Some time ago I realized that simply being a voter was an insufficient enough participation level for me to consider myself a defender of the Constitution. That is a fundamental reason why I created Nacilbupera.
Likewise, with the regard to the nomination of Elena Kagan, it is insufficient enough for me to have my two Senators--Hatch and Bennett--simply verbally oppose the nomination of yet another Constitiution-ripper-upper. I need action. Every legal action possible. And with a scheduled July 13th vote in Committee, time is drawning short.
Judiciary Committee veteran Hatch must be found "Leading the Charge" (as the title of my autographed Hatch biography states he does) of a massive filibuster of this nominee Kagan whose ideology would veer from the strict power granted the Federal Government by "We the People." Hatch's judicial nominee opinions seem to carry a large amount of weight in the Senate. If Hatch is unwilling to use the power we the citizens of Utah have vested in him to defend our Constitution, then then time is ripe in 2012 to find another more willing to do so.
Senators Hatch and Bennett: will accept your duty as vested you by the People of the State of Utah and Lead the Charge? Or, Senator Hatch, must we find another to Lead the Charge as we found Mike Lee to replace Bob Bennett?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Evil of Eric Holder
US Attorney General Eric Holder is a evil man. For me, being evil as it applies to the political world unites two components: first, a person must pursue a pervasively wrong ideology such as socialism, communism, fascism, dismantling our sacred law-of-the-land the Constitution, or other form of tyranny. As horrible as these are, there are some folks who fall into this category that are simply "misguided" in their philosophy due to propaganda or indoctrination rather than meeting my benchmark of being "evil."The second part of being evil involves a breach of power, a trampling of law, bribe, or other form of corruption. An elected official having the second component but lacking the first is a guilty lawbreaker who should be punished, guilty of the human foibles of greed, lust, or vanity. Thus it takes the "ebony and ivory"* if you will of both wrong ideology and political corruption to qualify for this label of "evil" I feign from using. Just as foreign evil doers are omnipresent in world history, I too as a citizen must do my duty to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" [emphasis mine] as my honeybunny committed to do during her recent naturalization.
Holder has a proven record of releasing criminals including the Puerto-Rican terrorists to buoy up Hillary Clinton's Senatorial bid in New York and Marc Rich, a fugitive on the FBI's 10-most-wanted list.
More recently, Holder tried to get 9/11 mastermind KSM tried in civilian court--in of all places, NYC of course! After considerable bipartisan outrage, Holder announced four months ago today that the trial for KSM was '"weeks away" and [would] not be made or announced before President Obama leaves for Guam, Indonesia and Australia on March 18.' Two weeks ago Josh Gerstein of the Politico.com had this update:
The trial of KSM by Holder in civilian court is one more example of Holder's incorrect ideology in wanting to try terrorists as civilians in civilian court, while at the same time potentially denying them the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial by needlessly postponing it. Because of potential 6th Amendment violations in civilian court, the only legal means of prosecution remains military court as it should be done.Now advocates on both sides of the issue say they expect the Obama administration to punt the decision until after the November midterm elections— when the controversial plan could do less damage to the political fortunes of endangered Democrats and might face less resistance on Capitol Hill....
....While “swift and certain justice” once was a regular part of the White House lexicon on Guantanamo and detainee trials, that catchphrase has now vanished along with the prospect of anything swift happening to most of the prisoners slated for continued detention or trial.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker" quipped Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last February in a CBS news article with the Obama Administration pledging to seek swift justice. Sure thing, Obama! Just like you plugged the hole down in the Gulf, got the unemployed back to work, and held those Obamacare discussions on C-SPAN. (Obama's pre-election utter dearth of executive experience is glaring...)
All this brings us to some of the latest evil actions of Holder, this time clearly showing the level of corruption that exists in the DOJ for which he is at best guilty by apathy for looking the other way. This concerns the New Black Panthers (black equivalent of the KKK) voter intimidation case dismissed by the DOJ. You'll remember the famous video now with over 1M hits:
Only a few saw this racist clip: "That's why ya gonna be ruled by the black man."
