The Club for Growth released a memo today on the current state of the TX Senate run-off. Bottom line-David Dewhurst’s chance to win this Senate race was Tuesday, May 29th. Given the trend lines and with the national attention this race is about to receive, his numbers are headed south while Madison Project endorsee Ted Cruz continues to surge. This could be a long 60 days for David Dewhurst that sees him spend a lot of his own money and still lose on July 31st.
Things you will need to help Ted Cruz beat David Dewhurst:
1) A phone
2) Or a computer with a headset
3) If using a computer, you will need high speed internet
Whether you are using your own phone or a laptop, to make calls for the Ted Cruz campaign from your home, simply go to www.votergravity.com/cruz.
Once you are there, the easiest way to get going is to login using your Facebook account.
If you do not have a Facebook account, you may contact the Cruz campaign directly: Kris Shafer – Kris@TedCruz.org
Once you log-in to the Gravity system via Facebook, it may take up to 15 minutes for you to be authorized to use the system.
Your first option will be to use your own phone or a Gravity phone (which simply means you are going to call using your desktop or laptop with a headset). Choose which option is more comfortable for you.
Once you have done that, you will see a Voter Profile pop up. It will contain the voter’s name, address and Gravity Score. A “1” means that voter is registered by rarely if ever votes. A “12” means that voter is registered and votes every time the polls are open. Their voter history is listed at the bottom of the column.
If you have chosen the “Own Phone” option, you will see the voter’s number pop up under the Gravity logo. Once you connect with a live voter, just click “Start Survey” and you may begin the call. When done with the voter, click “Next Voter” and continue making calls.
If no one answers, click “Voicemail” and a scripted message will appear for you to leave for the voter. Once you are done, click “Next Voter” and repeat the process.
I know most of you come to this site to read politics, but this post has nothing to do with politics.
I heard a fascinating sermon on Sunday in church. It was from the Book of Job and the theme of the sermon was faith centered around the questions God asks Job throughout the book, “Where were you when . . . .?” The purpose of the questions was to drive home a point: there is a God. And it’s not you.
As he preached, the our pastor kept coming back to question, “Do we have a faith big enough to believe in God?” and it took me back years ago to a time when we were presented several topics to write on in a college Humanities course. I chose Faith because of its paradoxical nature. I think-no, I know-many have fallen into the trap of Keirkegaard, that faith and reason are two separate “silos” inside each human, that faith is an emotive response while reason is a clinical, rational function of the brain and never the two shall meet.
I, of course, challenged that notion and still do to this day. While faith is a belief in the unseen, it is not a purely emotional response. It is employing the mind given to us for a reason (to think with) to rationally compute historical events and scientific evidence so that as we stand on the precipice of time, big decisions or life challenges and hear the eternal Voice whisper, “Jump and I will catch you,” we know we can jump and that we will be caught.
Reason and faith working hand in glove with each other. That is the paradox of faith.
Can we reason our way to God? In the truest sense, no. But can reason, facts and evidence lead us down the path to God? Yes. It is when we hit that final door that we must open it and leap.
That, friends, is what faith is. A reasoned decision to trust the revealed Unknown.
Look, it’s not a secret that the conservative movement is up against a system in Washington, DC. Ironically, those who love the status quo and seek the reinforce The System have no qualms in laying out how they will co-opt any one that the conservative movement sends to Washington, DC (or state capitols for that matter). In spite of his statements after this article saying he was misunderstood, this was no slip of the tongue by former Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott. He meant it.
I think part of the problem for the tea party movement right now is that it believes the campaign rhetoric of candidates who run around and say, “We’re going to go to Washington, DC and change the System!!” Unfortunately, tea party leaders and members don’t realize they are sending folks into a meat grinder where various reinforcing entities latch onto the new Members and force them into the mold of the status quo. Leadership with its PAC checks and committee assignments, lobbyists for Big Business and other entities-you name it, each component reinforces the other which reinforces The System as a whole.
So when I see the Chamber of Commerce endorsing Big Government Republicans like Dick Lugar and Jon Bruning, what do I think? Another example of the collusion between Big Business and Big Government reinforcing The System. As Daniel so ably pointed out with his post on the The Chamber of (Government Run) Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce isn’t there to change The System. It is there to support and help elect more Republicans who will reinforce The System, not change it.
I sensed a shoulder slump by the conservative movement this morning when the Chamber released its endorsement of Jon Bruning in the Nebraska Senate race. Rather than a should slump, we should instead say, “Yeah, that’s exactly what we expected. Of course the Chamber would endorse Jon Bruning-Big Government Republicans flock together.” It should also reinforce the reason why we need to send Don Stenberg to Washington, DC. Having chatted with him several times, this is a man, a conservative, who knows exactly what he believes and why. He’s not going to crumble in the face of Mitch McConnell’s attempts to co-opt him once he gets elected. He’s going to stand with stalwarts like Jim DeMint and Mike Lee.
