Conservative Black Chick

Apparently, being America’s first black President has its benefits. It means President Obama can cry racism (and get away with it) anytime Republicans criticize his policies or his past, specifically his past association with a racist pastor.  When the  New York Times  published a story last week about a GOP plan to run negative ads connecting Obama to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his race baiting sermons, the Obama race machine pounced.

bama campaign manager Jim Messina called it “The blueprint for a hate-filled, divisive campaign of character assassination speaks for itself. It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics.”  How is it hate-filled or racist to run ads revealing the truth about Obama’s 20 plus year relationship with Wright who gave race-baiting sermons? If anything running such ads would reveal a hate-filled side of Obama’s character. How could Obama allow a reverend like Wright to marry him and baptize his two children?

The moment the story ran, the mainstream news media, who is so in the tank for Obama no matter how bad a president he is, called the GOP strategy “hard line” and  “racist.”  And as predicted, Romney, billionaire Joe Ricketts and Karl Rove ran scared and repudiated the strategy. In 2008, Senator John McCain declined to produce similar ads for fear of being called a racist by the media. Obama and his team have put Republicans on notice that they will  inject race into the 2012 campaign at every turn.

Talk about a double standard. The Republicans should not have caved into Obama’s campaign of threats and intimidation. I bet all the white presidents before Obama would have liked to be able to pull the race card out of their back pockets at the drop of hat. I’m sure Bill Clinton really wished he could have used the excuse of being black to blame Republicans for trying to impeach him.

A turn coat Republican leaked the now derailed 54 page plan, to the New York Times. The plan, entitled The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good, outlined a strategy to run a series of ads linking Obama with Rev. Wright. Billionaire Joe Ricketts  planned to pour $10million into a pro Romney Super PAC to run ads reminding Americans of Obama’s long relationship with racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

What’s wrong with this strategy? Obama belonged to Wright’s Chicago church Trinity United Church of Christ. This is where Wright gave racists sermons. According to the book Game Change, Wright railed about the treatment of blacks: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes the three-strike law, and  then wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no! Not God bless America-Goddamn America!” In another sermon, he referred to America as the “US of KKK A,” (Game Change, p. 234).

After 9/11, Wright preached America brought this horrific act upon itself: “We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki! And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards!,”(Game Change, p. 234).

Some Republican Super PAC should have the guts not only to run ads connecting the deep relationship Obama had with Rev. Wright but also include remarks from Obama’s 2008 race speech “A More Perfect Union.” The speech was a political gimmick Obama used to get the fawning media off his back when Rolling Stone first exposed his relationship with Wright.  But Obama refused to denounce Wright. He said “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

There is nothing racist about running a political ad which shows Obama never denounced his relationship with a race-baiter like Wright who preached America deserved 9/11. Since  2008, Obama and his team have always been the ones injecting race into his campaign and administration. While campaigning in Missouri in 2008, Obama accused McCain of trying to scare voters about him even though McCain vigorously defended Obama against attacks from some McCain supporters. Obama said: “So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s too risky,” (Game change, p. 331)

If Obama thinks it’s fair game to attack Romney’s record at the equity firm Bain Capital, then it’s fair game for Romney and Republicans to shine the light on Obama’s past. Being the first black president does not give Obama a free pass on being held accountable to the same standards of criticism as those who went before him. Voters deserve to hear the truth about Obama in 2012, not narratives spun of make believe.

Over the past week, I’ve been receiving lots of hate mail from fellow Newt supporters about my comments on CNN that if Newt doesn’t win more than two contests, he needs to consider dropping out. Staff are jumping ship like fleas running from repellent applied to a dog. Newt’s campaign CFO Roberto Coquis left the campaign recently. Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, whose family has donated $16 million to Newt’s PAC, said he thought “Newt had come to the end of the line.”