In an important interview with Megyn Kelly during the last week, J. Christian Adams, a DOJ attorney who had resigned in disgust over the DOJ's dismissal of charges revealed all in two 10-minutes segments: Part 1 Part 2
These videos with Adams makes it clear that AG Eric Holder is running a culture of corruption in the DOJ. The New Black Panther Party should have been punished. I personally will continue to hold Eric Holder responsible for this miscarriage of justice. This corruption backed by a false, socialistic ideology of scrapping the Constitution shows that Eric Holder is Evil. Should Obama have any iota of executive competence in him, he should replace Evil Holder at once.
* Use of this phrase is devoid of innuendo of racial propensity towards either component. I am simply a big Stevie Wonder fan (Obama-loving McCartney not so much) and the racial overtones of the phrase were applicable to the theme of Black Panthers voter intimidation. I also got this vision of socialism and corruption sitting side-by-side on the piano in perfect harmony.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
SCOTUS: 6 Catholics, 3 Jews?
Imagine for a minute there were two sitting justices on the SCOTUS who were Mormon by religious affiliation. The only Protestant on the Supreme Court was retiring and the POTUS nominated yet another Mormon to the bench. How would you feel? Would you feel like somehow though the various Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals) comprise a majority of religious adherents in the US that you had no representation? Would you wonder why a US religion registering around 2% was getting a third justice while your religion had no representation? Would you protest or accuse the POTUS of being a religious bigot? (SCOTUS religious stats here)
Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!
I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.
What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.
I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.
++++ Update 7/10
I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:
You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.
Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!
I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.
What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.
I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.
++++ Update 7/10
I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”
Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies
have no right to be delivered.’"“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”
"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.
You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Secondary Thoughts on the Primary
I feel like I'm in a bag of mixed nuts with yesterday's outcome of the Utah Senate race. Logically, I should be satisfied with the Mike Lee win in the GOP Senate race--after all I voted for the man and felt comfortable with my vote.
I had planned to have my thoughts all neat and organized weeks before election day but instead found myself thinking, vetting, reading, and pondering on this decision. At one point in the process I was just about fed up enough to go write Jason Chaffetz' name down on the ballot and walk away. Instead, I looked at what Chaffetz had done in the race: he had made it clear he wasn't endorsing. I respected that decision a lot and began thinking about my own blog endorsements (the keen reader will notice some changes). In the end I decided I couldn't endorse either Lee or Bridgewater and even wondered if I should even say whom I was planning on voting for.
One nice consequence of not endorsing is that my mind remained unclouded so as to see the good and bad in both candidates. I saw many great patriots seem to become blinded to the bad in their own candidate. If you praised their candidate, you were a patriot. If you expressed any concern about their candidate you were ridiculed. I saw both the Bridgewater and Lee camps containing great and small modern-day patriots. I saw the sacrifices people were making to get what they deemed a great candidate elected to the Senate.
And then the election happened and Lee won by 2 points; I was secretly hoping it would be close although admittedly I thought Bridgewater would win. Post-election now follows with more ridicule by some of ridding of "blog trolls" and mocking patriots on the other side.
And yet I remain concerned, perhaps scared even. How will Lee (39) be as the youngest current Senator? Will he stick to his promises? Will he connect with the folks or be arrogant? I could ask the same questions were Bridgewater to be elected or anyone. The pro-Lee folks will tell you that you just don't know Lee well enough; OK, but if that's the case only God knows Mike Lee well enough. We don't have enough second chances left to get back to our Constitution for us to inadvertently send back the wrong person.
