Political campaign staffer, Goehring for Congress. I am not a spokesman for Mr. Goehring, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, I'm just a lowly grunt.
Ok, so not really, at least not yet. It’s not so hard to imagine these days that the EPA might put out regulations on how many children we each can have, etc.
Backtracking a moment, this little moment of political hysteria is brought to you thanks to the news that the EPA has identified CO2 as a toxic gas, and therefore legal to be regulated by the green nutjobs in the EPA.
Thank your friend Obama’s regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, for this great development in our nation’s history (Sunstein is the guy that wants to outlaw hunting and give animals the right to sue in court). Now, thanks to this ruling, the very air you and I exhale is poisonous (shhh, don’t tell the plants this). Ahhh, change, it brings me such hope…………………..
Full disclosure, I am a paid staff member of the Goehring for Congress campaign. This article is solely meant to reflect my personal views as a political observer. I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from the lack of a disclosure on initial publication. David Creager (dcreager123@yahoo.com).
Anyone who paid attention to high school level American History learned about carpetbaggers, northerners who went to the south to run for office after the civil war. It’s an old tactic for cheap political victory and personal gain, but does it still mean that? In my home congressional district there are two Republicans carpetbagging in order to run against a vulnerable incumbent. Thus the question arises, are they running because they are a good candidate, because they represent their potential constituents, or are they running for personal enrichment and a political job?
These two candidates, Larry Pegram and Tony Amador are both from outside of the 11th district as recently as within the last month or two. Furthermore, they are way out. The district is comprised of the east bay area and the San Joaquin valley, yet Larry Pegram lives in San Jose, and Tony Amador recently moved from Sacramento. Neither of which have any tie in any sense to the 11th Congressional district. They don’t like to talk about this fact, yet the fact remains they don’t even know our district. Pegram was even quoted recently as claiming McNerney rode the Obama wave into office, even though he was elected two years before Obama even ran for president. Obviously he is out of touch with even the most basic history of the district. None of the candidates have a background in transportation, a key issue in the east bay, and only one Republican, Brad Goehring, has a history in Ag and Water issues, the key issues in the valley. Just recently in that much talked about special election in NY-23 where the conservative party candidate took on a Democrat head to head after Scazzofava the liberal Republican dropped out the conservative lost. Not because he didn’t represent the district, the district is a strongly conservative district, but because Congressional elections are local elections, and the Conservative candidate was not a resident of the district.
So what causes a candidate like Larry Pegram or Tony Amador to run for a district in which they have no history, no name ID, no knowledge of key local issues, and no ability to raise money?
Here’s what I want to know, and I would love your feedback on this issue, does it bother you to see candidates relocate simply for a job? Should constituents demand their candidates for office be local to the position they are running for? And, should state law be amended to bar candidates from running who do not have an established residence in a district, at least at the time they file for office, and possibly for 3-6 months in advance?
Full disclosure, I am a paid staff member of the Goehring for Congress campaign. This article is solely meant to reflect my personal views as a political observer. I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from the lack of a disclosure on initial publication. David Creager (dcreager123@yahoo.com).
Historically reasonable Democrats and Republicans have pretty much agreed on one thing, a strong national defense and a well funded military is necessary to the freedoms we hold dear in America. Yet, one congressional candidate, a republican no less, from my home district, CD-11 in California, apparently disagrees. The candidate’s name is Robert Beadles, and he calls himself a conservative, yet I’m not sure which side he really is on.
Two things clued me in. First was a radio interview that Beadles bragged about through his campaign. He was on with a host named Alex Jones. This is a guy who was the executive producer of the film “Loose Change” a “documentary” about how the 9/11 massacre by Muslim terrorists was really an inside job perpetrated by war mongering Republicans, one-world-government Democrats, and Zionist Jews with a thirst for innocent Muslim blood. Yet when Beadles began his interview he gushed all over Jones and credited Jones with shaping his politics. It was a foolish interview at best, and at worst a declaration of shared beliefs. This is just the kind of fringe radical we don’t need running for office on the Republican ticket, let the Peace and Freedom party take it on.
The second clue was a front and center poll on his website here which asks the question, how much does it cost to send a soldier to Afghanistan. His answer, 1 million dollars. A shocking example of how ineffective government is completing any job? Yes. An appropriate focus for this election cycle? Absolutely not. It tells you something about a candidate when in the era of big government socialism, the takeover of the healthcare industry, cap and trade, unions running roughshod over our constitution, free speech and fox news being attacked boldly by the least honorable white house in recent history, and a plummeting dollar value a candidate is really worried about how much it costs to complete a military mission. This man is not a conservative, he’s hardly a Republican in my personal opinion.
At the same time we work to eliminate the left wing republican checkered pants club from our party in exchange for patriotic conservative leaders, we must also eliminate the crazy radicals who the national media loves to latch on to in order to paint us all as out of touch and radical. We lost the white house, we lost the senate, and we lost the house, not only because our party lost touch with its conservative roots but also because leaders arise within the party that were not conservatives. The national media then paints these non conservatives as conservatives because they are Republicans in name. Our brand is then damaged, how much worse if we let these fringe types take advantage of the bullhorn that is the Republican party.
Barack Obama bows again. Last week Obama met with the Emperor of Japan as part of an Asian tour that most recently has brought him to China.
You may remember from a few months back the bow to Saudia Arabia’s King Abdullah that left wingers and the white house spun as an attempt by the taller Obama to reach an eye to eye level with Abdullah. Since the white house vehemently denied Obama was bowing they obvously realize how ridiculous it would be for our president to bow to any world leader. How then do they explain this?
