Caffeinated Thoughts

O’Donnell Wins, Cornyn Wimps, GOP Leadership Withers
Christine O’Donnell Upsets Mike Castle in Delaware GOP Primary; NRSC Nixes Funding General Election
Update on Sarah Palin’s Speech at Iowa GOP’s Reagan Dinner in Des Moines
Buckley’s God and Man in Today’s Conservative Movement
The Original Web-ster: Fire Extinguisher
What is True For Me, Is Not Necessarily True For You! Is That True? Not Necessarily.
Primary Day in Delaware: Christine O’Donnell Pulls Ahead in Latest Poll, Mike Castle Melts Down
Who Will You Be Rooting For In November?

O’Donnell Wins, Cornyn Wimps, GOP Leadership Withers

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 10:15 PM PDT

Christine O’Donnell staged a big comeback win in the Delaware Senate primary against GOP-party favorite Mike Castle, as the Republican rank and file have parted company with the candidate chosen in the backroom by the GOP leadeship. John Cornyn, head of the GOP Senatorial Committee wouldn’t promise to lend support to the lady who has garned the support of Sarah Palin, and some, but not all, of the tea party movement.

Regardless of the whether the Tea Party supported O’Donnell, the Republicans of Delaware did back her, and the GOP should get behind her 100%. It is amazing how dense, tone deaf, and bull-headed the self-serving leadership of the National Republican Party can be.

In recent months they came out in favor of Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio, they ignored the pro-life alternative to Bob Ehrlich (Brian Murphy), in the Maryland Governor’s race, and pushed Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman in New York’s 23rd House District. This is the same party (led by George Bush and Rick Santorum) that backed Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey years ago, pro-abortion US House Representative Greg Ganske over Marine and strong pro-family candidate Bill Salier in Iowa, and Governor Arnold Swartzeneggar over several conservative candidates when that governorship was open after Gray Davis was recalled.

If conservatives ever expect to make progress in this country they better speak loud and clear while working hard against their number one enemies, the leadership of the GOP: Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and Michale Steele. Enough is enough.

Share and Enjoy:

Christine O’Donnell Upsets Mike Castle in Delaware GOP Primary; NRSC Nixes Funding General Election

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 08:40 PM PDT

Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell upsets two-term Governor and 9-term Congressman Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP Senate Primary tonight 53% to 47%. This isn't a time to over-celebrate and rest on their laurels as they have a tough job ahead in the general election with Chris Coons. It will be a tough race, but there are a few reasons to be optimistic.

Kathryn Jean Lopez hit the nail on the head tonight regarding tonight's result. It wasn't so much about O'Donnell as it was about what Castle represented – 30 years of party establishment experience representing an unreliable vote.

He had an R. after his name, but he might as well have been a Democrat. Voters want authenticity. That's why Murkowski lost. That's why Castle lost.

The establishment still doesn't get it, as I said this morning that even if she loses the general election it isn't like ground is lost for conservatism. If Castle won, conservatism isn't advanced. At the very least if O'Donnell runs a tough campaign Democrats will spend a ton of dough in Delaware.

O'Donnell will need to spend a lot of money as well, and not one red cent will be coming from the National Republican Senatorial Campaign in an incredibly dumb move politically if not strategically. Well she wasn't backed by the establishment before, why should we expect them to now?

We'll see how well the establishment in Delaware backs the nominee when you know they would have expected that from O'Donnell supporters had Castle won. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Even if they don't support her, we can.

Share and Enjoy:

Update on Sarah Palin’s Speech at Iowa GOP’s Reagan Dinner in Des Moines

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 02:30 PM PDT

Just a few more details regarding Governor Palin's visit to Des Moines on Friday…

The Ronald Reagan Dinner: A Salute to Freedom will be held this Friday, September 17 at HyVee Hall (730 3rd St. in Des Moines, IA). The doors will open at 5:00p, and the program will begin at 6:30p.

You can purchase your tickets here if you haven't done so already. The cost is $100/person, and $1000 to sponsor a table. I know the Black Hawk County GOP had four tickets left, and my friend (and contributor here) Kim Lehman reserved a table and was looking for people (if you are interested, contact me and I'll get you in touch with her).

If you can't attend, C-SPAN will be covering the dinner so you can watch on TV or online at approximately 7:00pm (CST). You can also land here as I will be sitting at bloggers' row live blogging the event.

Share and Enjoy:

Buckley’s God and Man in Today’s Conservative Movement

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 02:00 PM PDT

Joe Carter, the Web Editor at First Things wrote a thought provoking piece applying William F. Buckley Jr's book God and Man at Yale to the current trend of conservatives turning their back on social issues.