Bridgewater made the decision to vote for Lee easy for me by not responding to my email. I pretty much decided that when one candidate (Lee) would answer (yes, it took some prodding) and the other wouldn't or didn't, I wasn't interested in voting for a candidate who ignored me. I also became concerned that Bridgewater was more moderate in some of his views of wanting to do good government programs (Ex-Im Bank) rather than abolish them and cut wherever possible to downsize government and balance the government.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't this sleeper Lee guy all along as I'm sure I'll be accused now that I've announced my vote. Lee ducked more than one debate, donated to Bennett's campaign, and particularly in the beginning came off arrogant. While I thought the "Lee Lobbying Lenses" (as I like to title it in my mind) for 1-800 Contacts without registering was interesting, it didn't seem to make me want to bail when he had talked with the guy in charge beforehand. Finally, now that Lee is the probable winner come November, I don't want to see his brother Tom be on the State Supreme Court. Too many Lees for me. Let's not tie up all that power in one family when there are others out there.
Bridgewater wasn't my guy this time around. He may or may not be my guy another time around depending on my choices. But I wouldn't dare send anyone to Washington these days without keeping the strictest of watch over them. So congratulations Bridgewater and Lee you should both be proud of your great campaigns and desires to restore honor back to our country. I think highly of both of you. But Mr. Lee I have a special caution for you now: don't expect me to be letting you off the hook just because I voted for you. I'm ready to throw you under the bus at the first sign of you throwing my Constitution under the bus as has been done too many times before by predecessors. You will serve me and my fellow citizens of the state of Utah and we will hold you fully accountable before God in a judgement day even when God allows justice not to prevail for a time on earth. Should you come home in 6 or 12 years having kept your promises of repealing Obamacare, raising the Social Security retirement age, balancing the budget, and restoring honor to our Constitution, then will you have earned more than my vote: you will earned have my praise for a job well done.
I had planned to have my thoughts all neat and organized weeks before election day but instead found myself thinking, vetting, reading, and pondering on this decision. At one point in the process I was just about fed up enough to go write Jason Chaffetz' name down on the ballot and walk away. Instead, I looked at what Chaffetz had done in the race: he had made it clear he wasn't endorsing. I respected that decision a lot and began thinking about my own blog endorsements (the keen reader will notice some changes). In the end I decided I couldn't endorse either Lee or Bridgewater and even wondered if I should even say whom I was planning on voting for.
One nice consequence of not endorsing is that my mind remained unclouded so as to see the good and bad in both candidates. I saw many great patriots seem to become blinded to the bad in their own candidate. If you praised their candidate, you were a patriot. If you expressed any concern about their candidate you were ridiculed. I saw both the Bridgewater and Lee camps containing great and small modern-day patriots. I saw the sacrifices people were making to get what they deemed a great candidate elected to the Senate.
And then the election happened and Lee won by 2 points; I was secretly hoping it would be close although admittedly I thought Bridgewater would win. Post-election now follows with more ridicule by some of ridding of "blog trolls" and mocking patriots on the other side.
And yet I remain concerned, perhaps scared even. How will Lee (39) be as the youngest current Senator? Will he stick to his promises? Will he connect with the folks or be arrogant? I could ask the same questions were Bridgewater to be elected or anyone. The pro-Lee folks will tell you that you just don't know Lee well enough; OK, but if that's the case only God knows Mike Lee well enough. We don't have enough second chances left to get back to our Constitution for us to inadvertently send back the wrong person.
Bridgewater made the decision to vote for Lee easy for me by not responding to my email. I pretty much decided that when one candidate (Lee) would answer (yes, it took some prodding) and the other wouldn't or didn't, I wasn't interested in voting for a candidate who ignored me. I also became concerned that Bridgewater was more moderate in some of his views of wanting to do good government programs (Ex-Im Bank) rather than abolish them and cut wherever possible to downsize government and balance the government.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't this sleeper Lee guy all along as I'm sure I'll be accused now that I've announced my vote. Lee ducked more than one debate, donated to Bennett's campaign, and particularly in the beginning came off arrogant. While I thought the "Lee Lobbying Lenses" (as I like to title it in my mind) for 1-800 Contacts without registering was interesting, it didn't seem to make me want to bail when he had talked with the guy in charge beforehand. Finally, now that Lee is the probable winner come November, I don't want to see his brother Tom be on the State Supreme Court. Too many Lees for me. Let's not tie up all that power in one family when there are others out there.