As a pledged delegate for Gingrich in Washington, DC, who cast my vote early for him, I’m not happy Newt hasn’t been winning and that’s a fact. I still maintain Newt is the best person to take the fight to Obama. As Speaker, he brought Republicans back into the majority rule in Congress after 40 years of the isolation in political Siberia. Newt worked with President Bill Clinton to balance the budget, bring unemployment down to 4% and reformed welfare. His Contract with America, “Promises made. Promises kept” isn’t like the failure of Obama’s Hope & Change, Promises made. Promises broken.

But we need to ask why Newt isn’t winning races? It can’t be just because Romney is running a negative campaign. If Newt had more money, he too could run negative ads against Romney like he did in South Carolina when his campaign had money. Newt also failed to get on Virginia’s primary ballot. Whose fault was that, Romney’s? The truth is when one runs for POTUS one must have an organized operation which in turn helps a candidate raise money so the candidate can advertise against his or her opponents. That’s why Obama raised $700 million in 2008, won the Democrat nomination and won the presidency!

Here’s what some people told me:

Marsha:  I saw your comment about Newt Gingrich on CNN…
YOU are an EMBARRASSMENT to our party, AND to Newt! I cannot believe you are Newt’s DELEGATE! I truly wonder if you aren’t part of the Illinois/Chicago regime making us the #1 state for corruption! I’m SOOO disgusted with YOU!

Crystal: You need to be SOOOO Disgusted with Newt. Sorry you feel that way. Instead bashing me and his staff who are leaving him in droves. You should direct your anger at Newt, fish rots from the head down+I’m tired of his BS. He needs to act the candidate we all believe in a winner not a loser. Winners win and don’t make excuses why they aren’t.

Mata: Can’t polive you change your position from supporting Newt , you tretor, make sure that all that support Newt know about you i well tell as many people as i can.

Crystal: “Sorry you feel that way. I feel like Newt is traitor to his DELEGATES+SUPPORTERS who stick their necks out for him+then he runs haphazard, SLOPPY campaign. Your hatred should be directed at him.”

Mata: Go to hell

The main way the nomination process works is candidates compete in primaries or caucuses to win delegates toward the magic number of 1,144. Logic tells us a candidate needs to win races to rack up delegates. This isn’t rocket science but basic math. That said there are other paths to the nomination like a brokered convention. Newt’s new strategy is making himself a “big choice convention” candidate where he will win the nomination in a brokered convention, assuming Romney arrives without the necessary 1,144 delegates.

In a brokered convention, all the pledged delegates are released and can cast their votes for a different candidate but according to RNC rules, a candidate must arrive at the convention with at plurality of delegates won across a minimum of five states, which Newt has yet to do. Yet, Newt insists he will be the GOP’s Harding of 2012.

Anything’s possible and nowhere in the rules of  running for president does it say candidates must drop out of the competition. Rather than hating me because I point out Newt’s flaw as is lack of  organization, Newties need to demand Newt man up and become the candidate we thought he was. With the lack of more wins under his belt, I’m having a difficult time understanding how Newt thinks he can woo delegates with conviction to vote for him in Tampa. If he can’t achieve the basics of getting on ballots and winning, how can we trust him with being POTUS? Organization is more than 50% of the job.

If Newt is indeed the most qualified conservative in the race, why has Santorum and Romney won more contests than Newt? Of late, Newt declared Romney needs “to earn the nomination.” Sounds like Newt needs to do some earning of his own and less talking about winning the nomination.

The time is now for Newt to either rise up or stand down. Republicans need to identify a candidate soon to take on President Obama. Otherwise we’re squandering precious dollars needed to defeat the billion dollar man in November.  Obama is the problem and this is the GOP’s race to lose.

A little over a week ago,  Karl Rove advised Republicans to wrap their support around Mitt Romney because it was pretty much a done deal Romney would grab the GOP presidential nomination.  “In an open race for the GOP nomination, no Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire, as Mitt Romney has,” wrote Rove. He went on to say South Carolina would be the last dance/chance for  several candidates like Newt Gingrich.