It’s official, abortion is in there. Amidst that nearly two thousand pages of travesty is a guarantee of federal funding for abortions. Nancy Pelosi has it out for your unborn baby. Republican minority leader John Boehner released this in a statement earlier today:
“What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”
So not only will that abortion be paid for by federal funds, it will come out of YOUR premiums “whether you like it or not” (thanks Gavin). The question remains, however, why? Why Ms. Pelosi do you and your lackeys continue to require fetal-death-on-demand be included in your massive federal healthcare hijacking? The answer is easy: it’s the money, stupid. The abortion racket is just that, a racket, and a tremendously profitable one at that. The promoters of that racket know that if healthcare is federalized and centralized and abortion funding is left out that many women will choose not to abort simply because they will actually have to pay for the procedure. It’s sad to say but it really boils down to just that.
It’s a sickening state of affairs that we have to fight this kind of thing, but it’s the reality of our times. It will be a great day in 2011 when Pelosi hands the gavel to a Republican and moves out of that speaker’s office for good.
Reports flooding in the soldier who open fired on soldiers in Ft. Hood was named Major Malik Nadal Hasan. He was a Muslim convert, and while no one is willing to say it was terrorism related, given this info, if it is correct, it seems likely. Waiting for confirmation on Shooter’s ID and religious/political affiliations.
Looking through old media clippings found this gem published by the Oakland Tribune in early 2007. It’s no wonder that Jerry McNerney quickly became the puppet of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the liberal elite in Washington (97% in line voting with Pelosi). McNerney quickly has become a liberal lapdog, I guess he just wanted the adoration:
”
When Rep.-elect Jerry McNerney strolled into the freshman orientation reception in a Washington, D.C., hotel earlier this month, heads turned.
And why not? Hes the most famous freshman in the upcoming 110th Congress.
McNerney even has a nickname, the dragon-slayer, in honor of his wildly unexpected triumph Nov. 7 over seven-term incumbent and powerful committee Chairman Republican Richard Pombo.
Someone walked up to me right away and said, Youre Jerry McNerney! They recognized me from my picture, said a slightly astounded McNerney. I thought, Wow, thats different.’”
”
This email went out to constituents in the following congressional districts, and by doing so revealed what the NRCC is identifying as the weakest members of congress: Chet Edwards (TX-17), Martin Heinrich (NM-01), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Ed Perlmutter (CO-07), John Salazar (CO-03), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Dina Titus (NV-03), David Wu (OR-01)
Friends,
Democrats are worried this morning and rightfully so! Last night, election results showed significant wins for Republicans and an overwhelming shift away from the Democrats’ big-government, job-killing, tax-and-spend policies and toward the Republicans’ agenda of fiscal responsibility, smaller government and job creation. You can smell the fear in the air, as they realize that their Democrat incumbents are headed back home permanently next November.
Please consider the following comment from the NRCC as you cover Jerry McNerney’s extremely slim chances of survivability:
“Jerry McNerney is shaking in his boots today as he woke up to a rude awakening that the detrimental, job-killing policies he is pushing through Congress could cost him his job next year. Does Jerry McNerney now regret supporting Nancy Pelosi’s big-government, tax-and-spend agenda nearly 90 percent of the time or will he continue to march in lock-step with Pelosi at the cost of hurting California’s middle-class families?” – Joanna Burgos, NRCC Spokeswoman
Yesterday night the California State legislature passed a massive water plan and spending bond that will be put to voters in the form of a proposition in the near future. The question, then, is whether or not this bill really solves our problems or is it the business-as-usual mess that always comes out of Sacramento.
I was listening to State Senator Denham (running for statewide office as Lieutenant Governor in 2010) on the radio today and he was discouraged by what he saw as a total failure of this bill to actually achieve solutions to the water problems the state is facing. In contrast today, the Governor was ecstatic over what he saw as a great victory and a wonderful bipartisan solution. So which one is correct?
Well, it turns out, as in most instances, both are sort of correct, although here I have to lean toward Denham’s view. Literally 50 percent of the spending in this bill is unnecessary. Massive amounts of money are being wasted to build new, unnecessary, water conveyance systems, instead of using the ones we already have to capacity. Further money is going to meet the “needs” of San Francisco and Los Angeles who will be receiving over a billion dollars of funding for local pet water-related projects. Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg even squeezed a 10 million dollar Tolerance Center for Sacramento into the bill. He later admitted that was a mistake (Oh really, you think?).
The fact is, if this state was operating as it should, that bill would be closer to 6 or 7 billion dollars, and the massive majority would be spent on creating new above ground storage, and dams. California’s water system, once the envy of the nation, was built to service 18 million people. California has grown to more than double that. Yet, many still feel that we can conserve our way through this. To this end the Democrats in the Assembly and Senate have chosen to focus on approaches like water recycling and desalinization all of which do little to nothing for the area with the greatest need: the Central Valley.
Our manmade draught is so bad that it seems almost worth it to approve this bill in order to get some water to those farmers whose crops have withered and died over the course of these last years. However, at the end of the day, I’m afraid that this state cannot afford yet another bloated and ridiculous “solution” requiring massive debt, the servicing of which alone will cost upwards of 800+ million dollars a year. Maybe it’s time to shove this bill back the same way voters rejected the budget deal brokered earlier this year. Maybe this way we demand responsible governance.