Bridgewater wasn't my guy this time around. He may or may not be my guy another time around depending on my choices. But I wouldn't dare send anyone to Washington these days without keeping the strictest of watch over them. So congratulations Bridgewater and Lee you should both be proud of your great campaigns and desires to restore honor back to our country. I think highly of both of you. But Mr. Lee I have a special caution for you now: don't expect me to be letting you off the hook just because I voted for you. I'm ready to throw you under the bus at the first sign of you throwing my Constitution under the bus as has been done too many times before by predecessors. You will serve me and my fellow citizens of the state of Utah and we will hold you fully accountable before God in a judgement day even when God allows justice not to prevail for a time on earth. Should you come home in 6 or 12 years having kept your promises of repealing Obamacare, raising the Social Security retirement age, balancing the budget, and restoring honor to our Constitution, then will you have earned more than my vote: you will earned have my praise for a job well done.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Book Review: How to Save America by A. E. Duzett
I originally bought "How to Save America: A Tactical Guide for Practical Patriots" by Allie Winegar Duzett because I've been a fan of her blog: True Politics USA.Although I've read a lot of Duzett (she is a prolific blogger and activist) I was rather surprised at the aggressiveness with which she schools the reader on how to be a conservative activist.
The book's undeclared and understated motto is found in the introduction: "There is always something we can personally do to make sure our dreams for the world can happen." Duzett could have more accurately stated the motto: "There's always a bunch you can do--and frankly should do--personally to make your dreams happen, and for starters this book will teach you 1,001 of them."
Memorable discussions from How to Save America include Saul Alinsky's "sh*t in", leaving the Obama Satan mask at home during Tea Party rallies (pic below h/t The Freedom Fighter's Journal), and the "Progressive Bake Sale" (p. 125).
Duzett spends a significant portion of the book addressing programs and ideas applicable to the college-aged including introducing me to various organizations available to students such as: campusreform.org and thefire.orgThe 142-page book read easy for me, comfortable enough to tackle in a day. Also, Duzett has provided ample excerpts from her book on her blog. I throughly enjoyed How to Save America and recommend it as a way of brainstorming ideas and motivation for those times when we may feel alone, confused, or helpless as to how to react to the tsunami of socialism we are inundated with.
How to Save America, released May 2010, is available in paperback on Amazon.com or CreateSpace for $10.
Ousting the GOP "Cap n Tax 8" Part 2
This past Tuesday, 4 of the remaining 6 "Cap n Tax 8" held primaries; here are the results:
Cap N Tax Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-07) won his primary with 56% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Christopher Smith (NJ-04) won his primary with 68% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) won his primary with 78% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) won her primary with 69% of the vote.
Case Study: NJ-02
Although none of the four "Cap n Tax 8" incumbents were defeated, we need to give the opposition candidates credit. Let's examine the LoBiondo race where the incumbent garnished the largest percent of victory to put things into perspective:
(1) The South Jersey Courier Post described this as a "second consecutive challenge" for LoBiondo meaning that the 8-term Congressman has betimes run unopposed. Thank you challengers Linda Biamonte and Donna Ward for running! Keep up the great work!
(2) Voters narrowed LoBiondo's margin of victory in the primary down from 89% in 2008 to 78% this year. Excellent progress!
(3) These results were achieved with a biased media who described Biamonte as the "LoBiondo Challenger" (Shore News Today) instead of properly using her real name. (SNT completely ignored the presence of Donna Ward in the race--who won 45% of the anti-LoBiondo vote.)
(4) LoBiondo got some national vetting exposure in April by Michelle Malkin about his ignorance on the U.S. Constitution.
