Mitt Romney was not my first choice for President. Frankly, he didn’t make my top three. I was initially enthusiastic about Tim Pawlenty. Later, I volunteered in Iowa and South Carolina for Gov. Perry. Lastly, I campaigned in Tennessee for Rick Santorum. Now it appears inevitable that Gov. Romney will be our nominee. (No offense to my Newt friends, but he’s batting 2-31 out of states that have weighed in so far, and he’s batting even worse if you throw in D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam.) So my goals now are to elect solid conservatives to the US Senate and House this fall and work to elect Mitt Romney President.

While I’m no political genius, I am something of a student of politics. I’ve volunteered on multiple GOP national presidential campaigns including campaigning for Bush in Florida in 2004, and I have a degree in political science and history. Here’s some keys I think Gov. Romney needs to utilize in order to win this fall.

1) Romney must frame the debate by relentlessly going on offense against Barack Obama. Romney held nothing back in attacking his GOP opponents. He needs to follow the same guidelines in going after Obama. Romney would be wise to study Ronald Reagan’s speech at Liberty State Park, NJ in 1980. Reagan opened his presidential campaign on Democratic turf, and he delivered a speech for the ages holding nothing back against Jimmy Carter. Romney’s speech following his Illinois primary victory is precisely the kind of speech he needs to deliver day in and day out through November. I encourage you to watch the speech in its entirety. It is one of Romney’s finest moments of the campaign.

Obama will attempt to make Romney a villain, so Romney must turn the tables and consistently pound Obama’s disgraceful economic record (sky high unemployment, blocking energy development and the 100% increase in gas prices since Obama took office, drunken deficit spending, etc), shameless identity politics (war on women) and socialist rhetoric and policies (e.g. class warfare, Obamacare, etc). Let’s face it: the GOP primary was primarily white noise to Democrats and Independents, so any prior Romney attacks on Obama have not really been heard by swing voters.

Romney will be outspent and outgunned financially by Obama, so Romney must introduce bold arguments and bold ideas (continue to embrace Paul Ryan’s economic reform ideas and develop a few good ones—bring back drill baby drill, introduce a flat tax, etc) to steer the national debate to the right. All Romney has to do is talk about North Dakota. They’re drilling their socks off up there, and unemployment is under 4%.

2) Deploy Ann Romney. She has the star power potential of Sarah Palin. Just unleash her. She has a compelling life story to tell—of overcoming cancer and fighting MS. It takes a woman of strength to raise 5 boys as successfully as she has. The American people will grow to love her. Ann Romney has the potential to be a better spokesman than Romney’s VP nominee. Send Ann to swing states where women can sway the election. She will do nothing but help Mitt Romney. Just look how the Hilary Rosen attack backfired. Hilary Rosen, Obama loyalist and White House guest on 35 occasions over the last three years, pulled off a seemingly unimaginable task—uniting the right behind Mitt Romney. On the down side, Rosen’s White House pass has likely been revoked through the election.

3) Select a solid VP nominee. Attention team Romney: take all that charming stuff you keep reading about Rob Portman in the WaPost and NY Times, and get it out of your heads. Portman would be a very bad VP nominee, although I think he’d potentially be a great Chief of Staff or Commerce Secretary. Portman is Mr. Establishment, and he is far from youthful. He’s like an Ohio version of Mitt Romney. Portman would bring about as much enthusiasm to the ticket as a Joe Biden cameo at a Pittsburg St. Patty’s Day parade. A Portman VP selection does not compute. Romney doesn’t need to doubledown on country-club Republicans. He needs some conservative bona fides. At the same time, Romney doesn’t need somebody who would overshadow him (goodbye Newt and Santorum from the veepstates). However, he solidifies his candidacy if he selects someone who passionately articulates conservatism and lives it. This winnows the field to a few excellent VP choices: Allen West (articulates conservatism fluently, is youthful, represents a must-win swing state, brings military experience to the ticket, generates enthusiasm among conservatives and potentially cuts into Obama’s African American support), Marco Rubio (also a great conservative spokesman, has won a statewide election in a must-win swing state, is youthful and has the potential to help the GOP win the Hispanic vote), Paul Ryan (a policy genius, has a youthful and winsome personality, is eloquent in arguing conservatism, represents a swing state, has routinely taken on Obama) and Rick Perry (brings military experience to the ticket, has an outstanding record as governor, was firing on all cylinders at the end of his Presidential candidacy (unfortunately it was too late for him to make a comeback) following his recovery from back surgery. Perry also would help Romney shore up the conservative base and be a stark contrast to Obama. I think Gov. Bobby Jindal would be a formidable VP choice, but I’m uncertain he has the charisma of West, Rubio, Ryan or Perry. Rubio arguably offers Romney the most upside potential. He possesses some executive experience as Speaker of the Florida House, represents a crucial swing state and is a rising star in the GOP.

