Category Archives: Election

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama??

by: Joe Leonardi
“I fear that giving mankind a dependence on anything for support in age or sickness, besides industry and frugality during youth and health, tends to flatter our natural indolence, to encourage idleness and prodigality, and thereby to promote and increase poverty, the very evil it was intended to cure.” Ben Franklin

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Friedrich Nietzsche

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
Patrick Henry

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison

The United States Under President Barack Obama
by: Joe Leonardi

Barack Obama’s brand of liberalism is a scourge of modern society. It’s mantra of entitlement will lead the United States into an inescapable abyss. Senator Obama and his merry, marauding band of liberals hide their treachery in the promotion of human kindness. They claim that their interests are only “what is best for the common people.” Their subterfuge hides a more sinister outcome — the destruction of the independent spirit of humankind.

A recurring theme in American history is that of the rugged individual. The belief that most people unencumbered by an oppressive government not only can, but desire to provide for themselves. In today’s nanny state we are slowly losing this.

There are two primary questions to ask. How do liberals do this and why?

The why is easy. Pure, unmitigated power. Through dependence the liberal seeks to control the masses. It is much the way many of histories most tyrannical despots ruled their countries. While the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler used fear and intimidation to keep their political opponents silent, they also fostered government reliance to keep the masses in check and enslaved.

The how is a little more complicated and, in my opinion, much more malevolent. Liberals, since the progressive era, have chosen Robin Hood economics to demolish the American dream and break the American spirit. Early 20th century progressives sought to steal from the most productive citizens and give their money, transferring it unearned, to the least productive. To accomplish this they required the power to tax all income. To ensure unbridled authority to take from the rich and give to the poor, the progressive movement introduced, passed, ratified and enacted the Sixteenth Amendment. Congress was given the authority to “wet their beaks.” In less than half of a century the American government abolished slavery over a portion of the population and reintroduced it over the whole.

In the beginning, this was sold as a tax on only the wealthy. Because to gain popular support liberals, then and now, vilify those who create wealth and earn large incomes, often ignoring the fact that those are the same who create jobs.

Of course, the rich are not the only ones taxed. The ability to tax shackles the American income earner at every rung of the economic ladder. The harder we work, the more we earn, the more we are extorted to give the federal government “their cut.” Taxation is the means the government utilizes to enslave the middle and high wage earners, entrepreneurs and job creators.

Most everyday folks don’t care what happens to these people, because liberals indoctrinate them into the belief that “rich” people don’t deserve what they have and they must be compelled to share what they have earned. What the believers of this fallacy do not realize is that they too are being enslaved by the liberal ruling class.

How? Redistribution. Utilizing this method the lower classes become tacit wards of the state, forever trapped in poverty, begging the omnipotent liberal government to provide.

In the liberal mind, we are unable to make the appropriate decisions concerning our own lives or our own welfare. Awash in the justification that they have to “force” us to do what is best for ourselves, they go forth to legislate personal conduct. The elitist that populate the liberal leaning mind set are, in their own minds, all knowing. To be good citizens, we must be automatons — blindly, blissfully following their educated, egalitarian ways. Of course, to be considered equal, you must embrace their self aggrandizing viewpoint.

To the liberals, laws should go beyond protecting the public safety. Laws, under the control of government, should determine the way free citizens conduct their daily lives. From parenting, to education, to morals, to religion, to body habitus — it is the liberal, via the regime, who decides for everyone.

What egomaniacal motivation allows one to think that no one is entitled to make their own mistakes? Take their own chances? Live their lives within the law?

We should be allowed the option to find our own way. However, to the liberal, that can not stand. They demand that if we do not willingly choose to learn from their innate, intelligent, insight — then under the omnipotent, oppressive, ominous hand of government our will must be broken.

The liberal defenders of freedom only believe in freedom, if it agrees with their doctrine of cohesive, communal behavior. They do not simply imply they know what is best for everyone, they are fanatically convinced that they are correct. If those of us, who embrace living in a free society, don’t abide by their definition of “what is best,” then they demand government should be the instrument to force it upon us. Because, according to them, government has a responsibility to control us, the simple, unenlightened, uninformed masses.

I am often baffled, that the same group of ideologues who strongly believe it is a woman’s right to murder an in-utero baby, are so interested in controlling people once they are born.

Does anyone not get the connection, that controlling the masses, for our own good or not, is government sanctioned slavery? How many times have groups of people been told that, their confinement and restrictions were for their own good?

We must defeat those who want to shackle us! We must reignite the fire that existed at the birth of our great nation! We must prevent the destruction of autonomy. We must embrace the emphatic proclamation of Patrick Henry. We must demand liberty!

Local liberals expound: free health care, free swimming, free skateboard parks, free everything for everyone. Well — nothing is free. The hard working income earners and producers will be over-taxed to provide these gratis services.

The simple truth that these liberal slave masters don’t want you do know is that the more you are “given,” the less you have. Barack Obama’s United States will resemble much of Europe. People will be locked into the class to which they are born. Upward mobility will be a thing of the past. Those that do not earn their way in our society will be placated with all the basic necessities. Their ability and desire to provide for themselves will no longer matter. They will have been stripped of inherent traits that made America and Americans the envy of the world.

When Stalin died much of the free world rejoiced in the departure of a ruthless, cold-blooded tyrant. However, the populace of the former Soviet Union wept in fear. They cried out, “who will take care of us?” They did not need to be beaten into submissive servitude. No, they were conciliated into it.

Will this be our dreadful, dire destiny? Do we yearn to be hand fed from cradle to grave; or do we “yearn to breathe free?”

When did adversity, hardship and struggle become dirty words?

I want the opportunity to succeed or fail based upon my decisions, based upon my drive, based upon my actions — I demand the freedom to live my life unrestrained by government sanctioned slavery!

Don’t you?

Beware the modern, moderated, boisterous beatnik beating the drum for a free, fanciful, easy existence, because the cost of “free” — is freedom.

Joe Leonardi

1 Comment

Filed under Conservative, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Liberal, President, Republican

WPSU

I received this comment on one of my posts.  I am reprinting it here.

Joe

Dear Joe,

My name is Pat Baxter and I work for WPSU-TV, the PBS affiliate for Central Pennsylvania. For the upcoming elections, we’ve developed a website featuring video, audio and interactive quizzes to help provide easy to use information about all the state and U.S. congressional candidates that fall within Central PA and parts of Western PA. It features over 80 candidate profiles from 27 counties. I just wanted to let you know about this site and thought you might consider posting it as a non-partisan resource for your readers. You can view it here:

http://www.wpsu.org/vote08

This is a comprehensive, impartial website. It is meant to be an informational resource for voters, especially concerning local races that don’t normally get much attention in the media. It features video and audio interviews, a questionnaire on where candidates stand on key issues, and other such features. It also includes a “My Ballot” feature where users can enter their county and township to see which candidates are running within their area.

Please let me know if you decide to post this website. Thanks very much and I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Pat Baxter
WPSU – Penn State Public Broadcasting

Leave a comment

Filed under Democratic, Election, Republican

Chris Hackett

I just read an interesting article in today’s citizens’ voice.  I will link it below.  To sum up it discusses how the republican candidates in the 10th and 11th district feel about the impact of the McCain campaign on their own.

I will let you read their own words, but I do have one little piece of advise for Mr. Hackett.

Find Sarah Palin and kiss the ground she walks on!  Governor Palin will bring out the strong conservative vote in the 10th district and help Hackett unseat the incumbent.  Because of John McCain’s choice of the conservative Governor from Alaska — the 10th, in my opinion, goes from toss up to sure thing for the republican challenger.

Joe Leonardi

http://citizensvoice.com/articles/2008/09/05/news/wb_voice.20080905.t.pg4.cv05cdmccainreax_s1.1926176_loc.txt

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Election, President, Republican

Sarah Palin, The Next Vice-President of the United States

Sarah Palin: Not so tall, but oh so strong

by: Joe Leonardi

The republican party went and did it. The democrats spurned not only the first female presidential candidate, but they rejected the opportunity to put a woman on the ticket period.

The republican party, led by independent maverick John McCain, went and made history. John McCain shocked most of the entire world with the announcement that the little known Alaskan Governor was going to ride shotgun with him all the way to the White House.

Well, I for one am not surprised. I am ecstatic, elated and excited!
I have been on the verge of changing my voter registration to either Independent, Libertarian or the American Conservative Party for the last few months. Dismayed, dejected and disheartened by what the neo-conservatives have done to my beloved GOP — this was my last hope. I have been proclaiming to all who would listen, “if John McCain picks anyone other than Governor Palin — I am out.”

John McCain the straight talking politician, combat veteran, prisoner of war and hero is once again — heroic.

Many folks are wondering; who is Sarah Palin?

A simple Google search will reveal much.

Watch her first speech with John McCain and applaud as I did.

Those who tuned into the convention Wednesday night were blown away.
And for the last week the democrats and liberals have been bullying Sarah Palin, in the words of Joe Biden she went back out and bloodied their noses. Congratulations Vice-President Palin.