(5) Keep in mind the reason why incumbents are so hard to defeat is the money donated to incumbents by PACs and businesses. In the last FEC report, LoBiondo had donated $375K to his own campaign, outraising his opponents combined fundraising by magnitudes. LoBiondo has bought himself another two years in Congress.
Having seen LoBiondo run on an issue-less platform (see the utter lack of issue positions on his website at http://lobiondoforcongress.com/ -- unless you count his dogs as an issue position) it is great to see these two courageous patriots--Biamonte and Ward--stand for principle and I remain excited about their success.
Looking forward
The two remaining GOP "Cap n Tax 8" primaries are: Cap n Tax Congressman Michael Castle (DE) against Christine O'Donnell for the DE Senate seat with primary elections on Sept 14th and Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber with an Aug 17th primary.
Cap N Tax Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-07) won his primary with 56% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Christopher Smith (NJ-04) won his primary with 68% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) won his primary with 78% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) won her primary with 69% of the vote.
Case Study: NJ-02
Although none of the four "Cap n Tax 8" incumbents were defeated, we need to give the opposition candidates credit. Let's examine the LoBiondo race where the incumbent garnished the largest percent of victory to put things into perspective:
(1) The South Jersey Courier Post described this as a "second consecutive challenge" for LoBiondo meaning that the 8-term Congressman has betimes run unopposed. Thank you challengers Linda Biamonte and Donna Ward for running! Keep up the great work!
(2) Voters narrowed LoBiondo's margin of victory in the primary down from 89% in 2008 to 78% this year. Excellent progress!
(3) These results were achieved with a biased media who described Biamonte as the "LoBiondo Challenger" (Shore News Today) instead of properly using her real name. (SNT completely ignored the presence of Donna Ward in the race--who won 45% of the anti-LoBiondo vote.)
(4) LoBiondo got some national vetting exposure in April by Michelle Malkin about his ignorance on the U.S. Constitution.
(5) Keep in mind the reason why incumbents are so hard to defeat is the money donated to incumbents by PACs and businesses. In the last FEC report, LoBiondo had donated $375K to his own campaign, outraising his opponents combined fundraising by magnitudes. LoBiondo has bought himself another two years in Congress.
Having seen LoBiondo run on an issue-less platform (see the utter lack of issue positions on his website at http://lobiondoforcongress.com/ -- unless you count his dogs as an issue position) it is great to see these two courageous patriots--Biamonte and Ward--stand for principle and I remain excited about their success.
Looking forward
The two remaining GOP "Cap n Tax 8" primaries are: Cap n Tax Congressman Michael Castle (DE) against Christine O'Donnell for the DE Senate seat with primary elections on Sept 14th and Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber with an Aug 17th primary.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Master Mr. Niceguy goes Postal
In my May 9th post, I coined the phrase "Master Mr. Niceguy" in describing Utah US Senate Candidate Tim Bridgewater. This week I received two pieces of campaign literature from the Bridgewater campaign (none from the Lee campaign) the back of one which shattered my image of Tim's Yoda-esque gentlemanliness:
Here was a great man tearing down his opponent as having "no plan." What?!? Does Tim think I'm stupid or something? As an avid follower of this race, I have felt all along Lee has a plan and actually has done an equally good job as Bridgewater in communicating it. So I went to the Lee campaign website to make sure Lee was still communicating a plan and there it was under his "issues" tab: a clearly defined plan called "Five Steps to a Return to Limited Government."
Continuing on the mailer, Bridgewater attacked Lee for "focusing on tearing down his opponent with negative attacks." Wait a minute Master Mr. Niceguy, you just got through a ripping of your fellow Republican candidate for not having a plan when you failed to provide one shred of evidence of this lack of a plan...and now you accuse him of negative attacks???? Can you not see the beam in your own eye?
Perhaps it was a poll released Thursday showing Lee with a small lead over Bridgewater that is now causing Bridgewater to start the negative attacks to reap the large percentage of undecideds in the state. Whatever the reason, it is clear Master Mr. Niceguy has gone postal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