Rove also haughtily noted “a small membership committee does not govern the process. No group of power brokers can pressure others into uniting behind one candidate. Millions of primary voters and caucus-goers will select the GOP’s nominee.”   Well a truer word was never said. Despite all the liberal media’s wishful thinking and the likes of Rove and rest of the Republican establishment, South Carolina voters spoke and voted overwhelmingly for Newt Gingrich 40% compared to 27% for Romney. This was a landslide victory for Gingrich.

What a reversal of fortune this past week was for Romney. Rick Santorum was declared the winner of Iowa after a recount revealed he won more votes than Romney. Romney won New Hampshire. Then Newt took South Carolina. Three primaries so far with three different winners and Mitt Romney didn’t make history.

I’ve said repeatedly that conservative voters would decide who their GOP presidential nominee would be rather than abdicating the decision to  Republican establishment. Newt won South Carolina because voters aren’t stupid and debates matter. From the start Newt was a deft debater. Before his PAC received an infusion of cash from Sheldon Adelson, Newt dominated debates with brains and bold ideas to defend America at home and abroad.

There was never a question where Newt stood on the issues then Newt’s PAC Winning the Future got more money to combat Romney’s negative ads against him in Iowa and the game changed. Suddenly, what was good for Newt wasn’t good for Romney. Newt’s PAC ran a negative ad on Romney’s tenure at Bain and voters started questioning plastic Romney’s electability with more intensity.

Apart from these negative ads, it was Newt’s performance in the last two debates that sealed the deal for him with South Carolina voters. In an exchange with Ron Paul during the Fox News debate Monday, Newt showed he wouldn’t flinch over foreign policy issues. Newt disagreed with Paul that our enemies like Osama bin laden should be treated like a Chinese dissident and given shelter, adding bin laden was a terrorist and enemy combatant and should be treated as such and killing him was a good thing.

Newt also tore into Fox News Juan Williams, who as the only black moderator that night tried to play the race card, asked if Newt felt it was insulting to black Americans when he said blacks should demand jobs not food stamps and poor kids should perform janitorial jobs in their schools. Newt said  if poor kids worked in their schools, “they would be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor.”

Williams followed up with another racially charged question designed to make Newt look anti-black and asked Newt if he thought it was “belittling” to refer to our first black president as “the food stamp president.” Williams implied because Obama’s black he should be held to a gentler standard than white presidents and it’s somehow inappropriate to reference Obama and food stamps in the same sentence perhaps because more blacks per capita are on food stamps compared to the white population. Newt fiercely responded to rousing applause that he wasn’t going to play the politically correct game and said “the fact is more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in history.”

Then there was CNN’s John King, who opened last Thursday’s debate with more Newt bashing. (Do you see a theme here?) King asked Newt if he wanted to address an ABC News tabloid interview with his ex-wife Marianne in which she alleged Newt asked for an open marriage. Newt paused, smiled, stared at King and said “No but I will,” to thunderous applause. “I am appalled you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” he continued to which the crowd applauded more and gave him a standing ovation.

As Newt pointed out, for CNN to ask that question two days before the South Carolina primary was “despicable,” and appeared to be done to with the intent to tank Gingrich’s chances in South Carolina. But it didn’t work! Despite all the efforts made by the mainstream liberal media and the Republican establishment to prop up Mitt Romney, Gingrich is resonating with conservative voters of all types because his convictions on the issues shine through.

While the GOP party lords believe Romney is the safe bet, many conservatives don’t see him as the winning bet. During the last two debates he’s stammered and fumbled on releasing his taxes and defending his record at Bain Capital. Romney is looking and sounding less and less presidential and electable.

In winning South Carolina, Newt demonstrated he could appeal to women, men and the states broad voter base of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Tea Party supporters, and moderates. Exit polls also found South Carolina voters believed Gingrich was more electable than Romney. One thing is for certain, Newt changed the game and the people will decide who their nominee will be not a small club.