This book helped launch the conservative movement as we know it today 50 years ago. Carter writes of the current conservative Beltway culture:

How remarkable that the thesis of a book that helped launch the conservative movement could, less than half a century later, be completely repudiated by people who claim to be the author's intellectual heirs. But that is not quite true. It would be more accurate to say that they repudiated only part of it. They've foolishly discarded Buckley's emphasis on Christianity but retained, as they should, his love of free enterprise.

For instance, everyone in the conservative movement knows that you can be an atheist who actively works to undermine traditional Judeo-Christian morality and conservative social issues and still receive a book deal with a conservative publisher, a fellowship at a conservative think-tank, or a place on the masthead of a major conservative publication. What you cannot do—without being stripped of the label "conservative"—is question free market orthodoxy. You can be squishy on the issue of cutting a child out of the womb, but waver on the prudence of cutting the capital gains tax and you'll be treated as a traitor.

Of course you can still be a Christian—even an evangelical one—within the movement, for the conservative elite is not openly hostile to the faith. In fact, many of the leaders in the movement are, like the administrators of Yale in the 1940s, good churchgoing folk. They are all in favor of religion, provided it is practiced in private and not forced on others. Christianity can be a harmless pastime, similar to woodworking, quilting, or homosexuality.

When it comes to the expression of religious convictions in public and as a defining mark of conservatism, these movement leaders are moderately pro-choice. Christianity should remain safe, legal, and—like Judaism—rare.

Be sure to read Carter's whole piece. While the GOP certainly is right to see that people are concerned about the national debt and other pressing economic issues; it would be a mistake to dismiss social concerns. They need both groups.

This was originally posted as my inaugural post for The Innocence Blog.

Share and Enjoy:

The Original Web-ster: Fire Extinguisher

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 11:31 AM PDT

Either there were no small fires in 1828 or there was nothing to put them out with. Here was Noah Webster's 1828 definition of extinguisher:

EXTINGUISHER, n. 1) He or that which extinguishes. 2. A hollow conical utensil to be put on a candle to extinguish it.

Notice that the definition includes the action verb form. I don't suppose it is an extinguisher unless it actually extinguishes a fire. It doesn't say that an extinguisher could "possibly, under ideal circumstances" put out a fire.

How many lives might have been saved in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, had someone had a fire extinguisher nearby when Mrs. O'Leary's cow allegedly started the barn fire which devastated the City of Chicago! (Over 300 died).

Of course, we all know small fires can turn into big fires rather quickly. I remember one-hour training I received at one work place suggested whole houses can be up in flames in less than 10 minutes after a fire starts. This was why I was intrigued by an email sent out by "The Director of Safety Training" at a fine educational institution many moons ago.

After explaining the importance of knowing where the fire exits were, how to sound the alarm if you spot a fire, and if, when and how to return to a building after an alarm stops sounding, he turned to the subject of fire extinguishers:

Here is what he said:

You'll notice that I said nothing about grabbing a fire extinguisher and using it to put out a fire. OSHA requires that employees who are assigned to use fire extinguishers be trained annually. This training includes knowing the types of fires, types of fire extinguishers, how to choose the right type of extinguisher to fight a fire, and the proper use of a fire extinguisher. To my knowledge there has not been annual training given to the faculty and as a result no one is expected to use a fire extinguisher. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Let's be safe in everything we do!!

After many years of contemplation, here are my questions, sir.

Why have fire extinguishers if nobody can use them?

How many years of training does it take to learn how to use those things?

Is it true that OSHA only requires that those who use fire extinguishers be trained, but doesn't require anybody to actually be trained or to actually use a fire extinguisher?

Did your employees feel safer after they got your letter?

Okay maybe Mrs O'Leary did have a fire extinguisher, but was never properly trained. Noah Webster should go back and tweek his definition a little.

http://www.thechicagofire.com/

The Original Web-ster: Donuts

The Original Web-ster (And Why I Can Call Myself That Name)

The Original Web-ster: Arbitrary

Share and Enjoy:

What is True For Me, Is Not Necessarily True For You! Is That True? Not Necessarily.

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 10:52 AM PDT

"You can't handle the truth!"

Jerry Brown: "I mean Clinton’s a nice guy but whoever said he always told the truth?"