The bottom line for Romney is that the failed socialist policies of the Obama presidency have made 2012 a year ripe for a Republican resurgence. That’s not to say Romney won’t face some sizeable challenges: namely a hostile media bent on destroying him, a wary conservative base and a cash-rich Chicago political machine. Winning will require taking the gloves off and going full throttle after Obama. For Romney to win, he must frame the debate as a recall election on Obama—and he needs to deploy his best weapons from his arsenal: his wife and his veep nominee.

It Matters Who Governs

 

Four little words. But they are filled with both history and potential.

It matters that Carter was elected in 1976. It matters even more that Reagan was elected in 1980. It matters that Al Gore lost in 2000. It matters that Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and Allen West went to Washington in 2010. The same significance present in the last 35 years applies in 2012 and beyond. It matters who governs. It always has. It always will.

What changes from election cycle to election cycle is the possibility and the opportunity to change who governs. So many things influence who runs for office which, obviously, impacts who is elected. Things like issues, retirements, scandals and switching parties routinely change the make-up of every level of government from dog catcher to President of the United States. The least frequent, and yet potentially most extensive opportunity for changing the make-up of government comes only once a decade with the constitutionally mandated census of the entire American people and the redistricting which follows.

The redistricting prize is the newly created open seat. Such a prize exists in Southern California. The new district is CA-47. There is a primary for the seat with several candidates running. Which brings us back to our original thought, it matters who governs.

Three candidates represent very different options and real choice. All have an R after their name. But the policy, principle and platform behind that R is quite different.

First up is Steve Kuykendall. He seems the epitome of “career politician.” He was a City Councilman from 1991-1994, State Assemblyman from 1994-1998 and Congressman from 1998-2000. Kuykendall has the distinction of being the only member of that Freshman class to not be re-elected in 2000. Since then, his commitment to Public Service seems a little thin. There is no service, activism or work on behalf of the people of California or the US to be easily found for the last 12 years. Not until this year’s open seat and a shot at returning to power. His website doesn’t list a single position. Not one. There is an extensive list of endorsements. The highlight of that list is the endorsement of John McCain. Which ought to tell you all you need to know about Steve Kuykendall. It should also remind you that it matters who governs.

Then there is Gary DeLong. He’s a second term Long Beach City Councilman. Prior to that he was a businessman for 20 years. His policy positions on key issues can be seen as an object lesson for electing someone whose biggest claim to being qualified for office is that he was a good businessman. DeLong, despite trying to depict himself as a Conservative and despite an entire page on his site dedicated to “Priorities,” seems to personify the term “boiler plate.” It’s when he talks about his positions publicly that a different story emerges. The OC Register notes there are parts of ObamaCare that DeLong would keep, that he believes government bailouts for businesses aren’t all bad and that illegal aliens should be issued driver’s licenses. This is the California GOP’s endorsed candidate. How is a vote for this man a vote to change the political environment in DC? If there is any truth to the notion that it matters who governs, Republicans should flee the good ship DeLong for a more sound vessel.

Finally there is Steve Foley. He’s nothing like the first two guys. He’s never held office himself. But he’s worked hard to make sure people across the nation have solid Conservative representation by working on the campaigns of Doug Hoffman in NY-23 in 2009, Charles Djou in HI-01 and Dan Benishek in MI-01 in 2010. Those nationally prominent races helped define issues for campaigns well beyond their specific districts and Steve Foley was there, championing ideas like life, free markets, limited government, lower taxes, spending cuts, energy independence and the rest of the issues which make up the backbone of Conservative governance.

As a former Marine, Steve knows the value and power of a strong commitment to the 2nd amendment, secure borders and national defense.

He’s not just a campaign machine, however. He’s worked for over a decade to make sure that everyday Americans have a voice – everyday – to go with their vote every two years. His work with The Minority Report Blog, 73Wire.com, Liberty.com, Liberty First PAC and the Patriot Caucus means that thousands of activists, candidates and ordinary Americans around the nation have learned how to engage their government in a practical and effective manner. Steve has trained and equipped citizens to engage their government while the others were busy asking citizens to enshrine them in government.