Nothing is “inevitable in life,” how long we’re going to live or who is going to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. The media and so called Republican establishment’s incessant castigation of conservative voters who dare not support Romney as “Anyone but Romney” is insulting and only serves to intensify these conservatives dislike and distrust of Romney more.

Since when are Republicans obligated to anoint Mitt Romney with the GOP presidential nomination? Conservative voters don’t owe Mitt Romney anything. Last time I looked, we live in a democracy where the people decide and vote for whom they believe is the best candidate. This notion perpetuated and peddled by the Republican elite, whoever they may be, that conservatives must get behind Romney because he’s the GOP’s most compelling candidate in the field is laughable. If Romney is great as a candidate why over the past eight months hasn’t he been able to electrify the conservative electorate and tie up this nomination?

I’ll tell you why because conservatives aren’t buying his act. They don’t trust him or his policy positions. Barely winning the Iowa caucus by a meager eight votes is nothing to pound one’s chest over, especially considering the money Romney spent lots of money in Iowa on ads. In fact, Romney’s win over Rick Santorum is a good example of his inability to captivate Republicans.

Romney won 25% of the vote the same amount he got in 2008, when he lost to Governor Mike Huckabee. Santorum did well in Iowa not just because of his support of traditional family values, which appealed to evangelical voters there, but because he’s a candidate whose convictions and passion are evident. When it comes to Romney many Republicans are dubious of his convictions. Not only has he moved to the left on issues like abortion, guns and Romneycare, but he’s robotic and voters never seem to get a sense of his true beliefs and he’s void of passion.  How can you engender confidence in your candidacy if voters’ question how you would govern? And Senator John McCain’s endorsement of Romney is like a bad omen. You can hear the “anyone but Romney” crowd chanting “from one loser to another.”

In an email to his supporters, Santorum described Romney as “bland, boring career politician, who will lose to Barack Obama.” I think Santorum could be right. Romney is like the persistence engine that could. He failed in 2008; has been campaigning since and Romney  has outraised his competitors with $32 million on hand in individual contributions compared to Ron Paul’s $12 million, Newt Gingrich’s nearly $3 million and Santorum’s $1 million. More good fortune for Romney, polls reveal he’s pulled ahead of a surging Santorum and declining Gingrich in South Carolina.

Perhaps Romney is on the road to his coronation as the GOP 2012 presidential nominee.  But if he’s going to the conservative knight who battles Obama, Romney better bring more than bland to the race. The up for grabs, all important independent voters , who are unhappy with Obama, need to see some conviction and yes charisma oozing from Romney otherwise they have little reason to abandon Obama, walk across the road and vote for the other side. Maybe this is the GOP’s grand design.

By pushing the safe bet, emotionless Romney as their guy, the establishments knows Romney won’t stir the pot, jeopardizing Congressional races, which would give GOP good chance of winning control of the Senate and keeping control of the House whether Romney wins or loses. Being the Republican Party’s inevitable candidate may not be such a great thing after all but only time and the voters will tell.

How many times must the American people prove to Obama they are fed up with his policies before he will get it? By voting Republicans into Congressional offices in two special elections this past Tuesday, Americans gave the president another punch in the gut. Bob Turner won the New York 9^th District race, Anthony Weiner’s former seat and a heavily Jewish district. Obama won this district by double digits in 2008 but Jews showed him Tuesday they were not happy with his weak Israeli policies, notably Obama’s demand Israel revert back to its 1967 borders with the Palestinians. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch supported Turner and said Obama “threw Israel under the bus”.

What’s laughable is Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz tried to proclaim with a straight face that “It’s a very difficult district for Democrats.” As Townhall’s Guy Benson , who did some astute reporting on the race noted, “New York’s Ninth Congressional District has been a very difficult district for Democrats to lose,” they’ve won the seat since in every election since 1923.