Many have decried her lack of foreign policy experience; perhaps, a valid point. However, I wonder, other than evading the draft and getting drunk at Oxford, how much foreign policy experience did a little known governor from the state of Arkansas have prior to his election?

Governor Palin presides over a state that produces vast amounts of oil, and now because of her initiative and leadership, natural gas. What did Governor Clinton preside over? A substandard educational system?

Compare Governor Palin to Senator Biden: If the American people were so enthralled with the partially plagiarized writings and speeches of what appeared to be perennial presidential pursuer Joe Biden — why is it that in several attempts to be elected president, the Senator from Delaware has never, ever been given even passing consideration from his own party? Joe Biden has been summarily sent sulking to the scrap heap time and time again.

Sarah Palin is a woman who carved her own path to political prestige, she didn’t need to rely on the coattails of a politically successful husband. She has risen to the Governor’s mansion on her own terms, on her own steam. On the way she has looked the power players of Alaska in directly in the eye — and they are the ones who blinked.

Will the disaffected Hilary Clinton voters turn to Sarah Palin? The argument has been made that on many matters, especially abortion, the two are polar opposites. That the question of abortion most prominently will keep the Hilary voters away from Sarah. Well, then people do not understand the working class democrats in Northeast Pennsylvania. Most of the democrats who were going to turn to Hilary, were going to give the Senator a pass on abortion. You see, the democrats here in NEPA are mostly pro-life. I know, I met over twenty five thousand of them when I ran for Congress in 2006. The number one question asked of me was: Are you pro-life?

The misogynistic, misguided members of the democratic party have tried to minimize her utilizing sexist, derogatory, disrespectful dismissive terminology. Senator Biden identified the difference between the two by stating that she is good looking. WILK morning talk show host Kevin Lynn stated that she was just some girl McCain chose.

John McCain and Sarah Palin will bring to the White House something that has been sadly missed for the last eight years — a parents’ love for a military member in harms way. Both will have children serving in the Middle Eastern war zone. They will have a connection to all military families who have lost and may lose their children in combat. They will have a vested interest that many others in our country share.

That connection, that interest, that love — will ensure they act with deliberate consideration in future actions that will put our brave military men and women into battle.

Is Sarah Palin qualified to be Vice President? Is Sarah Palin ready to be President?

Yes.

Leadership is not defined solely by experience. Leadership is not defined solely by qualifications.

Leadership is defined by intangibles such as character, fortitude and integrity. Sarah Palin in her time in elected office has demonstrated those traits.

When the legislative body of her state threatened her with investigation, Governor Palin said — investigate me.

When the cowardly anonymous liberal bloggers made the malicious allegation that her baby was actually her daughter’s, Governor Palin told of her family situation and how they were going to handle it.

In my run for Congress, Rich Connor during my editorial board interview asked me about the Republican party’s handling of the Mark Foley scandal. I answered, “I am glad that I am not going to D.C. To be a Chiropractor, because there would not be many spines to work on.” Sarah Palin will bring a spine to D.C..

Governor Sarah Palin did not evade, did not duck, did not parry — Governor Palin did not wave her index finger at the American people and tell a boldface lie. She did not send her spouse out to decry a vast left wing conspiracy. No Sarah Palin faced her challenges head on.

That is the trait that we need in our leaders.

That is the trait that Sarah Palin will bring to the Vice-Presidency.

That is the trait that in the future Vice-President Palin will one day bring to the Presidency.

by: Joe Leonardi

8 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election, President, Republican

Sarah Palin: Not so tall, but oh so strong

Sarah Palin: Not so tall, but oh so strong

by: Joe Leonardi

  • In response to many emails this is a rough draft.  I will have it finished by Wednesday.  Joe

The republican party went and did it. As the democrats rejected not only the first women presidential candidate, but the opportunity to put a woman on the ticket period. The republican party led by independent maverick John McCain made history.

John McCain shocked most of the entire world with his announcement of the little known Alaska Governor to ride shotgun with him on his way to the White House. Well, I for one am not surprised. Actually I am thrilled. I have been on the verge of changing my voter registration to either Independent, Libertarian or the American Conservative Party for the last few months. Dismayed and disheartened by what the neo-conservatives have done to my beloved GOP this was my last hope. I have been proclaiming to all that would listen that if John McCain picked anyone other than Governor Palin I was out.

John McCain the straight talking combat veteran, prisoner of war and hero is once again heroic.

Many folks are wondering who is Sarah Palin. A simple google search will reveal much.

Many have decried her lack of foreign policy experience. Perhaps a valid point, but I wonder, other than evading the draft and getting drunk at Oxford, how much foreign policy experience did a little known governor from the state of Arkansas have prior to his election? Governor Palin presides over a state that produces vast amounts of oil, and now thanks to her initiative and leadership, natural gas. What did Governor Clinton preside over? A substandard educational system?

Compare Governor Palin to Senator Biden: If the American people were so enthralled with the partially plagiarized writings and speeches of what seemed to be perennial presidential pursuer of Joe Biden, why is it that in several attempts to be elected president the elder Governor from Delaware has never, ever been given even passing consideration from his own party? He has never been a serious contender.

Sarah Palin is a woman who carved her own path to political prestige, she didn’t need to rely on the coattails of a politically successful husband.

  • to be continued….

5 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election, President, Republican

V.P. Sarah Palin

To all those who have emailed me, I will be doing a detailed column shortly…

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Election, Republican

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery

“I fear that giving mankind a dependence on anything for support in age or sickness, besides industry and frugality during youth and health, tends to flatter our natural indolence, to encourage idleness and prodigality, and thereby to promote and increase poverty, the very evil it was intended to cure.” Ben Franklin

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Friedrich Nietzsche

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
Patrick Henry

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery
by: Joe Leonardi

Liberalism is a scourge of modern society.

How dare I make such a bold statement!

Unfortunately the mantra of entitlement espoused by progressives is slowly leading the United States into an inescapable abyss. The liberals hide their treachery in the promotion of human kindness. They claim that their interests are only what is best for the common people. Their subterfuge hides a more sinister outcome.

The destruction of the humankind’s independent spirit.

A recurring theme throughout American history is that of the rugged individual — the belief that most people, unencumbered by an oppressive government not only can, but desire to provide for themselves. In today’s nanny state this sense of independence, this sense of individualism is slowly, surely, strategically being destroyed.

There are two primary questions —  how and why?

The why is easy; pure, unmitigated power. Through dependence, the liberal seeks to control the masses. It is much the way many of history’s most tyrannical despots ruled their countries. While the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler used fear and intimidation to keep their political opponents silent, they also fostered government reliance to keep the populace in check and enslaved.

The how is a little more complicated and, in my opinion, much more malevolent. Liberals, since the progressive era, have chosen Robin Hood economics to demolish the American dream and break the American spirit. Early 20th century progressives sought to steal from the most productive citizens and give their money, transferring it unearned, to the least productive. To accomplish this they required the power to tax all income. To ensure unbridled authority to take from the rich and give to the poor, the progressive movement introduced, passed, ratified and enacted the Sixteenth Amendment. Congress was given the authority to wet their beaks and in less than half of a century the American government abolished slavery over a portion of the population and reintroduced it over the whole.

In the beginning, this was sold as a tax on only the wealthy. Sound familiar? Of course,  it does, because to gain popular support liberals, then and now, vilify those who create wealth and earn large incomes, often ignoring the fact that those are the same who create jobs.

Of course, the rich are not the only ones taxed. The ability to tax income shackles the American earner at every rung of the economic ladder. The harder we work, the more we earn, the more we are extorted to give the federal government their cut. Taxation is the means the government utilizes to enslave the middle and high wage earners, entrepreneurs and job creators.

Most everyday folks don’t care what happens to these people, because liberals indoctrinate them into the belief that rich people don’t deserve what they have, thus, they must be compelled to share their earnings. What the believers of this fallacy do not realize is that they too are being enslaved by the liberal ruling class.

How?

Redistribution.

Utilizing the above method the lower classes become tacit wards of the state, forever trapped in poverty, begging the omnipotent liberal government to provide for their needs.

In the liberal mind, we are unable to make the appropriate decisions concerning our own lives or our own welfare. Awash in the justification that they must force us to do what is best for ourselves, they go forth to legislate personal conduct. The elitist that populate the liberal leaning mind set are, in their own minds, all knowing. To be good citizens, we must be automatons — blindly, blissfully following their educated, egalitarian ways. Of course, to be considered equal, you must embrace their self aggrandizing viewpoint.

One of our local, lofty, liberal talk show hosts has often opined that we need government to control our lives. Yes, he actually states that.

To paraphrase, he has said that since citizens are unwilling to live the right way, it was up to government to persuade us. He is in favor of smoking bans in eateries, not solely for the health of those who work in the restaurant industry, but to stop people from smoking — period. If it were up to him the tobacco industry CEO’s would be imprisoned.

He intimated that the government should tell people how much they should weigh and how physically fit they should be. Since people were unable to make the right decisions, government must make those decisions.