But that’s why we have to get him elected and once he gets to Washington, DC be there for him, either to pat him on the back and say, “Keep going!” or to smack him and say, “That’s not what we sent you to DC for!”
As those of you who are on the Madison Project’s email list know, we have been sending out The Madisonian every Monday. An easy to read legislative bulletin, The Madisonian gives the conservative movement the additional edge it needs to stay informed as to 1) what is actually going on in Washington, DC and 2) the steps to take to make sure bad legislation is defeated and good legislation is advanced.
For the sake of whetting peoples’ appetites, I am posting The Madisonian, Issue #8 that went out last week before Congress went into recess for Easter Break.
If you want to receive The Madisonian every Monday, sign up for our emails at www.MadisonProject.com
Cross-posted from www.AmericanMajorityAction.org
I took a call from a leader in the conservative movement recently. His question was, “How can we help Rick Santorum get elected?” My response was, “Who is we and why?”
There was a pause at the end of the line.
“What do you mean? You aren’t helping Romney or Gingrich, are you?”
“I am helping none of them. Nor do I want to.” And then came the “It’s about the judges!” statement that inevitably comes when conservatives grasp for a reason to charge up the hill for folks they have nothing in common with. Well, almost nothing.
Let’s be honest, as a guy who handled government affairs for the best Constitutional law outfit on our side (the American Center for Law and Justice), I get the judges angle. I was in the thick of the Roberts and Alito nomination battles. It is time that we stop settling and accept the vicious cycle where suspect candidates are foisted upon us under the guise of “He really means it this time!”
Back to my conversation with the conservative leader.
“So let me get this straight-you are going to support a guy in Rick Santorum who is a big government Republican, the antithesis of everything you preach day in and day out about fiscal responsibility?” I asked.
“Well, yes. It’s about the judges and if Obama wins he’s going to get two nominations.”
I confess, I take a less panicked view on that argument. If (I stress if) Barack Obama wins a second term and gets two nominations, this is how it will play out. Ruth Bader Ginsburg will retire or die, giving Obama his first nomination. Who will replace her? Someone equally as liberal and someone who makes statements like the ones Ginsburg made about international law. So, that one’s a wash with a younger liberal taking her place. And then comes the Washington, DC parlor game of “Who’s next?” None of the above, actually. Take a look at the current make-up of the court. Who do you think would possibly step down or die on the bench? Which means Obama will not get two nominations. If he gets any, he’ll get one.
So to all the conservative leaders out there tying yourselves in knots, making excuses for voting records and trying to project your hopes and dreams onto candidates with long track records-please stop. It’s time to break the vicious cycle and start holding candidates’ collective feet to the fire. Walk the talk.
And for those of your in the tea party movement asking, “Well, who do we charge up the hill for?!” I point you to your local candidates, your House and Senate races. If the Supreme Court does toss ObamaCare out in toto, then guess what? We need a heck of lot more conservatives in the US House and Senate that will fight against any attempt the Obama Administration makes to re-create socialized medicine.
This is not good news for Scott Walker and his team with two months to go before the June 5th recall election.
This would send a great message to out of control school boards across the nation.
As Daniel noted yesterday, it was a mixed bag of goods for the conservative movement when it came to the Highway Bill Amendments. We won 2, lost 2.
One of the victories, however, was on Amendment #1782, the NAT GAS Act, which lost 51-47.
This amendment was put forward by Senators Bob Menendez (NJ) and Senator Richard Burr (NC). For those of you unfamiliar with the NAT GAS Act, here is the memo American Majority Action put together on it last summer: Pickens Bill Talking Points Memo. It is a bill that epitomizes what is wrong with Washington, DC. And if handing a Texas billionaire (T. Boone Pickens) $10 billion in subsidies so he can enrich himself is not bad enough, it appears Senator Richard Burr has a serious conflict of interest when it comes to this amendment and natural gas. You see, Senator Richard Burr, the man who put forward this amendment and then whipped for it holds upwards of $200,000 in stock in various natural gas entities. Who else gains if this amendment goes through? Richard Burr.
I hope the above causes outrage. Think of all this in another light. A billionaire and a US Senator were hoping to pass off the risk and the upfront costs of transitioning a major part of our infrastructure to the American taxpayer so they themselves could personally profit from it. I know full well they are running around saying this is a case of national security and that we need to end our dependence on foreign oil. I happen to agree. But the solution is not to have Washington, DC create artificial demand and pick winners and losers in the market.
I know to some extent I am preaching to the choir if you are reading this blog, but the bottom line is that things need to change in Washington, DC and change fast.
Folks, if you aren’t signed up for our email list, you need to sign up today to receive what is quickly becoming the premier legislative bulletin for Washington, DC, The Madisonian.
Compiled each week by conservative blogger extraordinaire and our deputy political director, Daniel Horowitz, it is a quick study of the legislation that will be in both chambers with a quick take on what the conservative action/counteraction should be.
So you can get a feel for it, here is The Madisonian, Issue#4.
And don’t forget to sign up today and send it to your friends!