It also should be duly noted that Brooklyn Young Republicans under the leadership of President Russell Gallo and Vice-President Eugene Pevzner were instrumental in helping Turner win. They along with support from Kings County Republican Chairman Craig Eaton led an aggressive “boots on the ground” effort in Brooklyn, reaching out to the Jewish community, registered Democrats, and inactive Republican voters. The GOP clearly used an ethnic outreach model to win this seat so Republicans need to stop shying away from targeting ethnic minority voters (which include blacks).

If the NY win wasn’t ominous enough for Obama and his cohorts, Mark Amodei’s victory in Nevada put the icing on the Democrat double whammy cake. While Amodei’s win may not be getting the media attention of Turner’s, it’s quite a big deal because Nevada’s 2^nd Congressional District is one of the most critical swing counties in the nation. Washoe County is a good predictor on how the rest of Nevada will vote and Nevada has voted for every winner of presidential races except one since 1912.

But before Republicans took these victories, Obama was given numerous warning signs to change political course yet, he refused. Prior to Democrats getting their shellacking in last year’s mid-term Congressional elections, Bob McDonnell won the Virginia gubernatorial race, Chris Christie captured New Jersey’s gubernatorial race and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s long held seat.

Americans voting Republicans back into power is a clear and direct repudiation of Obama’s reckless high unemployment, spending, taxing and debt agenda. Despite these major losses, President Obama refuses to focus on what the American people want: jobs, reducing the country’s $14 trillion debt and spending.

While Republicans called for budget cuts to fund the government’s 2011 budget, Obama insisted on tax increases on higher earners, those so called rich, individuals who make over $200,000 and couples who earn over $250,000. During the debt ceiling debate this summer, Obama again insisted on raising taxes on higher earners and refused to deal with entitlement reform then brazenly blamed the impasse on Republicans.

Apparently, the third time is the charm for our president. In September, Obama served up more of the same in his jobs bill, demanding Republicans “pass this bill now,” give him another $447 billion stimulus paid for by you guess it, MORE TAXES on the RICH. The top 5% of higher earners already pay their fair share in taxes to the tune of 50% of all taxes paid in this country. Obama’s Robin Hood jobs plan would eliminate mortgage interest deductions and other itemized deductions for the “rich,” raising their tax rate to 42% .

Taxing one group of Americans, many of whom are small business owners who create jobs, is a formula for killing jobs not creating them. Not to mention the fact that this is anathema to achieving the American dream. If you work hard, you should be able to keep more of your money not work to become a slave of the federal government. Not only are Republicans tired of this tax tune but more importantly the American people are also tuning it out. Obama’s approval ratings dropped to a new low of 42%, not to mention the fact that no president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment is above 7%.

I think I hear Republicans singing “We’ve only just begun. . . to win.” Obama has pissed off Blacks by not addressing the black 16% jobless rate, almost double the national average. Now he’s pissed off the Jews. This is a recipe for how to lose in NY and in 2012.

Obama wanted what is arguably the most difficult job in the world and he got it. But the question remains when will Obama take responsibility for the colossal failure his presidency of hope and change has become and do something other than blame everyone from Bush, Republicans, the Tea Party, natural disasters and the kitchen sink for his shortcomings.

DC government is so out of control! I don’t know where to start, except by saying the time has come for DC Voters to have a more diverse, qualified pool of mayoral candidates to choose fromand elect more Republicans like Patrick Mara to the city’s council. Mara is running for the at-large council seat vacated by Council Chairman Kwame Brown. In addition to running on the usual platform of improving schools, making neighborhoods safe, Mara wants to make DC government more effective, and efficient. Something most residents desperately want: to purge the cronyism and unethical behavior from DC government.

As a black person and resident of the nation’s capital, it’s embarrassing to continue to see DC black elected officials continually get involved in shady dealings.

Our newly elected Mayor Gray looks like he’s going to bring back the “daze” of former Mayor Marion Barry where government was large on inefficiency and heavy on corruption. Gray’s second in command Kwame Brown reminds more of a D list celebrity than Chairman of the DC Council. And don’t forget about Gray’s transition team director Reuben Charles who owed over $500,000 in combined back taxes and debt.

We probably saw this train wreck coming last year but the facts speak loudly for themselves. Gray has hired big guns lawyer Robert Bennett (of defending President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair claim to fame) to presumably help him fend off allegations made by Sulaimon Brown. Sulaimon alleges Gray paid him and promised him a job in exchange making attacks against Fenty during the mayoral campaign. Sulaimon was given the job of special assistant in the Department of Health Care Finance at plump salary of $110,000 a year.

Looks like, sounds like quid pro quo to me. He has since been dismissed from the position because of media reports on his unsavory past. It was also revealed Sulaimon had six run-ins with the law, including an attempted murder charge, but was hired nevertheless.

Sulaimon also alleges Lorraine Green, Gray’s campaign chairwoman and Howard Brooks were also involved in facilitating his work for the campaign. Apparently the FBI has been asking questions and Washington Post columnist Colbert King artfully wrote how this complicates things for all involved. Where All This and the fact Brooks’ son was given a job within the administration doesn’t look like the Gray is off to a good start. It makes one wonder if Mayor Gray is on a course to take DC back to the Control Board days. Moreover, Congressional Republican opponents of DC home rule must be laughing about now.

If news on Gray wasn’t bad enough to dash a resident’s confidence in DC government, Kwame Brown, our new DC Council Chairman, thought his most important job once he took office was to order two pimped out Lincoln Navigators to the taxpayer tune of nearly $4,000 a month. Did I mention DC faces a $400 million budget deficit? Then Kwame was outraged when one car arrived without a black interior because he specified he wanted a black on black Navigator. Does this behavior sound like a leader or someone trying to abuse the system? Of course, after Kwame was exposed in the press, he suddenly found his behavior “unacceptable.” Something tells me Mara, who owns a government relations consulting business, isn’t looking to game the system at the expense of DC taxpayers.

But it gets better; the Washington Post reported this week Kwame Brown may have oops forgotten to report over $250,000 in contribution from his 2008 campaign and then used the money to fund his 2010 campaign. Sadly, in my opinion, this is what many people have come to expect from our black councilmembers either some kind of shady dealings or below average performance.

My councilmember Muriel Bowser sent me a petulant series of email responses to questions I had about her lack of follow up with our power utility PEPCO on our neighborhood’s inordinate number of power outages on blue sky days not just storms. She acts like she’s doing me a favor to get back to me and I’ve come to expect very little from her.

Finally, one question begs to be answered. Why is it, on average, we don’t see these type of shenanigans aka Gray and Kwame exhibited by white councilmembers like Jack Evans, Tommy Wells and Mary Cheh?

Which brings me to Patrick Mara and why we need more Republicans on the DC council and greater diversity. Patrick Mara is the Republican running for the at-large council seat vacated by the illustrious Kwame Brown. He is currently a Republican member of the DC State Board of Education. His challenger is Sekou Biddle, who has the support of Kwame and Gray. This should make you pause, if you haven’t already. Biddle is trying to kick Mara off the ballot alleging some signatures on his nominating petitions were forged. Last week, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics issued a preliminary decision Mara’s petitions were valid.

A hearing was supposed to be scheduled March 10 was delayed to March 15. Suddenly, the board reversed course last Friday, March 11^th and told Mara’s campaign some signatures appear forged. Questions abound but a Washington Post op-ed summed up the problems with DC’s one party rule, closed primary system and the tainted appearance it takes on: “It’s disturbing that a totally Democratic body will decide whether a Republican can stand for election. Despite a legal requirement for minority representation on the three-member elections board, which supervises voting, it’s been more than a year since the board has had a Republican. (Two members are Democrats and the third minority seat slated for a Republican has been unfilled for a year.) The April election will be the third with only Democrats calling the shots.”

So much for democracy in the District of Columbia but do we ever expect more? I vote Mara.