Recent Posts From Ron Davis
Bob Costas is one of my favorite sports announcers. I freely admit this. I know he’s one of those announcers that spark either hatred or fanaticism from sports fans; my response is fanaticism. My preference is baseball, but I could sit and listen to Costas call any game.
This past week, after the tragic news of murder/suicide from the Kansas City Chiefs, Costas opened his mouth and agreed with this article that calls for increased gun control, arguing that if we had more gun control laws, Jovan Belcher and Kasandra Perkins would still be alive. That’s quite an assumption!
He could have killed her with a baseball bat. Should we make baseball bats harder to buy?
He could have killed her with a tire iron. Maybe we need more tire iron laws.
He could have killed her with a pickle jar. (click the link and scroll down)
He could have run her over with his car. Shall we outlaw cars?
A man his size could have killed her with his bare hands.
The point in all of this is that if Belcher wanted to kill Kasandra Perkins, he didn’t need a gun to do it. But when he used a gun to do this awful deed, gun grabbers jump at the opportunity to call for less freedom through more gun control laws.
As if criminals obey those gun control laws.
We’re barely through with the 2012 elections, but the 2014 Senate races are heating up quite nicely. This is fun, right? You can see a map here of the 2014 and which way each state leans. I’m keeping a close eye on two of those races specifically: Georgia and South Carolina.
Georgia interests me because it’s my home state but also because it’s the reelection campaign of the man whose liberal idiocy prompted my entrance into political activism. Saxby Chambliss is certain to face a primary opponent, and I’m certain to support that opponent. The only question to be answered is who will decide to run against him. I wrote about this race and Chambliss’ potential opponents recently.
South Carolina also has my eye for two reasons. First, I grew up there, and the vast majority of my family lives there. Second, it’s an opportunity for the state to rid themselves of the biggest imbecile in the Senate. Lindsey Graham is also nearly certain to find a primary opponent, and that opponent is also likely to win my favor (especially if that opponent is Tom Davis).
The problem with these races – and really a lot of the races in the coming Senate election – is that the incumbent has had (at least) six years to build up campaign funds and become part of a system designed to keep him elected. Lindsey Graham has a war chest of over $4 million. That’s enough money to scare off a lot of quality candidates that would give him a run for his job.
It’s only been a few weeks since Election Day, and already the 2014 election cycle is heating up. It doesn’t take long before the attention turns to the next election, and this year is no different. Here in Georgia, speculations are circling about who will challenge Saxby Chambliss.
My entry into the political world started in 2008 when Chambliss was running for reelection. I was (and still am) shocked and appalled that a professing conservative had the audacity to support the bank bailouts. I launched a web site at FireSaxby.com and quickly got national attention when the Associated Press interviewed me for an article about Chambliss’ race.
I’m excited about the coming election season. It’s a great opportunity for the conservative base in Georgia to reject liberal tendencies of Senator Chambliss. He really is one of the most despicable men in Washington. The good news is that there are some good possibilities for candidates to run against Saxby.
Herman Cain – I’m not a fan of Herman Cain at all, but he’s already got statewide recognition, which will be necessary to beat Saxby. On top of that, people generally like him. He’s not much of an upgrade over Chambliss though, given his past support of TARP and bailouts, but he’s not Saxby Chambliss, so that works in his favor.
A friend shared this interesting post with me the other day. Basically, with Romney losing the election and the Republicans trying to blame everybody but themselves, the question of the party having a “libertarian problem” arises. The author makes a couple of points that are worth considering.
Mitt Romney ran against libertarian ideals.
There was almost literally nothing libertarian about the GOP’s presidential ticket. They ran on a platform of government a little smaller than the Democrats would prefer. Expand the war on drugs. Expand globally with aggressive (“preventative”) war. Expand spending. Balance the budget at some point in the distant future. None of that sounds libertarian because none of that is libertarian.
The GOP has to have libertarians before it can have a libertarian problem.
In the Senate, they’ve got Rand Paul. Mike Lee isn’t so bad, either. In the House, there are a handful of decent members, but only 1 that I’d trust to make the right stand, no matter what. (I’m looking at you, Justin Amash.) That’s not much of a libertarian presence in Congress.
3 Things the GOP Needs to Do (assuming they want to win national elections in the foreseeable future)
This weekend I watched the final quarter of the Texas A&M and Alabama game. I’m not much of a college football fan, but it was an interesting game to watch. Alabama was playing at home, and in the last couple of minutes of the game, managed to lost a game they had plenty of opportunities to win.
After the game was over, the TV cameras focused on some of the fans whose expressions spoke volumes: “Woah. What just happened?”
Election Night for the GOP was similarly shocking. They were sure they would beat Obama this year. He had a record of more debt, and they had the Comeback Team. Never mind the fact that the Comeback Team was a pair of lackluster career politicians whose primary selling point was that neither had the surname Obama.
And now, like Alabama’s football team, the Republican Party has to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. Like many political bloggers, I have a few suggestions.
Stop hating free markets.
The Republicans are supposed to be the party that values free markets, but there are few Republican politicians willing to take a stand for truly free markets. They insist on “doing something rather than doing nothing,” which means government intervention where it shouldn’t be found. Get the government out of the markets, and let the market corrections happen.
Stop hating people.
