →

About Me:
Before I get beat up for this diary, let me just clarify that I am a strong conservative and that I generally line up with Redstate. The two areas where I stray are 1) jobs going overseas (and no I have no good answers on what to do about it) and 2) that Carly Fiorinia is a good person/advisor/etc

Read Below to see the Negatives, Positives, and Break Evens of a KBH Vice Presidency.

Read More →

1) THE FEMALE GAMBIT — Sarah Palin.

Upside: Conservatives will love her. Women will vote for her (not all of them, but some of them just to break the “glass ceiling”). Good campaigner, means Biden will have to be careful in his debate attacks to not be seen bullying and we all know how careful Biden is.

Downside: Trooper gate, does she fit McCain’s personality style.

Other choices here but unlikely: Jody Rell, KBH, Marsha Blackburn

2) THE LOYAL FRIEND GAMBIT — Tim Pawlenty

Upside: Stuck with McCain through thick and thin. More conservative than McCain.

Downside: Relatively dull. Could he handle Biden in a debate?

Other choices here but unlikely: Lindsey Graham.

3) THE RICH GUY — Mitt Romney

Upside: Romney is young and even younger looking. He’s telegenic and speak on his feet. I think he would SHRED Biden in debates. Rich friends could give to 527s.

Downside: Some Romney clips could be used against McCain, but not as many as Erick thinks. Some evangelicals won’t vote for a Morman and may not vote on the ticket (I’m an evangelical and I would vote for Romney, but I know some who won’t … just saying). How many houses do Romney and McCain own between them … class warfare is never out of style.

4) THE ONE TERM GAMBIT –
Peggy Noonan raises the fact that McCain could probably seal the deal with a pledge to run only one term.

This gives Americans a chance to punt for four years on Obama who they like, but doubt is ready.

The downside is that McCain has already said no to the idea.

4a) One term with Palin — Hillary voters now have two reasons to vote McCain — break the glass ceiling of female VP AND keep Barak out of the White House so Hillary has a level playing field in 2012.

4b) Liebermann — Again you make it easy for McCain to sell the whole plan. Republicans would be a bit less leary of Liebermann as a VP if they knew it was for a single term and McCain would get to be a maverick. Dems would feel better knowing that they were getting essentially the VP spot for their guy so another reason to vote for this ticket.

4c) Anyone else, but with the one term pledge in place — picks up some Hillary voters who want her to be on an even field with Barry in 2012. Picks up some reluctant Repubicans who can stomach McCain for four years instead of Barry.

In the coming days (probably about 10), John McCain will name his running mate.

We have discussed them ad nauseum on this forum and the pros and cons of all of them.

There are two names that I sincerely hope to show up next to McCain. Huckabee because he is a fraud and a big government conservative and Carly Fiorina because she has destroyed two companies (HP and parts of ATT) and because she is the “queen of outsourcing.”*

Read More →