To the liberals, laws should go beyond protecting the public safety. Laws, under the control of government, should determine the way free citizens conduct their daily lives. From purchasing health insurance, to parenting, to education, to morals, to religion, to body habitus — it is the liberal, via the regime, who decides for everyone.

What egomaniacal motivation allows one to think that no one is entitled to make their own mistakes? Take their own chances? Live their lives within the law? What mind set seeks to control others down to the minutia of what condiment a person tops a sandwich? Don’t laugh, with the passage of the recent health care legislation, these extreme examples may one day become reality.

It is an inalienable right that we be allowed the option to find our own way. However, to the liberal, that can not stand. They demand that if we do not willingly choose to learn from their innate, intelligent, insight — then under the omnipotent, oppressive, ominous hand of government our will must be broken.

The liberal defenders of freedom only believe in freedom, if it agrees with their doctrine of cohesive, communal behavior. They do not simply imply they know what is best for everyone, they are fanatically convinced that they are correct. If those of us, who embrace living in a free society, don’t abide by their definition of what is best, then they demand government should be the instrument, under fines and penalty of law, to force it upon us. You must realize that they genuinely belive that government has a responsibility to control us —the stupid, simple, unenlightened, uninformed, muddled masses.

I am often baffled, that the same group of ideologues who strongly believe it is a woman’s right to murder an in utero baby, are so interested in controlling people once they are born.

Does anyone not get the connection, that controlling the masses, for our own good or not, is government sanctioned slavery? How many times have groups of people been told that their confinement and restrictions were for their own good?

We must politically defeat those who want to shackle us! We must reignite the fire that existed at the birth of our great nation! We must prevent the destruction of autonomy. We must embrace the emphatic proclamation of Patrick Henry. We must demand liberty!

Locally, we have a talk show host who wants free health care, free swimming, free skateboard parks, free everything for everyone. Well — nothing is free. The hard working income earners and producers will be over-taxed to provide these gratis services.

The simple truth that these liberal slave masters don’t want you do know is that the more you are given, the less you have.

Soon the United States will resemble much of Europe.

Upward mobility will be a thing of the past.

People will be locked into the class to which they are born.

Those that do not earn their way in our society will be placated with all the basic necessities of life. Their ability and desire to provide for themselves will no longer matter. They will have been stripped of inherent traits that made America, and Americans, the envy of the world.

When Stalin died much of the free world rejoiced in the departure of a ruthless, cold-blooded tyrant. However, the populace of the former Soviet Union wept in fear. They cried out, “who will take care of us?” They did not need to be beaten into submissive servitude. No, they were conciliated into it.

Will this be our dreadful, dire destiny? Do we yearn to be hand fed from cradle to grave; or do we “yearn to breathe free?”

When did adversity, hardship and struggle become dirty words? I want the opportunity to succeed or fail based upon my decisions, based upon my drive, based upon my actions. I want the freedom to live my life unrestrained by government sanctioned slavery. Don’t you?

Beware the modern, moderated, boisterous beatnik beating the drum for a free, fanciful, easy existence, because the cost of  free — is freedom.

Joe Leonardi

7 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Conservative, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Liberal, President, Republican, Steve Corbett

Meuser’s Misstep

“I certainly feel employers are obligated to follow the law. But it’s not employers’ responsibility to enforce the law. It means they cannot be fully expected to be able to identify a phony ID from a valid ID.”
Dan Meuser  3/7/08 Scranton Times-Tribune

Meuser’s Misstep
by: Joe Leonardi

Dan Meuser is a candidate seeking the republican nomination to represent the PA 10th in Congress. Because my business is in the district I am interested in the primary, however since I do not reside in the 10th, I can not vote for or against Mr Meuser.

Recently it has been reported that Mr.Meuser’s company, back in 1997, was fined for hiring three illegal immigrants. Out of the thousands of people that Pride has hired since the Meuser family has taken over, an incident over the hiring of only three illegal immigrants should be no big deal.

Due to one major misstep it now will become one.

Dan Meuser has come out as the tough on illegal immigration candidate. Yet, he does not seem to have truly researched the issue. In addition to this misstep look at his position section on illegal immigration, it states, “Before any immigrant can become a United States Citizen, we should require them to read, write, and speak English.”

Dan you are running for Congress, you should be aware this is already taking place.

One, the test is given in English. Unless it has changed since my father took it, he needed a basic, functional familiarity with the English language to pass.

Two, check the USICS web site under redesigned test, the new test effective this year, makes a better understanding of English even more of a necessity.

Three, illegal immigrants aren’t the ones applying for citizenship — so this little caveat has no place in a position with the heading “Combating Illegal Immigration.”

It appears for all the money Meuser has spent on his team they are operating like a bunch of rank amateurs.

This flap over hiring illegal immigrants should never have happened, it should be a non-issue. Now it will be an issue. Why?

It is not the fact that Pride hired illegal immigrants.

It is not the fact that they were fined.

It is the fact that he was not the one to disclose it.

If I were on Meuser’s team this 1997 incident would have been a huge advantage. Instead, now, it appears that it may provide a hindrance to Dan Meuser becoming the republican nominee.

But Joe, how could an anti-illegal immigrant candidate use the fact that his company hired and was fined for hiring illegal immigrants as an advantage? Isn’t it better to avoid it and hope no one finds out?

No! From President Nixon to Congressman Sherwood the lesson that no one in politics ever seems to learn is — that the cover-up is worse than either an actual or perceived scandal. Right now the perception is that Dan Meuser, while not actively covering it up, hoped that no one would have learned about this — which again reeks of amateurism.

If you are going to claim the mantle of immigration enforcer, common sense would have told you this was going to come out.

Who is advising Mr. Meuser? Dan, whoever it is — fire them.

How would I have turned this to Dan’s advantage? Simple, one of his first commercials should have gone something like this:

I am Dan Meuser and I’m running for congress.

Several years ago my business was the victim of the current failure in our immigration policy. Our company unknowingly hired three people who were in this country illegally. Utilizing forged identification documentation they secured employment with my company.

When their ruse was uncovered, at my direction we cooperated fully with the INS and payed a substantial fine. As a result we upgraded our employee screening process. However, this was allowed to occur, and may occur again, because of the failure of our government to control our borders.

My family’s business was the victim of inept illegal immigration legislation and enforcement. To ensure this does not happen to any business in the future I ask for your vote.

Send me to Washington D.C. so that our country’s borders will be protected.

Send me to Washington so no other individual, small business owner or company will be the victim of illegal immigration.

The above simple commercial would have:

One – demonstrated Dan Meuser’s honesty and integrity.

Two – demonstrated the he is a leader by taking the steps necessary to internally rectify the situation.

Three – avoid the insinuation that Mr. Meuser was hiding something and not give ammunition to his primary and general election opponents.

Four – identified a reason hirings like this may occur.

Five – give voters the chance to end the current government’s failures by electing Mr. Meuser.

By not addressing this issue head on, the Meuser Campaign has opened itself up to a full frontal assault. If his opponent in the primary does not attack and exploit, Congressman Carney will.

It is not too late for the Meuser Campaign to rectify its’ errors, but he needs to get away from the D.C. management and start counting on local people for his advise.

Those D.C. hired guns do not care if Mr. Meuser wins. They only care about advancing their own careers. Whether Dan Meuser or Mayor Lou Barletta in the 11th win is irrelevant to the beltway boys, the fact that they brought in “promising” candidates is enough to advance their careers.

Unfortunately, that advancement will come at the expense of the candidates.

Joe Leonardi

8 Comments

Filed under Chris Carney, Congress, Congressman, Conservative, Dan Meuser, Election, Lou Barletta, PA-10, Primary, Republican

Qualifications

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
United States Constitution

“We need someone who’s been tested, because the United States presidency is one the toughest jobs in the world, she is the best qualified candidate.” Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty

Qualifications

by: Joe Leonardi

I have a good friend who is a huge Hilary Clinton supporter. This person consistently tells me that Hilary has been the most qualified democrat running for office.

I am not so sure.

I admit that I do not care for Senator Clinton. She rubs me the wrong way and I don’t think that I could ever cast a vote for her — even if she were a republican.

She is talking up the qualifications issue against Senator Obama, but I am curious how she will deal with the experience and qualification issues if she wins the primary.

Senator John McCain is considerably more qualified than either Democratic contender.

Does experience and qualifications give us an insight on to what kind of president we will get?

I say no.

I wrote in an earlier commentary that the two most qualified Presidents of my lifetime were Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Both were one term presidents and looking back, both were poor presidents. They both lacked, though should have possessed, solid leadership qualities.

Senator Clinton would like Democratic primary voters to vote for her because, she claims to be the most qualified and experienced candidate. As I wrote earlier, presidential elections have little to do with either. It is likability and a person’s innate ability to lead.

Hilary Clinton is not likable and she has never demonstrated any genuine leadership abilities.

The president of the United States must be an individual that can muster people to his or her cause. To bring the populace, elected officials and heads of state together for the common good. That person must be able to lead people of all political persuasions.

Leadership has nothing to do with education, experience, or qualifications.

Leadership is an inherent, intangible trait.

It appears Senator Obama has that trait and Senator Clinton is attempting to blunt that effect by claiming she is, and has been, the most qualified democrat in the race.

The following are brief biographies of two individuals. These biographies are snapshots of their qualifications to be President.

The first one:

-Roughly 1 year of structured education
-Elected to a state’s General Assembly four times
-Elected to U.S. House of Representatives only once
-At various times was a farmhand, clerk, flatboatman, store owner, surveyor, postmaster and a lawyer
-Served in a state Militia as a Captain and private

The above resume’ is relatively unimpressive.

No real education, a few years in a state assembly and two years as a U.S. Congressman and not much of a military career.

This person was Abraham Lincoln.

The President that saved the Union.

One of four Presidents on Mount Rushmore.

Arguably, one of the greatest Presidents in United States history.

If we follow Senator Hilary Clinton’s logic, based upon his prior qualifications, he should never have run, let alone be elected President. We should be thankful that Hilary and her advisers were not around in the 1860 election.

Next we have the following:

-Bachelor’s degree from Tufts
-Master’s degree from Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
-Elected to U.S. House of Representatives seven times
-Former Ambassador to the United Nations
-Former U.S. Secretary of Energy
-Twice elected Governor
-Served as Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association
-Authored two books
-Taught at New Mexico State University, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and the United World College
-Nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize
-Former Chairman of Freedom House, a private, non-partisan organization that promotes democracy worldwide

The above resume is quite impressive. Who’s bio is it?

It is that of Governor Bill Richardson. The first person of Latino descent to seek the office of the President.

Looking at this snapshot —- the Governor is extremely qualified to be President of the United States.

He is well educated.

He has legislative experience.

He has executive branch experience.

He has experience in educating others.

He has extensive foreign policy experience. Instead of hanging out with foreign heads of state with his spouse, he actually worked with these leaders. More importantly, Bill Richardson negotiated the release of U.S. servicemen, hostages and political prisoners.

Unfortunately, to the supporters of Senator Clinton, Governor Richardson is a man. So though eminently qualified, he should not have been and was not seriously considered to be the democratic party’s nominee.

We must be honest, Senator Clinton is not looking to be the most qualified person to be President. She and many democrats are looking just for a woman, any democratic woman, to be President. So, intellectual honesty be dammed. The Hilary democrats want a woman, no matter how qualified the man is that she has run, is running or will run against.

If the phone rang in the White House at 3 a.m. and democrats were concerned about the right person for the job, Bill Richardson would still be in the race and he would be the front runner going into Super Tuesday Jr.

Governor Richardson was the most qualified democrat in the primary, yet he did not receive the support of his party or the voters.

I asked my friend, the one who believes that Hilary is the most qualified to be president, why this person had not gotten behind Governor Richardson. My friend’s answer was — “Because I can’t take someone who has such a bad toupee serious.”

So much for qualifications.

The Democrats may decide as early as March 4th who their nominee is. I think it might be Barack Obama.

Politically, Senator Obama is extremely liberal. Policy wise he is everything I am opposed to. However, he is bringing republicans to his side. Like the Reagan Democrats of the eighties, there is currently a movement of republicans for Obama. They even have a catchy name, they are called Obamicans.

I am not on that bandwagon just yet.

I don’t know if I ever will be.

Senator Obama makes you believe he can pull our country out of the depths of misery and hell that President George W. Bush has placed us.

The question is, can he?

I don’t know the answer.

I do know that another divisive figure in the White House, such as Senator Hilary Clinton, can not.

Joe Leonardi

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Conservative, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Hilary Clinton, Liberal, President, President Bush, Republican

New Hampshire

I have one prevailing thought: I am glad that the primaries aren’t over yet. The nation’s first primary demonstrated that only one poll matters. Selfishly I would like to see this go on for two reasons. One I love politics and two, who knows maybe Pennsylvania’s primary will actually be important. Okay maybe number two won’t happen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Democratic, Election, Liberal, Primary, Republican

Hilary Clinton and The Likability Factor

Lately the national media has been discussing whether or not the voters like Senator Clinton, it was even a debate question. I not only wrote back in March that Hilary was not likable, I explained why.  So for all the so called experts here it is again:

Original post date and time: March 21, 2007…7:09 am

The Next Democratic Nominee

“President Hilary Clinton? Nah I don’t think so!”
Me

The Next Democratic Nominee
By: Joe Leonardi

Not a single primary has been held, not a single vote has been cast, heck before nothing more than a presidential exploratory committee had been formed, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had been anointed the Democratic nominee and the next President of the United States. The big question is not if Senator Clinton will get her party’s nomination and eventually become President. No, the big question is why she won’t.

Straight out Hillary Rodham Clinton is not all that like-able. The most unspoken reason someone wins the presidency is like-ability. Other words such as charisma and appeal are used to make it sound more complex, more meaningful, more serious. However, the simple fact is like-ability rules the roost in electing our presidents. Ronald Reagan was our grandfather. Bill Clinton was every man, “the man from Hope”, and George W. gave the appearance that though born to privilege, he could be everyone’s best friend.

Qualifications and education are played up, but they really aren’t that important. President Harry Truman did not posses a college degree. Other than Governor, President Ronald Reagan never held any other elected office, never ran a business, he was simply a B movie actor and spokesperson. President George W. Bush’s business failures are well chronicled. The two one term presidents of my lifetime may have been the most “qualified” to hold office. Both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had excellent educations, distinguished military careers and worked their way up the political ladder. Each failed in their re-elections bids because they weren’t like-able. President’s Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush all had potential scandals that should have prevented their re-elections, but they won because of the like-ability factor. President Reagan is remembered with great fondness by supporters and detractors alike. President Clinton won over the man he vanquished. And the future will tell about President George W. Bush.

Since the age of television the shallower qualities are played up. A great example is the Nixon/Kennedy debate. Those who watched it on television felt Kennedy won, those who heard it on the radio felt Nixon won. President Kennedy embraced the then new media. He was tanned, used stage make up, and though he was a man in great pain and suffered from an illness few were aware, appeared young and vibrant.

President Nixon looked, well looked like Nixon.

Back to Senator Clinton. Hillary is just not like-able. She rubs many people, including fellow Democrats, the wrong way. She went from being a Goldwater conservative to a 60’s liberal and fervent feminist. She went from single Hillary Rodham to the married Hillary Rodham, to Hillary Clinton to finally Hillary Rodham Clinton. She went from a socialist utopic idea of nationalizing one seventh of the U.S. economy to being a conservative war hawk. She was quoted as saying, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man” to a doormat of a blatant philandering husband time and time again. She was born in Illinois resided in Arkansas and Washington D.C. but ran for the Senate in New York. She went from unflappable and undeterred to tossing her beliefs to the wayside for political expedience and popularity.

The reason Senator Clinton is not like-able is because no one knows who is the real Hillary Clinton. There is no genuine, consistent character to her. It is hard to like someone who doesn’t like him or herself. How do you like yourself if you can’t decide who you are? There are those that seek the presidency to lead and there are those that seek the presidency just to be president.

Which is Senator Clinton?

Who knows?

I would guess even she doesn’t know.

Joe Leonardi

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Hilary Clinton, Liberal, Primary

The Primary Season

‘‘We have no input into who’s the nominee at all. Does that make any sense? The state that is one of the most important in the general election has no input in the primary.” Ed Rendell March 2007

‘‘It is absolutely insane to have it (the primary) front-loaded the way it is…It’ll only be the candidates who have the huge money who can survive.” Ed Rendell April 2007

The Primary Season
by: Joe Leonardi

The primary season has “officially” begun. Though the candidates for president have been running for almost one year, the November 2007 general election is over and it is time to focus on 2008.

As a Reagan conservative, I still don’t know for whom I will cast a vote. The front runners aren’t conservative and Fred Thompson, whom prior to his announcement caught my attention, has thus far been lackluster. I have not really chosen anyone to support, but I am narrowing it down.

My preferred candidate would have been Senator Chuck Hagel, but he has opted out. It is a shame, because a true conservative, one who actually served not only in the military, but in a war, was blacklisted because he spoke out against President Bush’s blundering in Iraq. The most inane part is he was shouted down and shut out by those who avoided military service. Not only the current administration, but many conservative commentators, pundits and bloggers who never served a day in uniform derailed, denounced and demeaned the heroic Hagel.

Being a resident of Pennsylvania my vote will be rendered unnecessary. Or to be more blunt, in the primary, it appears PA will be irrelevant. There was a chance to move the primary election up to February, but thanks to those in Harrisburg, even Governor Rendell was on both sides of the argument, ours will not take place until April. If history is any indicator the nominee will have been chosen.

One comment concerning primary elections. Here in northeast Pennsylvania, we have a local radio talk show host, Steve Corbett, who is a registered independent. He has railed against the unfairness that Pennsylvania does not allow him to vote in the primary. That the big bad stringent state does not permit him and other independents to participate in the process. Well, I like Steve and say this with the utmost respect — tough.

