Friday, November 03, 2006

Predictions and Endorsements 2006

Here it is folks, the big bold 2006 electoral predictions.

Ok, some background. I pay close attention to politics. I read a lot of the main stream media and am a daily listener to Rush Limbaugh (nationally) and Mark Belling (locally here in Milwaukee). I check out a number of websites about a number of issues. I consider myself pretty well informed. So these predictions should be right on the money . . . right? :-)


US Congress: Senate

The conventional wisdom this year has been that the Republicans have no chance at all at retaining their majority in the house (more on this later). Thus, a great deal of talk has surrounded the Senate and if the GOP can retain it's hold there. Well, let me first say that if the GOP does hold on to the Senate, it won't make much of a difference. The GOP led Senate has acted almost exactly like the Democrats would anyway. I have never seen a party more full of hypocrites than the Republicans. Democrats think they are running a good campaign nationally, and in some cases will probably defeat incumbent Republicans.

For example, in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum's political career is over. Trust me.

On the other hand, the Republicans seem to be running some of their strongest candidates in the Senate races. Michael Steele comes to mind from Maryland. I think he's going to win.

Bottom line: The Democrats may pick up a seat or two, probably from conservatives in trouble, conservatives in battleground states (i.e. Santorum in PA), or conservatives in liberal states (kinda like Tom Daschle in reverse). However, at the end of the day Republicans will retain control.

US Congress: House

This has been the darling and crown jewel of the Democrat's goals for 2006. It seems that since Kerry's loss in 2004, they have had their eye on the house and the GOP's slim 15 seat margin. I must commend the Dems, they have run very effective campaigns to regain control. Also, the Republicans have done nothing to help themselves. Be it Abortion, Immigration, Government size and spending, or anything else generally on conservatives minds, the Republican led government has failed. . . . . . miserably.

The one beacon of hope (and it is a dim beacon at that) has been the house. At least we can say that they stood up for common sense when it came to immigration. Which of course led to nothing at all getting done. However, I'll take no law over bad law any day.

Then there's the scandals. Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Ney in Ohio, Thomas Reynolds in NY, and the complete moron in Hassert. I have never been so happy in my life to not be a Republican. The GOP would do well to sit back and allow Ron Paul to be speaker and lead an actual conservative movement in that house.

So what's going to happen? Ok, first of all dispel any notions that the seats formerly belonging to Mark Foley and Tom Delay are going to be "free pickups" for the Democrats. Republicans may be angry, and it might be a closer election in those areas, but the Republican dominated voters in those areas aren't stupid. They know who to write-in and they will.

Republicans are the best closers in the game of politics and have a great get out the vote effort. However, this year, that effort is countered by an angry and well motivated Democrat base.

Bottom line: The Republicans are going to lose. . . . but, they will not lose control of the house. It is going to be awful close though. The Republicans may end up losing control of the house after the elections through some "horse trading". Look for heightened "horse trading" if Dennis Hassert remains speaker.



So we have Jim Doyle, one of the most corrupt and dirty politicians in the entire history of politics, and Mark Green, one of the worst campaigners in the history of politicians. Seriously, how can you be trailing in polls when the governor is in the news everyday with a new corruption scandal and then gets on TV and lies about it.

I'd love to comment on this campaign, but honestly, the only thing the two candidates want to talk about is how bad the other guy is. Tell me, where does Mark Green stand on abortion? How pro-life is he? Where is he on property rights? What does Jim Doyle plan to do with, well anything??

I'm not endorsing either one of these candidates, but I'll say this, I hope Doyle loses. I don't like Green, but I don't think he's gonna screw up the state as bad as Doyle will. There are two other candidates on the ballot for Gov, but neither one are worth voting for. Constitution Party candidate Jhred Hamby and whatever space alien the Green Party found.

See, I'd love to vote for Hamby, but seriously, I have to write the guy in. This isn't like in 2004 when I had to write in Peroutka for President because the inept Constitution party here forgot to file some paperwork. No, Hamby screwed this up on his own. Honestly, if you're not serious about campaigning, how serious can you be about governing?

Do you hear that? That's the CP leadership sending me an e-mail criticizing me for not helping Hamby. Save it guys, you know my e-mail now and you knew it then. Still, I never received a ballot access petition to sign, nor did I receive an answer to any of my e-mails to the campaign. Save it fellas, and start to face the fact that you aren't serious about what you do, because if you are, you should step aside for the good of the party and let someone who can find their backside with two hands and a flashlight run the party.

Bottom line: Mark Green wins. Doyle just has too much against him. It'll be close, but I know Democrats that just plain hate Doyle and what he's done to the party.

Attorney General:

The Republicans have JB Van Hollen and the Democrats have Kathleen Falk.

This is what it boils down to with no bias at all (seriously). Van Hollen is a lawyer with a great reputation who is funding his own campaign and is generally well liked and regarded by many in Wisconsin. Falk is a decent politician from one of the most liberal counties in the United States who is running as an ultra liberal candidate. Oh, and she's never prosecuted anyone in her life

Ok, back to the bias. Falk is so desperate that she is outright lying about Van Hollen in her TV ads. Even prominent members of her own party are saying she's gone to far and should apologize.

Van Hollen wins easily. Look for 60% or more. He'll hold this job as long as he wants it, as long as he doesn't screw it up.

JB Van Hollen is one of only two candidates I'm endorsing this year. He is as pro-life as they come and is strong on balancing the liberties of the law abiding citizens, while still being tough on crime. He's not perfect, but he's a good guy who I think is trying to do good in his position. Most of all, I think he truly understands the purpose of government.