Others may call themselves public servants. Only Steve Foley can point to a record of real service. In 2012 he’s wanting to move to the next level and bring his record of reforming what’s wrong with Washington from the outside to the inside. He has the experience and the tools to do the job. He has the track record of doing it when given the opportunity. Kuykendall and DeLong like to say they’ll do it. Only Foley has the experience, commitment to Conservatism and strength of character to actually do it.

It matters who governs.

For more info on Steve Foley for Congress or to donate please visit www.SteveFoley2012.com

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Matt Lewis to discuss the Veepstakes, how Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez could make an impact on the ticket, and whether the Supreme Court’s decision in the Obamacare case could play a role in who Mitt Romney picks.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Romney veepstakes: Will personal connection be key?
Johnson: Romney-Martinez would be ‘Palin-esque’
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller
Matt K Lewis.com

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Matt on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Matt Lewis to discuss the Veepstakes, how Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez could make an impact on the ticket, and whether the Supreme Court’s decision in the Obamacare case could play a role in who Mitt Romney picks.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Romney veepstakes: Will personal connection be key?
Johnson: Romney-Martinez would be ‘Palin-esque’
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller
Matt K Lewis.com

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Matt on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

It seems that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who will likely be the GOP VP nominee, is seeking to introduce his own version of the DREAM Act.  It isn’t the bold move we’d like to see from the GOP, but it is a decent start.

The problem with this bill is that it will not provide a path forward for citizenship.  That in-and-of itself kind of defeats the purpose of any sort of immigration reform.  But it is a very good thing that republicans are talking.

I was never an ardent opponent of Harry Reid and Obama’s Dream Act, but I didn’t support it.  I was wrong.  Part of my skepticism came from the fact that democrats didn’t pass the act until they had lost the Congress.  Hispanics were an afterthought for them.  They focused on global warming, health care reform, DODT, etc. and after everything was done and all the capital spent, they turned to Hispanics with a half-hearted effort.  But that wasn’t a good reason to oppose the DREAM Act.

Service to our country by potential citizens in return for full citizenship isn’t a bad deal for us or them.  It creates a necessary opportunity.

Rubio’s bill needs to provide a clear path to citizenship that any immigrant can easily understand.  Whether it is service in the military or elsewhere, these patriots will show they believe in and are loyal to America and should receive the same GI education benefits and healthcare as the rest of our vets already receive.

If Rubio will do that, he will endear himself to the 97% of American Hispanics that are not Cuban but rather of Mexican or South American descent.  He will show that republicans do care about fixing these issues and he will prove himself to be the only logical choice for VP, as if he needed that.  The democrats don’t have a death grip on Hispanic voting blocs yet, but they are close if we don’t act fast.  Rubio has made a good move forward on this issue.  He should introduce it before the summer and the House should pass its own version.

Top Story

Can Justice Survive Media Lynch Mob? - As more facts have come out about the tragic death of young Trayvon Martin, the news media have been confronted with the consequences of their rush to judgment when news of this story first broke nationally. The first week or 10 days of national coverage turned out to be more of a lynch mob than a sober take on an unfolding story. It had all the makings of “First the hanging, then the trial.” And then more facts began to emerge.

AIM Blogs

MSNBC Uses “The Hunger Games” to Shill for Obamacare [Video] – Democratic strategist David Goodfriend used his Daily Rant time on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan program to compare the movie “The Hunger Games” to the fight over Obamacare.

AIM Newswire

News Corp’s Fox ponders sports network – Rumors that Fox would take Fuel well beyond its traditional fare of skateboarding, surfing and other so-called extreme sports and create its own mainstream channel persist among TV executives, with Fox routinely dismissing them.

Rubio endorses Romney, says GOP primary should end – Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida endorsed Mitt Romney as the party’s presidential nominee Wednesday night, saying it’s increasingly clear that Romney will win the nomination and that continuing the primary fight will only damage the effort to defeat President Barack Obama.

France bars Muslim clerics from entering France – The ban also includes other high-profile Muslim clerics of Palestinian, Egyptian and Saudi origin.