Steve, it is not the state that is forbidding, it is the choice to register as an independent that limits one’s voting opportunities. If you or any individual chooses not to support a party, then you should not vote in that party’s primary.

Personally, I am strongly opposed to open primaries. The primary process is set up so that members of a particular party nominate a candidate to represent their party. Why should someone who does not share an ideology want to vote or be permitted to vote in a primary. In my opinion they should not.

An open primary allows the opposing party to unjustly effect the outcome of the other party. For example, let us say that Hilary Clinton has the lock on the the nomination — there is no way, no how she is going to lose. Let’s make this example even more absurd and say that every other democratic candidate has dropped out.

In my example, let us also say that on the republican side, there remains a full slate of candidates. If every state had an open primary, or permitted independents to choose a party on election day, what is to stop all the democrats or democrat leaning independents to go into the polls and cast a vote for a third or fourth tier candidate? One who has no chance in the general election. So now the democrats have influenced the republican nominating process. They have now corrupted and co-opted the general election. Is this proper? Is this just? Of course not!

Can you imagine if the Republicans were to hypothetically do the same thing? The democrats, from the pages of the New York Times, will yell voter fraud and election thievery.

If you choose to be independent that is your right and I applaud you. However, grow up and don’t complain because you can’t vote in the democratic or republican primary. The choice is yours. If you more closely identify with one of the major parties, change your registration and work to get the candidate that best represents your views elected to office.

Your party affiliation or lack thereof is your choice, it is not the government, it is not the party, nor is it the process that is excluding you from voting — it is you excluding yourself.

Joe Leonardi

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Fred Thompson, hagel, Liberal, Northeast Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Reagan, Republican, Steve Corbett

Iran — the next great threat

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
– Winston Churchill

Mutual assured destruction – Severe, unavoidable reciprocal damage that superpowers are likely to inflict on each other or their allies in a nuclear war, conceived as the heart of a doctrine of nuclear deterrence. U.S. Military Dictionary

Iran — the next great threat
by: Joe Leonardi

Iran remains on the move toward becoming a nuclear power. What should we, the United States, do about it?

Prevent it!

I don’t think I am speaking out of turn by stating that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They have a history of anti-west, specifically anti-United States, sentiments. They are a state sponsor of terrorists. Iran is currently led by a president who openly calls for the destruction of Israel. What choices do we have?

None.

How did we get here?

That, will take more than a one or two word answer.

The blowback effect is one of the important concepts overlooked by those who discuss geopolitics. Blowback is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities.

In one of the debates Ron Paul actually attempted to discuss it. However, an arrogant and condescending Rudy Giuliani glibly and erroneously shot him down. In that solitary moment, the former Mayor demonstrated his lack of global political comprehension and exhibited that he is not ready to govern a world power.

Understand, I am not stating, by any stretch of the imagination, that we deserved what happened to us on September 11th. The attacks on 9/11 were acts of pure cowardice. Acts of evil perpetrated by fanatics who have zero respect for human life.

Yet, when making decisions, we can not negate the strength of insightful reflection and thoughtful foresight. We presently need someone in office who understands that actions today have consequences tomorrow. In President Bush we do not have that person. This president has no sense of history nor future. He has a very narrow world view, and he sees issues only in present, constant absolutes.

After September 11th the world was at our side. It was an unprecedented opportunity to unite the globe. An opportunity demonstrated by the fact that Iran, our enemy since the Carter Administration, aided us in our Afghanistan campaign.

Then in 2002 George W. Bush squandered all the goodwill the United States garnered. In what had to be, in my opinion, one of the dumbest diatribes a United States President has ever given — George W. Bush lashed out at our most recent ally and grouped Iran in the infamous “axis of evil.”

Commentators, politicians, pundits and many others have forgotten that prior to that silly, simplistic speech, Iran was in the process of a pro-west, moderate movement. So much so that Iranian assistance helped us make short work of the Taliban. However, in one stupid, sanctimonious sentence George W. Bush destroyed years of moderate Iranian reformation.

Next, in 2003, our brilliantly blundering President compounded the situation by attacking the one “axis” country least capable of developing nuclear weapons. If I were the leader of another country named in the axis of evil and I was developing nuclear weapons, I most definitely would have stepped up the process. That is exactly what both North Korea and Iran did.

In 2005 the moderate leadership in Iran was replaced by hard liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In response to a perceived threat from the United States, Ahmadinejad accelerated Iran’s movement into the nuclear age. If they develop an atomic bomb, the nuclear nightmare we feared throughout the cold war may be realized.

I do not like to throw the Hitler analogy out there, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may very well be today’s Adolf Hitler. U.S. Mideast policy is responsible for his rise and we need to be sure he does not act on his stated ambitions.

There are some disturbing parallels between these two men. Parallels that should not, that must not be overlooked.

Both had taken a similar path to power. When Hitler first ascended he was not in charge. It was the intent of those that appointed him, through von Hindenburg, to keep him in check. Ahmadinejad is not in control, the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah is the ruler.

Hitler used the treaty of Versailles to rally the German people. Ahmadinejad is using the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq to rally his.

Hitler allied himself with charismatic, fascist leader Benito Mussolini. Ahmadinejad is allying himself with charismatic, socialist leader Hugo Chavez.

Hitler initially reached out to Russia. Ahmadinejad is reaching out to Russia.

Adolf Hitler held, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the view that Jews are an encroaching, expendable race. Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf, wrote of his hatred, racism and bigotry. Utilizing the final solution, he conceived and carried out the extermination of many Jews. Ahmadinejad has many times called for the elimination of Israel, the Jewish state, as the solution to the Mideast crisis.

Many in the English-speaking world attempted to appease Hitler so they would have had “peace in their time.” Many in the English-speaking world are calling for diplomacy to maintain peace with Ahmadinejad.

It would appear that Ahmadinejad has studied, and is following, Hitler’s path to power.

George W. Bush, as the WWI victor’s at Versailles brought about Hitler, has caused the emergence of Ahmadinejad.

We must keep a watchful eye on Iran and be ready, if necessary, to use overwhelming, precise and decisive disabling strikes. If we don’t, we could bear witness to a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of an enemy that will not be deterred by, but actually welcome, “mutually assured destruction.”

Joe Leonardi

9 Comments

Filed under Axis of Evil, Conservative, Election, Evil, Iran, Iraq, Liberal, NeoCon, President Bush, Republican, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, War

How to Halt Hillary

“Not only are we going to New Hampshire … we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York! And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we’re going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!”
— Howard Dean, Iowa concession speech

How to Halt Hillary
by: Joe Leonardi

The above quote was made when people still thought, even though upset in Iowa, Howard Dean was still going to be the Democratic nominee for president. It demonstrates many things. Notably, that one bad moment on camera can take you, in the blink of an eye, from champ to chump. However, most importantly it demonstrates that pre-election polls don’t mean a thing.

Senator Hillary Clinton, in all the national polls, is leading her democratic primary opponents. That is great, there is just one problem. The primary or the general election are not nationwide elections. To capture the nomination a candidate must, in each statewide primary, win a majority of delegates. As I have stated earlier, presidential elections are a series of statewide elections, not one national referendum.

Will Hillary win the democratic nomination? I still don’t believe so, but I don’t know and honestly I don’t care. As a republican, I can’t vote in the democratic primary — not that my state, Pennsylvania, will matter much by the time we finally get to the booth.

With this years general election coming to an end next week, the 2008 election cycle will heat up. It looks like January third the games will begin. So it is just about time to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

To date the Hillary machine has been running a safe, conservative, error free campaign. She is the front runner and as already stated, the perceived nominee on the board’s blue side. It begs a certain questions.

Why is Senator Clinton the presumed nominee? Why would anyone vote for her? Her public persona is one of an abrasive, cold, distant, power hungry individual. She projects a stoic, non-caring, emotionless facade. Though independent and educated she demonstrates neither. She allowed herself to be continually duped and embarrassed and oft opened herself up to possible exposure to sexually transmitted diseases via her husband’s womanizing. So what makes her an attractive candidate for president.

The answer — former President Bill Clinton.

It has been intimated by many and flat out said by a few that the reason democrats are high on Hil is to get Bill back in the White House.

Here is my advise to the other democratic nominees, start telling this one simple truth. A vote for Hil is not, I repeat not, a vote for Bill. Hillary Clinton’s first term will not be Bill Clinton’s third.

Hil is not Bill. For those who have forgotten — William Jefferson Clinton is probably the best pure politician to walk the planet. He had and has an easy charm. He is educated, intelligent and articulate. Bill Clinton could read the classified ads of a newspaper and draw you in as if he were reading Shakespeare or Hemingway. I remember watching his televised States of the Union and sitting upright, being drawn in by his masterful oratory. It was only after I focused on the words that I remembered, I didn’t agree with a thing he said, but still, I listened.

Bill Clinton, in person, could put friend and foe alike at ease. He was a man with whom whether you agreed or disagreed — you appreciated the fact that he wanted to be president to do something for the American people.

Hillary Clinton possesses none of her husband’s charm, oratory abilities, kindness nor presence. She is where she is today soley because of her marriage to Bill Clinton.

Whereas greatness brought Bill Clinton to the presidency, Hillary pursues the presidency because she thinks it will bring her greatness.

Again, I advise all the participants in the democratic primary, if you want to rally the base and win the nomination, shout it loud and clear Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton. Make your slogan — A vote for Hil is not a vote for Bill.

36 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Conservative, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Hilary Clinton, Liberal, President, STDs, White House

The Man, The Myth, The Legend — Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore

I’d kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
– Stephen Wright Comedian

The Man, The Myth, The Legend — Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore
by: Joe Leonardi

First and foremost, I would like to Congratulate Al Gore on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. His victory has sparked renewed calls for him to run for President circling the internet he invented. I know, I know all you Gore-a-maniacs will yell he never said that, he just implied it.

Al Gore deflects calls for his entry into the race by suggesting he is having too much fun.

Translated. Ya’ll are nuts, I’m making way too much freaking money and I don’t have to do a dam thing to earn a penny of it.

Citizen Gore has been a master salesperson for the carbon credit industry. He has used a combination of fear and guilt to CONvince people to pay to pollute. In a nutshell carbon credits work like this: people who over-pollute, like celebrities and former politicians who have ten thousand plus square foot homes for two or three people, utilize private jets and get driven around in gargantuan, gas guzzling limos can alleviate their gullible guilt by paying to pollute. Yes, I know they are buying “offsets” that go into green industries.

Please. These liberal elitist are sending the message, to the majority of Americans who live pay check to pay check, that it is okay to pollute if you can afford to pay for it. I have a novel idea — pollute less.

Nobel Prize winner Al Gore has made statements to the effect that the work he is doing is too important to stop now; or he needs to keep the issue of global warming in the public eye.

My response — Huh?

The U.S. Presidency is the most visible bully pulpit in the world. If Gore wants to change the world’s attitudes about global warming; what better position could there be?

Sorry my bad, that gig only pays four hundred grand a year and it requires… well it requires work.

I know many people like Al Gore and that is fine, it is their opinion. I like Al Gore too, out of office. I will admit that Gore does not lack the qualifications. I may not agree with him but his resume, if not his ideology, is impressive. However, former Congressman, former Senator, former Vice-President Al Gore will not run for President for one major reason — if he loses again, he doesn’t get to cry about how he really was the next President of the United States.

My Gore supporting friends have never gotten over the 2000 election. I often like to point out one nagging fact the Al-a-holics never discus. If then Vice President Al Gore won the state of Tennessee, his home state, the state that sent him to the Senate twice, he would have been President of the United States of America.

We like to think of the presidential election as a national referendum, however it is not. Our system turns the race for president into a series of state wide elections. The goal of which, by calculated electoral math, is to attain a majority of the electoral college.

Forget the Florida fiasco, which I will admit it was, if he won Tennessee he would have won. The 2000 electoral college results Bush 271 Gore 266. Take Tennessee’s 11 electoral votes away from Bush he gets 260, give them to Gore he gets 277— Al Gore is victorious. I know it lacks the conspiracy theories we like so much. This simple truth takes the blame away from the evil Supreme Court and mean republicans and makes Al Gore responsible for his own loss.

Sacrilege?! How dare I suggest Gore actually lost instead of being robbed.

Al Gore had previously won two Tennessee state wide elections, but he lost the state wide election for Tennessee’s electoral votes in 2000. It makes you wonder — What do the people of Tennessee know that we don’t?

Wishing for Al Gore to run is like me wishing there was a conservative candidate for president. Neither is going to occur.

Gore must maintain the illusion that he is a legend — if only in his own mind.

Joe Leonardi

11 Comments

Filed under Al Gore, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Environment, Gore, Liberal, Nobel Prize, President, Primary

Barack the Magic Miscreant

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama
said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about
the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism,
which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national
security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.” Barack Obama

Barack the Magic Miscreant
by: Joe Leonardi

Does Senator Obama have the right not to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin?
Of course. Does he have the right to say that he wants to demonstrate
his patriotism a different way? Of course. Does he have the right to
intimate that other politicians wear it for political gain? Again, of
course he does and he may be right. Does he have the right to demean,
debase and devalue the patriotism of every day American citizens? The
first amendment says yes. Should he be held accountable. Dam right.

I read about this quote, but I waited it until I watched it replayed
on “This Week,” before commenting on it. I wanted to not only read
what he said, I wanted to observe him say it.

I listened to the Senator’s words, but I also noted that he spoke
methodically — carefully choosing each word. When the clip
ended, I rose from the comfort of my chair and walked out of the room.
I was angry, so incensed I needed to walk off my ire fueled energy. I
could not believe that a man that I actually liked, one whom I thought
could have been a good president, though I vehemently disagree with his
politics, could genuinely be so far out of touch. If he fooled me,
I’m sure he fooled others. Thank God his facade faded prior to any
elections.

I always thought he had his finger on the pulse of the average
American. I thought he could unite America in a way she has never been
united before. Now, I realize he is nothing more than garbage. Yes, I
wrote the word garbage. I know, I know — I realize that I risk
insulting garbage, but since garbage does not have consciousness I’m
guessing I am on safe ground. I also know I keep things respectful,
but the Senator has lost my respect.

Not only should this sad excuse for a Senator be defeated in the
Democratic primary, he should be voted out if he attempts to return to
the Senate. He needs to summarily exit civic life and become a private
citizen.

My mom wore her U.S. Flag pin proudly and daily. She wore it after
9/11 because of my prior service and because one of our patients was
called to Iraq. After he returned she continued to wear it because she
felt for every mother who had a son or daughter serving in Iraq.
However, mostly she wore it because she was proud to be an American.

My mother didn’t live her life in the public eye. She was a middle
class mother of three who loved her family, loved her friends and loved
our country. Should the fact that she wore a U.S. Flag pin on her
blouse imply, Senator Obama, that she possessed pretended patriotism?

I wore a U.S. Flag pin prior to by entrance into the political foray as
a Congressional candidate. I was proud to wear it because, though I
disagreed with our President, I was proud to have served our country.

I saw no reason to stop wearing it when I entered the race for
Congress. Yes Senator, I showed my patriotism through the action of
running as you have and are still doing, however, did that mean that I
couldn’t display my support for my fellow Americans? Did it mean I
could not demonstrate my pride for being a citizen of our grand
country?

I continue to wear my lapel pin, not only because of my patriotism, my
former candidacy , my service in the United States Navy, but also
because my mother always wore hers. It has become something I do to
remember a special woman. A woman who consented to have her son enter
the Navy at age seventeen. A woman who worried about one of our
patients during his time in the middle east. A woman who felt sorrow
at the report of every service person who died in action. A woman who
loved our country.

Barack Obama is the worst example of a politician, of an American and of
a human being. This mental miscreant should voluntarily vacate his
public presence. He has become an example of what happens to many
politicians when they get to D.C.. He has forgotten that government
service is not bout the self, it is about the populace.

The majority of Americans display the flag not to demonstrate
their patriotism — their patriotism drives them to display the flag.

Joe Leonardi


			

7 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Flag Lapel Pin, Liberal

The Reason the Right Went Wrong

“Realistically, it will probably take until the year 2016 before the movement regains anything resembling its former glory.” Richard Viguerie in Time discussing the conservative movement.

The Reason the Right Went Wrong
Joe Leonardi

I just read Time’s article, “How the Right Went Wrong”. Though I doubt we would have ever witnessed President Reagan cry — if he were alive today I could understand why he would.

Of course, many on the right expressed outrage at Time magazine. How dare they photoshop a tear on Ronald Reagan and put it on the cover no less. It was the dreaded “liberal” or “drive by media” doing the usual hatchet job on the Republican party. I guess these commentators never heard of Patrick J. Buchanan’s book of almost the same title. The Right having gone wrong is not a manifestation of Time or any other liberal organization, it is — an unfortunate reality.

Ronald Reagan gets most of the credit, which he deserves, for the rise of Republican conservatives. However, he also deserves all of the blame for the their fall. Sacrilege you say. I could see the conservatives ready to burn me in effigy, if not in reality. Please, just give me a moment.

Ronald Reagan is, to me, both a personal and political hero. I served in the Navy during his Presidency and he was the first person I ever voted for in a Presidential election. I served the President and I respected the man.

In 1980 former Governor Ronald Reagan finally pushed his way through the country club, Rockefeller controlled Republican Party. For the first time since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964, a true conservative was on the precipice of becoming President of the United States. A man, not only of ideas, but of convictions, Ronald Wilson Reagan was a Horatio Alger story come to life. He was a man who embodied America and the American Dream. So how can I dare speculate that Ronald Reagan, an individual I hold in such high esteem, is responsible for today’s decline of conservatism and the Republican party?

Easy, I can say it with the confidence of 20/20 hindsight. President Reagan’s grand error can be summed up in one action, the Vice Presidential choice of George Herbert Walker Bush.

George H.W. Bush’s loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primary would more than likely have been Bush’s last hurrah. Being a moderate to liberal Republican he would have had very little influence in the Reagan era.

There is much speculation as to why Nominee Reagan chose his conquered primary challenger as his running mate. Many of the reports seem to be of the consensus that a deal between the Ford and Reagan camps had fallen through and Bush was all that was left. Reading articles and historical accounts I am baffled as to why Ford was ever approached, but I am genuinely less questioning of the Bush decision.

Although ideologically apart, the unfortunate truth of Presidential elections is: the quest for the popular vote is not the goal, it is the electoral college absolute majority that determines the victor. In the equation of electoral math Bush would have been the ideal choice. In the thinking of the time; Reagan brings California, where he was Governor, and the midwest, where he was born and raised. Bush bring Texas, his adopted home state and New England, where he was born and raised. It makes perfect electoral sense, though most accounts state this was not the reason.

I still can’t grasp why Reagan didn’t pursue a more conservative choice for his running mate. President Reagan was convinced that the liberal/moderate wing was so detrimental to the party that in 1976 he did the unthinkable. In the primary, he challenged his party’s incumbent President. Demonstrating that type of conviction why he would chose Bush, who was pro-choice and adamantly opposed to Reagan’s supply side economics, is an enigma. But, for whatever reason, Reagan bit his tongue and put H.W. on the ticket, beginning the decline of conservatism and my beloved GOP.

What did this decision have to do with today’s decline? Simple, it paved the way for the emergence of George W. Bush’s political career and the Neo-Con power grab. To quote Paul Harvey, “now you know the rest of the story.”

Joe Leonardi

6 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election, NeoCon, President, Reagan, Republican

John and Elizabeth Edwards

My prayers go out to John and Elizabeth Edwards and their family.

Many of us here in Northeast PA have been touched by the cruel disease, Cancer.  Defeating cancer is a battle that requires full attention and we wish them well.

Joe

2 Comments

Filed under Democrat, Democratic, Election, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards, President, Primary

The Next Democratic Nominee

“President Hilary Clinton? Nah I don’t think so!”
Me

The Next Democratic Nominee
By: Joe Leonardi

Not a single primary has been held, not a single vote has been cast, heck before nothing more than a presidential exploratory committee had been formed, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had been anointed the Democratic nominee and the next President of the United States. The big question is not if Senator Clinton will get her party’s nomination and eventually become President. No, the big question is why she won’t.

Straight out Hillary Rodham Clinton is not all that like-able. The most unspoken reason someone wins the presidency is like-ability. Other words such as charisma and appeal are used to make it sound more complex, more meaningful, more serious. However, the simple fact is like-ability rules the roost in electing our presidents. Ronald Reagan was our grandfather. Bill Clinton was every man, “the man from Hope”, and George W. gave the appearance that though born to privilege, he could be everyone’s best friend.

Qualifications and education are played up, but they really aren’t that important. President Harry Truman did not posses a college degree. Other than Governor, President Ronald Reagan never held any other elected office, never ran a business, he was simply a B movie actor and spokesperson. President George W. Bush’s business failures are well chronicled. The two one term presidents of my lifetime may have been the most “qualified” to hold office. Both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had excellent educations, distinguished military careers and worked their way up the political ladder. Each failed in their re-elections bids because they weren’t like-able. President’s Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush all had potential scandals that should have prevented their re-elections, but they won because of the like-ability factor. President Reagan is remembered with great fondness by supporters and detractors alike. President Clinton won over the man he vanquished. And the future will tell about President George W. Bush.

Since the age of television the shallower qualities are played up. A great example is the Nixon/Kennedy debate. Those who watched it on television felt Kennedy won, those who heard it on the radio felt Nixon won. President Kennedy embraced the then new media. He was tanned, used stage make up, and though he was a man in great pain and suffered from an illness few were aware, appeared young and vibrant.

President Nixon looked, well looked like Nixon.

Back to Senator Clinton. Hillary is just not like-able. She rubs many people, including fellow Democrats, the wrong way. She went from being a Goldwater conservative to a 60’s liberal and fervent feminist. She went from single Hillary Rodham to the married Hillary Rodham, to Hillary Clinton to finally Hillary Rodham Clinton. She went from a socialist utopic idea of nationalizing one seventh of the U.S. economy to being a conservative war hawk. She was quoted as saying, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man” to a doormat of a blatant philandering husband time and time again. She was born in Illinois resided in Arkansas and Washington D.C. but ran for the Senate in New York. She went from unflappable and undeterred to tossing her beliefs to the wayside for political expedience and popularity.

The reason Senator Clinton is not like-able is because no one knows who is the real Hillary Clinton. There is no genuine, consistent character to her. It is hard to like someone who doesn’t like him or herself. How do you like yourself if you can’t decide who you are? There are those that seek the presidency to lead and there are those that seek the presidency just to be president.

Which is Senator Clinton?

Who knows?

I would guess even she doesn’t know.

Joe Leonardi

7 Comments

Filed under Democrat, Democratic, Election, Hilary Clinton, President, Primary

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker in Chief

“The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”

“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”
Article II Section 2, The U.S. Constitution

“The Congress shall have power to declare war”
Article I Section 8, The U.S. Constitution

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker in Chief
By: Joe Leonardi

The Democrats in the House, led by Speaker Pelosi, are attempting a coup d’état by trying to wrestle control of the Armed Forces from the President. Okay, perhaps I am seriously overstating — alright I am flat out stretching, but still and all the Speaker and key Democrats are trying to lay the ground work for the cessation of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

There is one major stumbling block, no where in the U.S. Constitution are there any provisions for the House to be involved in the process of concluding a war. As quoted above, the Senate is obligated to offer advise and consent on any treaty, but not the House of Representatives and most certainly not the Speaker.

Speaker Pelosi has outlined a plan for withdrawal. In my opinion this blueprint for exit is very much a treaty. The platform contains certain terms, if these terms are or aren’t met, consequences are imposed. This is all well and good, however, the Speaker nor any member of the House lacks constitutional authority to make such a proposal. The treaty process is to be handled by the President and the Senate. Usually this process begins in the executive branch, but the term is “advise and consent” so I would not see a problem with a Senate initiated overture.

I am well aware there is a cry for us to get out of Iraq. I am one who is of the strong opinion we had no business going there in the first place. Unfortunately the Congress, in an act of legislative malpractice, authorized the President carte blanche in Iraq. One of the stated purposes of the act they passed is, “promote the emergence of a democratic government.” Now that this is being attempted the Congress wants to stop. Granted many of those in Congress now, were not there when the resolution was passed, but none the less this open ended authority was debated, voted on and passed by the Congress. It is the President’s, with Senate’s advice and consent, Constitutional responsibility to negotiate a way out, not the House and not Speaker Pelosi. Madame Speaker, your profile and publicity aside, you have no Constitutional role in this process.

I find the timing of the proposed benchmarks and corresponding dates extremely interesting. It seems a little, let me get the right word — political.

According to reports, either we are going to be out by the end of this year or by September of 2008. I find it intriguing that those dates seem to coincide with the beginning of the primary season and just prior to the November presidential election.

Am I the only person outside the beltway who is fed up with being treated like a slow-witted oaf!?

This conspicuous politicalization of our troops makes me irate. If the Congress is in general agreement and strong in their conviction that the war should end now, they need to exercise their sole Constitutional authority and snip the purse strings. Stop these spineless, grandstanding “non-binding resolutions” and halt the money. I’m not saying this is the answer, however this is their only Constitutional option.

It is easy to sit here and criticize, especially when this war and subsequent occupation were so poorly managed, but we must respect our Constitution. This incredible document is the foundation of our government. This marvel of democracy has withstood the test of time — it has repelled many attempts to ignore and abuse it. Now, in this time of crisis and unrest, we must return to our Founding Father’s brilliance and re-read the Constitution, follow it and respect it.

Joe Leonardi

7 Comments

Filed under Congress, Conservative, Election, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, The House, War

President Chuck Hagel ?

“Hagel is criticized for what many see as grandstanding on the Iraq war, but his critique of the problems we face there has been more right than wrong since our forces landed there.” “He may be right or wrong on Iraq, but no one can question his base conservatism or his devotion to a strong United States.”
American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene, quote from the Washington Times

“Beware those who cry for war the loudest, for they are those who have never known the horrors of combat.”
Marine Warrant Officer I served with.

President Chuck Hagel?
By: Joe Leonardi

Senator Chuck Hagel has left the door open to enter the Presidential primary free-for-all. The Senator’s non-announcement, announcement not with standing — his record, on most issues, is one I agree with. One glaring disagreement is his record on immigration which, to me, is abysmal. However, his epiphany concerning Iraq demonstrates how reasonable people now look at the war and his opposition to President Bush’s Blunder can influence me to overlook our difference on immigration.

Though I remain excited about Senator Thompson’s possible entry into the presidential primary, with the four year mark of our involvement in Iraq approaching, I think the person to go with may very well be Senator Chuck Hagel. The moment is RIGHT for a Republican who is not afraid to tell the President; enough is enough!

On politico.com Dante Scala; a political science professor at Saint Anselm College is quoted as asking “If you’re that dead set against Bush and the war, why wouldn’t you just give to a Democrat? ” Well Mr. Scala, because there are Republicans out here whose brains still function! We want a conservative Republican who has enough sense to question the sending our young men and women to a war zone just because President Bush is too egocentric to admit he made a mistake. We Conservative Republicans are tired of being led by a President who has squandered our trust and faith and has demonstrated that he is not a Ronald Reagan, movement conservative.

I recall an old saying in my Navy days, “Republicans want a large military but don’t want to use it. Democrats want a small military but want to sent it everywhere.” Sound familiar? This is exactly what President Bush has done.

Instead of using his “political capital” to advance conservative ideals and actions, he tossed said capital out the window in a failed effort to get John Bolton confirmed to the U.N. Then, what little capital remained famously went into the Harriet Miers fiasco. No Mr. Scala genuine conservatives, not the neo-cons who have co-opted our party, would welcome a Republican that does more than claim to be a conservative. (just a side note, can you ever imagine a true leader like President Reagan publicly stating he has political capital and now he’s ‘gonna spend it?’ )

There is a misconception that the Republican base strongly supports the president on Iraq. If that were the case Republicans would have held the Senate and the House. The truth is that most middle American Republicans do not support the President’s Iraq policy. I know, I ran for Congress and I met with and talked to over twenty thousand people, most of them Republican. Many angrily bent my ear relating their disgust for President Bush and how they were going to show it by either voting against Senator Rick Santorum or not voting in the Senate race at all. We all saw what happened; former Senator Santorum, is currently a Fox news contributor and Bobby Casey is now Senator Robert Casey.

If the beltway insiders keep ignoring the world outside D.C. and hold steadfast that most Republicans are on President Bush’s side, we are going to loose more than the White House in 2008. Senator Chuck Hagel may be what the Republicans need and perhaps President Charles Hagel can lead Republicans back to conservatism.

Joe Leonardi

8 Comments

Filed under Chuck Hagel, Conservative, Election, Fred Thompson, hagel, Iraq, NeoCon, President, Primary, Reagan, Republican, Veterans, War

A Republican to vote for!

“After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.”
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson

A Republican to vote for!
By: Joe Leonardi

I must admit; this pre-primary season I have been more interested in the Democratic goings on then those of my own party. The current crop of Republican hopefuls just aren’t doing it for me. I wouldn’t donate a dime to any of their campaigns, put a sign in my yard, make a phone call or volunteer thirty seconds of my time for:

Senator John McCain; I voted for the Senator in the 2000 primary. Back in those days John McCain was a straight shooting, tell it like it is maverick. Though conservative, he over-sold his soul to President George W. Bush in hopes of getting his blessing. I used to be a huge John McCain supporter but he lost me.

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; This is the guy I want to, want to vote for. I loved Ruddy as the mayor of New York City. I went to the city many times during the reigns of error of both Koch and Dinkins. Crime ran rampant and I avoided many neighborhoods and sections of the city, especially Times Square. Then came the Ruddy era. Crime dropped, Time Square porn was eradicated and you felt safe walking the streets. On September 11th terrorist struck America. Throughout our greatest tragedy the Mayor of New York led his city with determination and courage. While the President and Vice-president were in undisclosed locations Mayor Giuliani was in the shadow of the towers leading his people. And when the towers crumbled, Ruddy almost got swept away in the rubble. Rudy Giuliani the Mayor is someone we all should respect. Unfortunately I have two problems with the Mayor. First, I am pro life and I’m just not buying the whole “I will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court” spiel. Second, as a conservative with very strong feelings on the second amendment, I would have a great deal of difficulty voting for Rudy. His record on gun control is something that I simply can not over look.

Mitt Romney; I don’t know enough about him and I am really not interested. He just doesn’t spark my curiosity.

Those I could support if they go for it:

Newt Gingrich; Former speaker, leader of the Republican resurgence and author of the Contract with America. The Speaker has been a long time political idol of mine. I had the opportunity to meet him briefly while I was running for Congress. He is politically impressive. My concern about Newt right now; is his lack of decisiveness concerning whether or not he is going to run. When word got out that I was considering a run for Congress, I put together my small group at the time, rented a room and made the announcement. It is one thing to weigh your options, but to be coy for the better part of a year, that I have trouble respecting. I don’t care for fence sitters. If you want to be President Mr. Speaker get off your @$$ and announce.

Now, internet fueled, speculation puts us on notice of another Republican candidate who may be entering the fray. Currently it is just speculation. I have read about him on a few conservative blogs, on line magazines and now on The Hill. Because of all this conjecture and growing comparisons to Ronald Reagan, I decided to check out the former lawyer turned actor, turned Senator, turned actor playing a lawyer. Conservatives perk up, Senator Fred Thompson maybe someone we can vote for without reservation.

I agree with the bulk of Senator Thompson’s voting record. I am aware that even among conservatives we are going to have disagreements however, he appears to be a strong movement conservative. There are also the intangible factors; he has a commanding presence, he is articulate, educated and able to communicate. He appears to be like-able and perhaps most important — he seems — presidential.

Senator Thompson please speak and let yourself be heard, we are listening.

Joe Leonardi

11 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election, Fred Thompson, President, Primary, Reagan, Republican

WARNING CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS

WARNING CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS
WE ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING THE WHITE HOUSE
AND PERHAPS MORE SEATS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE
WARNING WARNING

By: Joe Leonardi

It is not a big secret that I am a Republican. It is less of a secret
that I am conservative. However, sadly the revolution led by President Reagan has been kicked to the curb in today’s incarnation of the Republican Party. There may be a kinder, gentler way to say it. I’m sure I can put sugar on it and make it more palatable, but why bother? Sugar adds unnecessary calories and it will just diminish the point. So here it is — “The Neo-Conservatives are killing my beloved GOP.”

Back in March 2003 I watched a program highlighting a Neo-Con think tank called “The Project for the New American Century.” This group was made up of, among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. In 1998 this group sent a letter to then President Clinton outlining a plan to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This was not some fringe talk show or some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut. This was Nightline, hosted by Ted Koppel. More telling was that the words in this story were, on camera, coming right from the horses’ mouths. I listened with amazement as, in an attempt to justify their recommendations, they invoked the name of Ronald Reagan. I tried to remember when I served in the Navy under President Reagan: if he ever made statements like those in this telecast. He didn’t. This was not my GOP and this was not what being conservative was about. Ever since I witnessed this show I have been concerned by the Neo-Con’s takeover of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, nothing that has occurred in the intervening years has lessened my concern.

These “new” conservatives have defined the mainstream perception of conservatism. Perception is reality. The new reality is all Republicans are, whether or not people know the term, Neo-Cons. The real peril for those of us who are conservative is that we are going to lose out to a genuine, raise our taxes until we need the government for everything, liberal. Although entertainment based commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say liberal as a dirty word, because of the new perceived reality, the American people will not.

There is a politician out there right now who is not only claiming to
be liberal, but is a living, breathing liberal’s liberal. That person is none other than the junior Senator from Illinois, Barak Obama. He is exactly what conservative talk show hosts, pundits and commentators have been discussing for years. He is the embodiment of the political left. Because the Neo-Cons have hijacked the Republican Party, Senator Obama will be viewed as the antithesis to what the new reality defines as conservative.

If the Democrats play it honest the American people will not only
embrace Senator Obama, they will lift him on their shoulders and carry him straight into the Oval Office. If the Democrats run away from the liberal label, they will throw away the single, greatest opportunity they have had to take power in more than a generation. If history is an indicator, thankfully they will not only toss this opportunity into the trash, but they will go ahead and compact it as well.

The first primary election is still a long way off. But after watching
Speaker Pelosi make key leadership errors in the form of Representatives Murtha, Hastings, and Reyes, I wonder if the Democrats will use their mandate from the electorate, or will they open the door for real Conservatives to make a move back into power. If Democrats want to maintain and build on their control in D.C., they must relegate corruption laden officials (i.e. Rep.’s Murtha and Jefferson) to the back burner. They must stop rewarding seniority and longevity and move their freshmen class to the forefront. They must demonstrate their seriousness about riding the Congress of corruption. Of course, this goes against their sense of entitlment to power. These newly elected members won because they were not the establishment. The blind voices from the left choose to ignore the number one reason given for voting Democrat in 2006. The reason was not the war in Iraq, it was corruption. The Dems got the votes, they got control, but the pathetic reality is they don’t know why.

The time is neigh for Conservatives to take back the Republican Party, so then the party of Reagan can take back the Congress and the White House.

Joe Leonardi

4 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election, NeoCon, President, Primary, Reagan, Republican, Uncategorized