The Marriage Amendment:

Ok, first off, if you are against gay marriage, vote yes. If you want gay marriage to be allowed, vote no. Got that? Because the homo's in this state would like you to think otherwise. Which brings me to my first point. . . .

You know you are desperate when you resort to flat out lies and deception. (See Falk, Kathleen) Wisconsin doesn't want gay marriage, and it never did. This amendment is good because it makes sure that a judge can't make the decision that about 4 million Wisconsinites don't want to make. The 1 million or so people who don't want to ban gay marriage know they are on the losing end of the deal. So they have to lie and deceive to get their way.

Well, they're gonna fail, for the 21st time in our nations history. This amendment passes easily. 55% or more. Let us never forget the tactics used here though.

Wisconsin's 5th Senate District:

America's best state senator, Tom Reynolds, is trying his best to hang on to his seat. He is an ultra-conservative Republican running against Jim Sullivan, a democrat.

Ok, I could go into Sullivan's alleged double voting and whatnot, but I don't think the case is necessarily proven. However, it is interesting and has yet to be explained. And the botched cover up by the city clerk in one of the places he supposedly voted in 2000 does lend the story credibility.

However, I'd rather talk about the absolute shameless campaign against Tom Reynolds. His opponents are throwing the kitchen sink at the guy, and you know what, Reynolds is still holding on. There's been allegations of him abusing his children, there's been flat out lies about him stealing campaign funds, the local leftist rag (The Shepard Express) never seems to miss an opportunity to make off color jokes about the guy, the local leftist official paper (The Milwaukee Urinal-Sentinel) just loves to paint a negative picture of Reynolds every time they can. And let's not even get into the columnists Spivak and Bice and they're little personal obsession with Reynolds. (They must have a secret altar in their basement or something, it's like two smitten high school girls with their first crush. Sick really)

And the independent groups! Oh my! If you listen to them, you'd think Reynolds was Hitler back from the dead. I mean GOD FORBID that Tom propose a road system or propose that perhaps we should have some say when our taxes go up.

You see it boils down to this . . . They hate Reynolds for two reasons:

1. He is a Christian. Tom Reynolds feels that Jesus is Lord of all things, especially him. And he governs in such a manner.

2. He actually stands for something. What does Jim Sullivan want to accomplish in Madison? I know I know!!! He wants to accomplish becoming a State Senator and replacing Tom Reynolds. Taxes? Education? Roads? Don't ask, because Jim Sullivan has no idea. Tom Reynolds on the other hand, now he knows exactly what he wants to accomplish. Lower Taxes through tax accountability. Reduce crime by instituting the death penalty. Help businesses by keeping the minimum wage (which will actually increase wages in the long run. . . . it's complicated). See, real, tangible ideas, and moreover, real tangible ideas that speak to real tangible people. Democrats, and politicians in general, HATE THAT.

One last thing: It is despicable how the Republican party of WI has abandoned Reynolds. Here's a true conservative, an independent thinker who cares about getting stuff done for the people (not the special interests) of Wisconsin. . . . and the GOP abandons him. Remember that the next time you think they are the lesser of two evils.

Tom Reynolds is the second person I endorse in this election. Mr. Reynolds is one of the few I know that really truly can be called a statesman. He understands government's purpose and boundaries, and most importantly, God's sovereignty over it. Mr. Reynolds is exactly what we need in every office of Government. My only regret is that I could not do more for the man.

Nonetheless, I think he is going to lose. May God grant him victory, but I do not think the votes are there. Politicians who face this kind of concentrated effort against them rarely win. It is a shame.

However, if Reynolds does win, the man can write his ticket almost anywhere in Wisconsin. To win in that district, against those odds, without compromising your position??? That is such a great thought, I almost don't want to corrupt it by thinking about it. Tom Reynolds for Governor in 2010. I got giddy just typing that.

So there you go, my predictions and endorsements. May God be glorified.


Blogger Peter Fli... said...

Good summary of the candidates/issues/campaigns. Must have been a labor of time. However, you did leave out the death penalty (intentionally)?

6:31 AM  
Blogger Jason Marianna said...

Thanks for the comments Pete.

It took me about a week to organize what I was going to say. The facts mentioned in the blog were a collection of stuff I've heard and read for the past 6 months or so. Mark Belling is a good source of info locally, he tends to repeat himself from day to day (so it sinks in) in new and interesting ways (so its entertaining). I also have an extensive RSS collection. :-)

I did leave off the death penalty referendum intentionally. It's not that I don't have anything to say about it, but I think it's less important than the marriage amendment, and the blog was getting a bit long and already. Also, I feel that there is no bad vote on the issue. I think a Christian can see the issue both ways and be without sin before God. Whereas the marriage amendment, there is clearly a right and wrong answer.

My personal opinion is that God ordains the death penalty for a number of different reasons, one of which being murder. We must be careful to not kill an innocent person, and the DNA requirement, in my opinion, does that. I also think it was prudent to make this a non-binding referendum since we will be deciding on a new attorney general in this election as well. The state crime lab, which runs DNA testing in Wisconsin, is in such shambles, that it would be dangerous to hang a persons life on their findings right now. We need a good attorney general to right the crime lab first, and then we can go with the will of the people if the referendum passes.

It should also be noted that this is a creation of Tom Reynolds. Yet another example of why he is the best state senator in the entire country.

Hope that helps . . .


11:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home