California Democratic governor candidate Brown got a little testy recently and mouthed off about the former president when responding to an ad by his Republican opponent, Meg Whitman. She had brought out an old debate clip showing Brown being criticized by then presidential candidate William Jefferson Clinton. But that begs the question as asked by Pilate to Jesus: What is Truth?

In my one of my online communication classes at Minnesota State University (Mankato) we have been discussing great topics like epistemology (study of how we know things) and ontology (the study of existence). One statement keeps coming to the top in slightly different words, but with always the same meaning: "What is true for me may not be true for another". We call it relativism. All of these budding professors and school teachers and psychologists and social workers are convinced that this is the way the world works. But I'd bet the farm not a one of them lives like it outside the classroom, at least when their own interests are at stake.

Who wants to live in a world where the gal behind the counter can decide for herself the amount of change we should get back from the twenty dollar bill we gave her? When we tell the mechanic we want an oil change, are we happy if he changes the tires instead? What about doctors? Do we want their perception to comport with reality or are we happy if they choose whatever truth they want to believe? In each of these cases, we want other people to live by a standard of truth we can all agree upon.

It isn’t just math either. It is ethics. If we really believed that truth was relative we could never ever cry out “that’s not fair!”. By what standard would we judge the truth of the matter? One the contrary, we want people to tell us the truth. We want people to live by some objective standard of fairness. What if the teacher didn’t like our politics and gave us whatever grade he or she jolly well pleased? We would howl like a dog sitting on a cocklebur. But how can we insist on a particular grade anyway, if there is no such thing as objective truth?

If you really believe each one owns their own truth, why do you get so hyped up about politics? Who cares if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not? It really matters because it is your tax cuts being effected.

Why is it important if Mike Castle or Christine O'Donnell wins the Delaware Senate GOP primary, if truth doesn't matter? And what point is there for California Governor candidate Jerry Brown to worry about former Bill Clinton's proclivity to tell lies if there is no such thing as truth?

So, we are willing in the confines of a private classroom to proclaim relativity, but outside the walls of academia, we almost always want truth to mean truth. And we want people to tell the truth, at least, to us.

Jesus once gave an answer to Pilate’s question: ”I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me”.

Share and Enjoy:

Primary Day in Delaware: Christine O’Donnell Pulls Ahead in Latest Poll, Mike Castle Melts Down

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 06:30 AM PDT

Congressman Mike Castle lost some of his luster going into today's GOP Senate Primary in Delaware. Public Policy Polling calls the race too close to call with Christine O'Donnell ahead of Castle by 3 points – 47% to 44%. In response Castle rips the "out-of-state" operation since received endorsements from Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), and the Tea Party Express.

Well of course out-of-staters are getting involved since the Delaware GOP has backed Castle and has become unhinged as well as Delaware GOP chairman Tom Ross said "She is not viable for any office in the state of Delaware." They have also filed a FEC complaint against O'Donnell because of the money from the Tea Party Express.

Is that why she was nominated to run against Joe Biden the last time around? Vice President Joe Biden must think she's a more viable candidate than the Delaware GOP and Mike Castle believe since he warned Philadelphia Democrats of a O'Donnell victory.

Those of us who are out-of-state also want somebody in the Senate who will champion conservatism, not vote with Democrats. Regaining chairmanships isn't the end game. If she wins the primary and loses, what is lost? It was a Democrat seat before. I don't believe she will lose though unless the Delaware GOP continues to try to sabotage her campaign.

Regardless of who wins today the Delaware GOP are the losers.

Share and Enjoy:

Who Will You Be Rooting For In November?

Posted: 14 Sep 2010 05:52 AM PDT

It has been said that an alcoholic will not recover until he has reached rock bottom. This poses a question in philosophy, do you grab the drink from the alcoholics hand, or buy him another round.

Our government is drunk on power. It is like the intoxicated man who can’t control his credit card use, problem is the government is drunkenly spending away your money.

So come November who will you be rooting for. The Republicans who are drinking the lower alcoholic beer of power, slowly but consistently growing the size of government, slowly sending us towards rock bottom. Or will you be secretly rooting for the Democrats, drinking the hard stuff, growing the size of government a little faster. We will hit rock bottom sooner, and may come to the realization as a nation that we need to sober up! Which is better for our country in the long run?

Note the question is not who will you be voting for, vote with your convictions, who can you walk away from the booth feeling good about voting for. If the answer to that question is no one, than I would say don’t vote. If the answer is not the Republican or Democrat, I would say find a third party candidate you can feel good about voting for.

Vote in this poll and please leave comments below.

Questions View Results

Share and Enjoy: