Blogs For Victory

The Brown win yesterday is a great and glorious thing, but the fact remains that Obama is President and the Democrats retain large majorities in both the House and Senate. In order to take our nation back and restore it to the Founder’s vision, we have much work in front of us.

Fortunately, Brown gave us some great clues on what to do – campaign against “the machine”. I’ve been on this – calling it “people vs powerful”, but “the machine” is much superior rhetoric. Romney also hit on it well – calling the Democrats “neo-monarchists” who have a sense of entitlement to power. This is what we must run against – the system, the machine, the elites who think they have a right to rule us.

If we campaign on such populist rhetoric and match it to programs designed to apply free-market principles to the economy, we can win very big in November. We see what we want, we’ve been told how to do it. From Maine to California, lets fight this thing out, everywhere.

Now, let’s get out there and do it.

UPDATE: Bill Quick hits upon an idea I’ve been pushing for a while:

Here’s the strategy. We contest every race. The goal is to put as many liberty-minded conservatives into office as we can, and where that is impossible, to elect the most congenial Republican we can get. In Mass, that was a Scott Brown. In California, it may end up being a Meg Whitman, or a Carly Fiorina. But where a liberty minded conservative has a shot, then back that candidate to the hilt, either in the primaries (no matter what the national party decides is good for us), and in the general elections afterwards. Rubio in Florida is an example of what I am talking about. He is popular, he can win, and he is far more congenial to our cause than the currently anointed GOP candidate (who may no longer be so anointed in the wake of the Massachusetts Massacre).

Every single race – let no Democrat go unchallenged. Doesn’t matter if its the race for local dog catcher: if a Democrat is running, we need a GOPer to challenge. Find the most conservative candidate we can who fits the electorate but who can also lead the electorate towards a more liberty-minded worldview. Our goal is first and foremost liberty, and anyone who will back a liberty platform should gain our support if that person is the most conservative candidate in the race.

What does a liberty platform look like? A few quick tests will always tell us the tale – is the candidate in favor of judicial restraint? Does the candidate think that people should be able to bear arms? Does the candidate believe that the local folks should make their own rules? If a candidate says “yes” to these things, then that candidate is worthy of our support – especially if its against the socialists who dominate the Democrat party.

David spoke to Saul:

“Let your majesty not lose courage.

I am at your service to go and fight this Philistine.”

But Saul answered David,

“You cannot go up against this Philistine and fight with him,

for you are only a youth, while he has been a warrior from his youth.”

David continued:

“The LORD, who delivered me from the claws of the lion and the bear,

will also keep me safe from the clutches of this Philistine.”

Saul answered David, “Go! the LORD will be with you.”

Then, staff in hand, David selected five smooth stones from the wadi

and put them in the pocket of his shepherd’s bag.

With his sling also ready to hand, he approached the Philistine.

With his shield bearer marching before him,

the Philistine also advanced closer and closer to David.

When he had sized David up,

and seen that he was youthful, and ruddy, and handsome in appearance,

the Philistine held David in contempt.

The Philistine said to David,

“Am I a dog that you come against me with a staff?”

Then the Philistine cursed David by his gods

and said to him, “Come here to me,

and I will leave your flesh for the birds of the air

and the beasts of the field.”

David answered him:

“You come against me with sword and spear and scimitar,

but I come against you in the name of the LORD of hosts,

the God of the armies of Israel that you have insulted.

Today the LORD shall deliver you into my hand;

I will strike you down and cut off your head.

This very day I will leave your corpse

and the corpses of the Philistine army for the birds of the air

and the beasts of the field;

thus the whole land shall learn that Israel has a God.

All this multitude, too,

shall learn that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.

For the battle is the LORD’s and he shall deliver you into our hands.”

The Philistine then moved to meet David at close quarters,

while David ran quickly toward the battle line

in the direction of the Philistine.

David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone,

hurled it with the sling,

and struck the Philistine on the forehead.

The stone embedded itself in his brow,

and he fell prostrate on the ground.

Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone;

he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.

Then David ran and stood over him;

with the Philistine’s own sword which he drew from its sheath

he dispatched him and cut off his head. – 1 Samuel 17:32-33, 37, 40-51

The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous, altogether.

Of course, it was an idiotic premise to think they ever had:

U.S. intelligence agencies now suspect that Iran never halted work on its nuclear arms program in 2003, as stated in a national intelligence estimate made public three years ago, U.S. officials said.

Differences among analysts now focus on whether the country’s supreme leader has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons.

The new consensus emerging among analysts in the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community on Iran’s nuclear arms program is expected to be the highlight of a classified national intelligence estimate nearing completion that will replace the estimate issued in 2007.

It was clear that the 2007 report was put together by liberal moles in the intelligence community who wanted to undermine President Bush – it was laughable to think that the Mullahs would ever give up their dream of nuclear weapons. To the mullahs, nukes are the way to ensure that no matter how badly they provoke us, we’ll never attack for fear of a nuclear exchange. And if you think it over carefully, for the Mullahs basic geopolitical strategy requires nuclear weapons – that they are insane and shouldn’t do it doesn’t matter. You have to think of it from the lunatic’s point of view.

The problem is that now we’ve got a President who has already shown himself unwilling to offend our enemies. The plain fact of the matter is that only by taking a calculated risk of war can we prevent an Iranian nuclear force from becoming a reality – and while I don’t think actual war would eventuate, it is something which may happen, and thus we need a President who can grimly look that fact in the face, and still do the right thing. Obama doesn’t impress me as a man who can do this.

And that means that Israel, if it wishes to survive, will have to strike…could be a very nasty couple years coming up.

Ok, the polls are closed. Still no results here at 8:08 pm Eastern. But one man is calling it for Brown. This is on the strength of the sniping earlier today between the Coakely campaign and the White House – you don’t get in arguments like that when you’re headed for a win.

Aaron is live tweeting from Brown HQ.

Looking ahead a bit – Boxer opponent Tom Campbell explains what he’d do about our national debt.

Joe Lieberman points out that a Brown win would change the political dynamic on ObamaCare. Positioning himself for what the Senate might look like next January?

4% in – 52/47 Brown.

Rasmussen says 22% of Democrats voted Brown.

7% in – 51/48 Brown.

29% in – 53/47 Brown.

52% in – 53/47 Brown.

65% in – 53/46 Brown…heck, I’ll call it, if no one else will.

CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR-ELECT BROWN!!!!

And, hey, remember I called it at about 9:15 pm…pride of place for me. :o)

AP calls it for Brown…masters of the obvious.

It’s been nearly two year since I left Massachusetts for New York. Who would have thought then that a race of national interest would one day come to the Bay State? Not I, for sure.

Obviously, I have no regrets about moving. I am now happily married, and just as active politically here in Western New York as I was in Massachusetts. But, today, I am Masshole once again. As my friends back in Massachusetts fight to win a victory that will change the course of the healthcare debate. For what it’s worth, I am doing my part for Massachusetts, even while I am still here closer to Canada than to Boston. If I had enough vacation time, I’d probably be there now, but I will be covering the night’s event and returns at Hub Politics tonight, while my brother will be on the scene at the Brown Victory Party reporting on the action via Twitter.

it’s going to be an exciting night, folks. Let’s see if the people will get their back and send Scott Brown to the United States Senate!

Gee, wonder what we can talk about today?

Well, I guess we’ll think of something.

Hub Politics will be at the victory party tonight live tweeting the action…

From Scott Brown: An Open Letter To The People of Massachusetts

Via Real Clear Politics:

Let me see if I have this right: there have been six polls of the Massachusetts Senate race released in the last 24 hours, five of which show Scott Brown with leads of 5 points, 7 points, 9 points, 10 points and 10 points, respectively. Only one poll shows the race tied. None of the polls show Martha Coakley with a lead.

How then, you might ask, can the Boston Globe justify characterizing the race as a “dead heat?”…

…citing the most favorable poll by far for Coakley and suggesting that it is “consistent” with the other polls is such a blatant distortion of the current state of the race that the Globe should be ashamed of itself. That would assume, of course, that the Globe is interested in providing its readers with the truth as opposed to putting its thumb on the scale in favor of a preferred political candidate.

Typical media bias – and, of course, all our liberals will just ignore this and say that “reality has a liberal bias”. Reality? Yeah – the reality you get in a liberal fever swamp, that is.

With each other:

A couple of years ago an upstart black politician took on the establishment candidate and did remarkably well for himself. Well, at least until he was sworn in.

Fast forward two years and here we we have another upstart black politician gunning for the establishment candidate in New York and he’s not as well received.

Funny how that is. But Harold Ford isn’t daunted and is now upping the ante.

In his toughest comments to date, Harold Ford cast Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Monday as a “weak” puppet of the state’s political establishment who has failed to connect with voters after a year in office.

“There is no doubt that Sen. Gillibrand is weak in many places across the city and the state,” Ford told the Daily News in an interview. “At best, there is interest in hearing an alternative.”

Have at it, Democrats! But didn’t you liberals say that it was we GOPers who were having the internal battle? Oh, we were – once upon a time, you were correct about that…but during the NY-23 fight, we all realized that we’re on the same conservative/libertarian/independent team against the liberals. We lost that particular race, but we cleared a lot of issues up.

Now we’re united – and the liberals are falling apart.

Just, wow!

In a survey just published and available on the company’s website, but not yet publicized or reported, the left-leaning public opinion firm Democracy Corps confirms the dangers to Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

According to Democracy Corps, likely voters have a sharply negative view of the president’s health-care and economic plans, and a far more favorable view of Republicans than they did a few months ago. Because Democracy Corps was founded by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, the firm’s findings have significant influence in national Democratic circles.

Democracy Corps surveyed more than 1,000 voters nationwide, including more than 800 likely voters. The group asked voters to identify themselves as “warm” or “cool” on parties or proposals. Fifty-two percent of likely voters described themselves as “cool” on the president’s health-care plan, against just 34 percent were “warm.” When it came to the president’s economic plan, 35 percent were warm against 49 percent cool. The findings are consistent with other national surveys, which show the health-care plan currently under debate to be widely unpopular.

Question: Will the Democrats figure it out? Continue down this road, and electoral disaster awaits. Right now, even if things go well for the Democrats for the rest of the year we can expect some pretty heavy Democrat losses in November – what remains to be seen is if a combination of Democrat errors and GOP efforts can turn a solid GOP performance in to a GOP landslide.

Well, think of this – Nevada is economically moribund, for the most part. Our basic industry – tourism/gaming – is sinking fast, our population is declining and our State budget is massively out of whack. But there is one bright spot in Nevada – mining. With gold reaching record highs, our mining industry is out of the doldrums and providing high paying jobs for American workers to produce American products. What to our liberals want to do with this one healthy industry?

Tax it out of existence, naturally.