The big news out of Tuesday is that we’re now dealing with four more years of Barack Obama, and a lot of people are obviously not happy about that. Though I’m no Obama fan, I’m going to try to be optimistic about the election. Here goes…
Harry Reid would have held up the Republican agenda for the next two years. Now the House can hold up the Obama agenda. The House won’t be able to hold up everything, but it’s not like the Democrats have full control and can push through anything they want. Obama’s win also gives assurance that Republican voters will remain furious through the midterm elections in 2014 instead of latching on to Romney’s moderate-to-liberal ways.
Are we better off with Obama than we would have been with Romney? No, but an Obama re-election isn’t the end of the world, either.
It’s hard to find an optimistic Republican view of the Senate results. They should have taken the majority, but instead are in a tougher situation, making a takeover in 2014 less likely. Still, it was Jim DeMint who said he’d rather have 30 good Republican senators than 60 bad ones.
The optimistic points in the Senate results from last night aren’t numerous, but there are a couple. Jeff Flake won in Arizona, and Ted Cruz won in Texas. Those should be two good additions to the right side of the aisle.
The real good news in the House is that the GOP kept control. Control of one of the branches of government is critical to keep Obama in line. They didn’t expand their lead, but they still managed to maintain their majority.
Some Republican friends of mine have been posting and reposting this video from WeAreChange.org. It’s a great idea for a video, really. They go out and find Obama supporters and ask them about Romney policy issues – well, they say they’re Romney policy issues, but the issues are all things Obama has done or supported since he took office.
Obama supporters talk about how crazy the policies are, how they’re an overreach of government, and then they are told the truth. That’s when we get to see the look of shock on their faces, hear the disbelief in their voices, and watch as they try to find words to explain why all of those bad policies are really ok after all as they try to find words to backup their Chosen One.
But there’s an important piece here that these Republican friends should be careful not to miss: Mitt Romney also supports those horrible policies.
The PATRIOT Act
“With respect to national security surveillance and investigations, I strongly support both FISA as amended and the PATRIOT Act, and I will ensure that we use the full range of lawful authority to obtain useful intelligence about current or future threats to our country.” – Mitt Romney
Indefinite Detention under NDAA
“The Constitution, U.S. statutes, and the laws of war permit detention of enemy combatants — including U.S. citizens — until the end of hostilities, as has been recognized by the Supreme Court.” – Mitt Romney
I missed much of Friday’s news cycle, as I was traveling to visit my parents in South Carolina. We met them at our favorite local Mexican restaurant for dinner, and within five minutes, dad was telling me about how my Social Security number has probably been compromised and that I need to make a phone call to get free credit monitoring, courtesy of South Carolina.
About a month ago, someone from an international network compromised the South Carolina Department of Revenue’s web site to expose 3.6 million Social Security numbers and 387,000 credit card numbers. Of those credit card numbers, most were encrypted, but 16,000 of them were stored in plain text. All of the Social Security numbers were stored in plain text. The news of this fiasco hit the wire on Friday.
The reactions by South Carolinians that I spoke with this weekend were all pretty much the same: a mixture of anger and frustration. There are some people online calling for Governor Nikki Haley’s head on a platter, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that she would somehow know of vulnerabilities on a web server in a data center somewhere.
Yes, heads should roll; but Haley is the Governor, not the head of I.T.
This story has specific interest to me – first because I have paid South Carolina income taxes since 1998 – so my information is in data that was compromised, but also because I’ve managed web servers and security for equipment that handles this type of information. I understand the steps that are needed to protect this type of information.
Back when I first heard about the proposed New York soda ban, I couldn’t believe anyone would suggest something that ridiculous. Seriously? A city putting limits to sizes on sugary drinks? They couldn’t be serious.
But they were serious. Then it was approved by New York’s Board of Health. Seriously. You can’t buy a 20-ounce Coke in New York City.
Now people in Washington D.C. are trying to get the soda ban in place there, as well. Apparently stupidity is contagious.
The issue came up at a debate for council seat candidates. Two current council members said they would support a ban like New York put in place. That got councilwoman Mary Cheh giddy with excitement. It was Cheh who tried unsuccessfully to put a larger tax on sugary drinks, so the thought that she could control what you drink in Washington – or at least how much of it you drink – is music to her ears.
And Cheh even knows that her position on this issue is going to bring criticism from, you know, people who have a brain. She said, “I know ‘nanny state’ and all that, but it’s appropriate for government to intervene at times to make sure that the choices that are presented are healthy for us.”
Her statement isn’t even kind of correct. It’s not ever appropriate for government to intervene to save you from yourself.
There’s good news out of Michigan today. New polling shows Michigan Congressman Justin Amash has a 14-point lead over Steve Pestka, his Democrat challenger.
If you’re not yet familiar with Amash, you should take the time to get to know him. While I usually agree with him on issues, Amash’s voting record is only part of the reason I’m such a huge fan.
1. Justin Amash has never missed a vote in Congress.
One of my frustrations with legislators is the number of votes they miss. Sure, some votes really don’t matter, but when you’re selected to represent people, you ought to be there. Amash makes sure he is present for every vote that comes to the floor of the House.
2. Justin Amash explains every vote on his Facebook page.
Not only is he present for every vote, he explains those votes on his Facebook page. He’s the first member of Congress to be so proactively straightforward about transparency in government. I like my own Congressman a lot, but if I want to know why he supported or opposed legislation, I’ve got to either send an email or call his office and then wait for a form letter reply. Amash’s constituents can look on Facebook to see every vote he has ever cast and the reason for his position on the issue.
In a time where so many politicians are worthless, corrupt, and hungry for just a little more power, it’s refreshing to see someone doing the job he was sent to do and being transparent about it.