Guest Post

Signing anti-Walker petition affirms journalists’ bias – An investigation reveals 29 sitting circuit court judges in Wisconsin sign a union-driven recall drive targeting Republican Governor Scott Walker. Newspapers and radio-TV news are outraged — OUTRAGED! — that jurists put their names to such an overtly political document, showing their utter lack of impartiality — bias, if you like. Media painstakingly name all 29 judges, city-by-city, and spank them for their partisanship.

IRS May Draft Cops to Catch Tax Cheats – While the Obama Administration curtailed its involvement with local police agencies to enforce immigration law and capture criminal aliens, that same administration wishes local cops to help the Internal Revenue Service enforcement tax laws, according to testimony given before a panel of U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday.

While there seem to be a large number of people active on Facebook and other social media swearing they won’t vote for one or another of the candidates if their own choice is not the winner of the GOP presidential primaries, Rick Santorum’s new string of victories will surely make him the top target of the naysayers in the next week.

The Santorum victory in Alabama and Mississippi simply means that, whether it is Santorum or it is another candidate, Mitt Romney’s trouble with the conservatives and the “values voters” isn’t fading or going away.

The pundits and pols continue to echo this myth that to win a GOP presidential primary you “run to the right’ in the primary and then as soon as you have it locked up  you swing “back to the middle” (ie. to the left).

The proponents of this view never suggest this idea to liberal Democrats and that’s funny… they ARE liberal Democrats.

With a few exceptions, the people who buy into this “run to the right, then go left” idea are either liberals or people who do not have an enormous capacity for intellectual discussion, to put it as gently as I can.

So if you swing over to MSNBC TV you get the usual suspects there giving their “advice” to the Republicans, and what are they advising us?

As usual, they say that women don’t like conservatives.  And most especially, they aver, women don’t like Christian conservatives.

They insist that the government has to pay for their contraception or else it diminishes or eliminates their constitutional right to sex before and after and for those who unlike Rachel Maddow are engaged in heterosexual marriage, marriage-sex with your own partner.

Therefore, women have to be against Santorum because he is a Catholic trying to take away their ability to have sex, and their rights to have a healthy life.

This really is the level of discourse on the left, going past the theatre of the absurd..  And it reminds me of what people used to say about Jerry Falwell, the first major “social conservative” or “values voter” leader from over 30 years ago.

Falwell and his “Moral Majority” they said, were (also) trying to tell people how to live their lives, and using the power of the government to make people do what they believe is right.

Like the Taliban terrorists, which the Rachel Maddows of MSNBC and the hate-sites of the left always love to say, the Christian rightwingers or “wingnuts” as MSNBC’s Christopher Matthews likes to call us, are on a fresh new campaign to steal away all of our rights, trash the Constitution and impose our religion on everybody and run the government and everybody’s lives.

The liberal left and their witting and unwitting allies within our GOP and conservative ranks continue to say that only a more reasonable “moderate” like Mitt Romney has a chance to beat Barack Obama.

I wonder: who are the people with a handicapped ability to reason, who think this repeated argument that the left has made forever and ever, is one we should listen to?

Of course many of the people supposedly within our ranks, actually hate all Republicans and conservatives who they view as “neocons” and apologists for the liberal Republicans.

These are the people who have within their ranks the Ronald Reagan haters, and those people who love to repeat that mantra “there’s no difference” between GOP and Democrats they are all the same.

While these anti-GOP advocates get a serious hearing from people who are frustrated with how things have gone for our cause in Washington, there are a few of us who know how absurd this “Dem-GOP the same” argument is – which don’t forget goes all the way back to the 1968 “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties.

I’ve yet to hear a good answer from these anti-conservative, anti-GOP partisans, as to which political party has 19 U.S. Senators with a 0% rating from the American Conservative Union, and which party has 9 U.S. Senators with a 100% rating last year – and why wouldn’t we want to switch that around so there’s twice as many 100% conservatives as there are 0% conservatives?

And which party has a Marco Rubbio, a Jim DeMint and a Jim Inhoffe in the Senate?

Which party has an Al Franken, Harry Reid and a Chuck Schumer in the Senate?

I do know why some keep saying “I cannot see any difference” between the parties.  They have an anti-GOP, anti-conservative axe to grind.  Or they are a little slow on basic logic and short of essential facts.

And why do so many people – supposedly within our GOP and/or conservative ranks, echo the “party line” of the Huffington Post, Media Matters, the New York Times, Rachel Maddow, Daily KOS and their ilk, claiming that candidates like Rick Santorum are trying to “make” people do anything?

These are the same people, groups and websites who “cannot tell the difference” are most often, the very same people expressing the same visceral hatred of Rick Santorum and setting up strawman arguments against him.

They have the same purpose, the same design, and they are fired up to stop evil – which is to them, those of us who are supporting Rick Santorum or any more conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

And of course, some of them are the same old liberal-progressive forces within the GOP which we have nicknamed “RINO’s” (Republicans in Name only) like Senator Olympia Snowe.

It is a strange alliance between the RINO’s, the anti-GOP group within the Tea Party and within the GOP, and the liberal-left.

Increasingly, the top target of this group which has been the historical opponent of conservatives within the GOP, is Rick Santorum.

Meanwhile, as Santorum continues to rack up victories against all odds, Newt Gingrich continues his role as Mitt Romney’s best friend, siphoning off enough votes so that even with his 2nd and 3rd place finishes he prevents a “blowout” win for Santorum over Romney again and again, as he did tonight.

I have no doubt that Mitt – and certainly the good people supporting him – means well.

The books and videos of Newt Gingrich – which I have purchased and highly recommend – will continue to sell well because Newt stays in the public eye as a candidate.

But in my view they would continue to sell well because they are masterpieces of wit, logic and fact and very well put together.  Newt doesn’t need to continue as a candidate and as an inadvertent spoiler for Mitt Romney for his books and videos to continue to sell.

But more and more of us are wondering: do his supporters not feel worried that his continued presence in this close contest will enable Mitt Romney to emerge as the winner with less than 40% of the primary votes but a possible majority of delegates?

Many states are like Pennsylvania, where you have a “beauty contest” where you vote for your choice of Presidential nominees, but it is a separate deal who you vote for as the delegates.

That means that Santorum may win a contest but some Ron Paul delegate candidates run a stealth campaign and are elected as convention delegates, who will ignore the election results and vote for Ron Paul.

Others will be people put forward by the GOP establishment who will run and win, and vote for Romney.

That means you cannot expect to defeat Mitt Romney with a bare minimum of delegates.  You need a large number of “not-Romney” delegates.

I believe the only hope for conservatives right now is enough of the Newt Gingrich supporters do what I would be doing if I saw Rick Santorum losing again and again – as a donor and supporter of Rick I’d be writing and begging him to withdraw as Rick Perry graciously did, and endorse a candidate with a better chance of defeating Mitt.

I do believe this question is in the hands of the supporters of Newt Gingrich more than anything.  I pray they will use their influence because I think that is the ONLY way that Newt would withdraw as a candidate and endorse Rick Santorum.

At one time and in two different primaries (going into South Carolina and again going into Florida) I said on my facebook wall that I endorsed and would support Newt Gingrich if I lived there at that time, despite my earlier support for Rick Santorum.

I thought at that time that Newt had the best chance going into both primaries to derail Romney.

A clear majority of self-described conservatives in both states did do that, including a 2-to-1 margin with self-described “values voters” who ignored the earlier endorsement by 2/3 of the Christian-right group leaders meeting in Texas to endorse Rick Santorum.

I hope Gingrich supporters will do the same thing now – switch, do it publicly, write it on your facebook page, post a message here, write to Newt Gingrich, and get behind Rick Santorum to stop Romney.

Not because he is the most stalwart conservative.  Not because he is a Christian.  Not because his track record is so much better than Newt.  Not because you like his ideas better (personally I like Newt’s ideas about colonizing space so go ahead and expel me from the Tea Party).

These views may or may not be yours.  They are irrelevant.

The reason to get behind Santorum is that this is the very best way we have right now to get a better deal than Mitt Romney as our nominee.

I’ll vote for Romney as the nominee if he wins.  I’m delighted Ron Paul has become totally irrelevant to this contest earning less than 5% of the vote, the same that libertarian-anarchists running as pro-drug and anti-war candidates do here in Pennsylvania (yes I like libertarians like John Stossel and many at the CATO Institute despite disagreeing with them on some things).

I’m delighted and thrilled with many of the speeches I’ve heard from both Santorum and from Gingrich and even listening to Mitt Romney is a real treat after several years of President Obama speeches.

But tonight’s victories in Alabama and Mississippi totally demolish the aura of inevitability and of invincibility for Mitt Romney, end any need for anyone to take Ron Paul seriously any longer, eliminate any chance that Newt Gingrich can be a viable candidate, and show that Rick Santorum has the horsepower to seriously challenge Mitt Romney and emerge as the GOP nominee.

I hope enough Gingrich supporters step up to the plate at this critical time and thank Newt Gingrich for his many years of service, for his wonderful work as a candidate for President (well, at least most of the time), and urge him to withdraw, while openly switching to Rick Santorum for President.

And most of all, I pray that conservatives will not let differences over their choice of Presidential nominee block them from cooperating and working together on the host of important issues our country faces in the future.

HanoverHenry is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there, https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry

Links to my RED STATE articles at my Facebook NOTES section.  

Marco Rubio is the example…. MI4CS is the way for MICHIGAN….

Why the simple, easy, first choices, are often people’s WORST mistake….

A Super-majority of TEA Party groups from across Michigan are meeting this weekend (Sat. 2/25) to determine who will be the next U.S. Senator from Michigan, at the Michigan4ConservativeSenate (MI4CS) Convention. MI4CS was created following a similar process from Indiana (Hoosiers 4 a Conservative Senate) and may (should?) be the next wave in TEA Party activism, across the country, to ensure REAL CONSERVATIVE Candidates make their way to GOP nominations (from BEFORE Primary elections and onto General election ballots) to thwart Establishment Republican control over the process. Informing/Educating the Electorate of REAL CHOICES and Candidates actual positions/records, before it is too late and we are stuck with them in a General Election as the only alternative to even worse choices of Liberal Democrats!

It is important to remind folks, that MARCO RUBIO was not the easy, simple, first choice of many people in FL for U.S. Senate. Many wanted Charlie Crist (like some in Michigan want to make a similar quick, easy, lazy, and) the Politically expedient option. Fortunately, real Conservative Patriots and the majority of TEA Party members in FL held out for a better choice and Marco Rubio is in the Senate today. Also, many people didn’t have Ronald Reagan as their first choice in 1980 also, thankfully, hard-work and people of principle won out and gave us the greatest President of our life-times. Some want to rush headlong into that mistake again with the Senate choice or even the GOP Presidential nomination this coming Tuesday!

People were also in a big hurry to jump of the “Bob Dole for President” bandwagon, or the “John McCain for President” band-wagon, and we see how well those options worked…. Other examples can also be given… Yet we see people running for the “he’s next in line” seemingly obvious, which should be obviously BAD choices (whether it be for U.S. Senate or this coming Tuesday’s Presidential Primary in MI), again.

A handful of groups want to toss the majority (50 other groups) under the TEA Party Express bus! They’d rather jump on the Political Expedience Express bus with the Washington insider (RINO) or the Party (RINO in-training) insider. Most, fortunately, recognize that this is Michigan’s MARCO RUBIO (Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, etc) moment and are making a stand.

More at:
(MI4CS) Michigan4ConservativeSenate.com

As always, Regards from JLenardDetroit from “NoMoTown (The MOTORless CITY)”
“Remember, Liberals – looking to do for America, what they’ve done to Detroit. – Destroy it!”
“I think, therefore I am Conservative”
“Conservative by choice, Republican by necessity”
“The more things ‘hope and change’ the more they stay the same”
“You can lead a Liberal to the Truth (Facts), but you cannot make them THINK!”
“Romney (No, not my first choice) does NOT have a MORMON problem. He has a, far too many Americans; these days; are MORONS problem!”
“No more Lawyers to DC, send Accountants!”
closing quotes attributable to (me) JLenardDetroit

By Javier Manjarres

Senator Marco Rubio recently delivered a compelling and emotional speech on illegal immigration at the annual Hispanic Leadership Network meeting, but Rubio may have left many in the room, and perhaps across the country wondering if this speech marked the beginning of a ‘softening’ by Rubio on this important issue.

At the very beginning of his speech, Rubio was heckeled by pro-Dream Act activists, who were there in protest of the Senators hard-line views on immigration, making the case for his continued anti-amnesty position.

During the course of his remarks, Rubio stated that there is “broad bi-partisan support for a notion that we should somehow figure a way to accommadate them (Dream Act Kids).”

While Rubio has come out in opposition to the Dream Act, Rubio has always questioned what is to happen to the children who were brought here to this country illegally by their parents.

Rubio campaigned on a pro-legal immigration platform and thus far he has been staunchly against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he has hit a couple of bumps along that road that give immigration hawks cause for concern.

During his 2010 Senatorial campaign, Rubio was slammed by pro-illegal immigration contingency when he made this controversial statement critiquing the Arizona Immigration law:

States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.-Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio’s Senate campaign took heavy criticism for this statement and immediately went into damage control mode to try to mitigate the fallout. Rubio immediately back-peddled and the damage was limited.

But earlier in his political career when he was Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio was labeled as being “pro-amnesty” for illegals when he blocked the passage of six immigration reform bills that were to be heard in committee. Rubio stated that these bills did not make it out of committee, and he noted that a similar bill introduced in 2009 also never made it out of committee.

Congressman David Rivera (R-FL), one of Rubio’s closest friend from his days in the Florida Legislature has introduced the Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act — the ARMS Act. It’s a variation on the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to some children of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally.-Miami Herald
There is now talk that Rubio may co-sponsor the measure in the Senate, a move that will undoubtedly set off a backlash from Tea Party and other grassroots groups against the Senator.

Marco Rubio supports the military component of the Dream Act, but the problem for Rubio is that this measure is another form of amnesty and it would wholly discredit him as being against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Rubio believes that citizenship is only granted to those illegals who get discharged from the Armed Forces with an Honorable Discharge, but both Rivera and Rubio are completely disconnected with the unintended consequences that will fall upon the country if this measure is adopted.

Let’s raise a couple obvious, and not so obvious questions about the this Military-only Dream Act.

First of all, how is this going to be paid for? If you have 100,000 illegal immigrants that attempt to enlist in the armed forces, where will they serve, especially in light of the drastic military cuts that President Obama has proposed?

Of those 100,000 illegals that enlist, how many will wash out of their respected Basic Training programs? As of 2006, the wash-out rate for enlistees in the military is as follows:

Service 1998 rate Latest Available Rate (2006) Army 17.9% 13.6% Air Force 8.8% 7.1% Navy 17.0% 14.0% Marines 13.5% 11.7%

What do we do with those 13.6% of Army wash-outs, or 14% of the Navy’s wash-outs? Do we offer them a consolation prize for not being able to serve the opportunity to gain U.S. Citizenship?

Aside from the high wash-out rate and the shrinking military, what about those illegal immigrant soldiers that receive a ‘General’ discharge, as opposed to an Honorable Discharge?

General discharges are given to service members whose performance is satisfactory but is marked by a considerable departure in duty performance and conduct expected of military members. Reasons for such a characterization of service vary, from medical discharges to misconduct, and are utilized by the unit commander as a means to correct unacceptable behavior prior to initiating discharge action (unless the reason is drug abuse, in which case discharge is mandatory). A commander must disclose the reasons for the discharge action in writing to the service member, and must explain reasons for recommending the service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). The service member is normally required to sign a statement acknowledging receipt and understanding of the notification of pending discharge memorandum. They are also advised of the right to seek counsel and present supporting statements.

In addition, service members are required to sign documents acknowledging that “substantial prejudice in civilian life” may be encountered under a general discharge.^[2]Despite this, some personnel think because the discharge is described as general under honorable conditions, it is as good as or the same as an honorable discharge. Concerning VA disability and most other benefits that is true; however, a general discharge may preclude participation in the GI Bill, service on veteran’s commissions, and other programs where a fully honorable discharge is required. However, one state,Illinois, prohibits discrimination against a veteran from housing or employment on the basis of unfavorable discharge from military service per the Human Rights Act of 1970.-Wikipedia

Another question to consider is the following- how long does an illegal immigrant have to serve before he or she is ‘Honorably Discharged’ and receives their citizenship- is it 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, or more? And what if the soldier decides to make the military a career, what then? Do ‘what if’?’ provisions need to be added to the agreement regarding extended military service?

Another question- once these illegal immigrants become citizens by virtue of their military service, will they be allowed to immediately request the rest of their families?

Senator Rubio, Congressman Rivera, and others who support this military amnesty measure seem to be completely blinded by the rantings and pressures coming from the pro-amnesty lobby, and their support of this measure could very well help open an ominous “Pandora’s Box” of future amnesty measures.

(Cross-posted: The Shark Tank)

In case you missed it, Bobby Jindal, the Republican Governor of Louisiana, was reelected last night. And, oh, by the way...notice how all those evil racist Southern Republicans voted to reelect an Indian guy? Those crazy racists, they keep voting for candidates like Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott in South Carolina, and Florida's Marco Rubio and Allen West. And then there's all those racists who are propelling Ted Cruz to the top of the Texas Senate race and keep voting for Herman Cain at the straw polls.