24thState

Be There: Missouri Senate Repub's Set 1st Debate

Lincoln Days 2012 in Kansas City, Feb. 18th

In announcing the event, David Cole, Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party says,  “Defeating Claire McCaskill is incredibly important for the future of our state and our nation—and we have three great candidates, any of whom would make an outstanding United States Senator.”  I agree with this statement wholeheartedly and will explain why, and why I believe every patriot who is able ought to be in Kansas City.

The GOP Lincoln Day convention rotates between St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield.  For GOP party members and all conservative activists, this is the closest thing you will find to a CPAC in Missouri.  If you are not familiar with CPAC, you are not paying attention. This is a chance to meet the candidates, visit their display tables and furthermore, meet the other patriotic organizations and make life long friends.  If you talk about having an impact or are frustrated about our party being out of touch, then go touch it!

For this lifelong St. Louisan, the Kansas City location will always hold a special place.  The 2006 Lincoln Day event was the only time I held the stage as a statewide candidate.  More importantly, I was steeped in the emotion of knowing that a woman in Florida had made the monumental decision to put her new born baby up for adoption and in so doing, picked me and Gina to be the parents.  Occasions like that have a way of putting things into laser focused perspective.  So we raced from Kansas City to Florida and met our Sammy for the first time the day after the debate.

As we focus on the critical nature of this cycle, beating Obama may be the top priority, but gaining a Republican majority in the Senate is a very close second.  There is reason for optimism that we can do that without taking out Senator McCaskill, but the odds are slim if we fail.  Remember, McCaskill is the one who talks blue dog, but found Hilary too conservative, favoring instead the extreme leftist Obama in her party's primary.  Never forget that.

This may surprise some, but of all of the candidates for Senate, I have known Sarah Steelman the longest.  I first met her in 1991, when I was the president of the Capitol Area Young Republicans and her husband, David was on the steps of the Missouri Supreme Court building announcing his bid for Attorney General.  I had the pleasure of serving in the Senate with Sarah Steelman beginning 10 years later. She  is an outside the box thinker who made major marks pushing for government integrity and broadening the state's sunshine laws.  She takes an economist's view of government as did Reagan.

I have known Congressman Akin the best.  He and I commuted to Jefferson City together many times as State Represntatives.  I consider him a friend and mentor.  He is a true patriot who loves this country as much as amyone.  I wish he was more of a fighter than a bomb thrower, but he is pretty good at both when he wants to be.  He will ocasionally cast a vote that bothers me, but I never doubt his integrity.  Home schooling six kids and sending three through the Naval Academy to become warriors for our nation is no small feat and shows priority balance.

I do not know John Brunner, and that may be my biggest complaint about him.  Through all my years of activism and 14 years holding office in the city he and I shared, I do not recall meeting him.  He will tell you he was busy building his business.  Fine, but the son of the patriot Jack Brunner who was very active, should appreciate why primary races and getting involved is so important.

For those conservatives wondering about John Brunner, I can tell you this.  His father picked me to be a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1996.  I turned down the trip to San Diego and the chance of a lifetime because I was not as far right as Jack Brunner who was requesting that I serve as a delegate for Pat Buchanon. I was a Phil Gramm guy.  You can make your own conjecture about John, but the son of Jack cannot be all bad.  Moreover, while he was largely absent from politics, Brunner did build one heck of a business, while Claire McCaskill was building her politician resume'.

You will also have a chance to meet that Indian Southern gentleman, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.  Seeing someone with that ethnicity speak with an accent closer to that of Haley Barbour than the average Missourian should be worth the trip.  Plus, I imagine he will have some inside scoop on how the POTUS mishandled and politicized the BP Oil Spill.

For additional details or to register, please visit www.mogop.org/lincolndays.

Fisking Jim Hoft

The following is a response to an article written by Jim Hoft, published on his website, and re-published on Big Journalism. Perhaps, since Dana has allowed this article to appear on a website for which she is Editor-and-Chief, she would allow us to respond either there or on her radio show. Here's Jim Hoft:

The race for Missouri’s Second Congressional District turned ugly thanks to a shoddy hit this week by the Martin team on conservative Ann Wagner. Unfortunately, Steven Nelson at Daily Caller published the misinformation verbatim and forgot to fact check his work.

The race first turned ugly last summer, but more about that later. The information provided to Steven Nelson included the Ann Wagner donor lists now available on 24thState.com, the hidden spouse data, and an explanation to frame the data. Because you might talk about totals for Q2, Q3, year-to-date, and spouse donations for Q2, Q3, and in total, it was important to provide some explanation of the data to help Nelson understand the spreadsheets. Here's part of the email sent to Nelson:

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM, <redacted> wrote:
>Steven,
>
>Attached is the full donations list. There are
>duplicate entries, because of reattributions and
>reassignments, but the totals are accurate and
>the subtractions are counted. The entries are
>unchanged from the FEC files in the interest of
>accuracy. That total is $249,750. These are
>Enterprise companies, subsidiaries, and holding
>companies, with spouses added. There are more
>contributions from Enterprise connections
>(future fuels, lobbyists), but that just muddies
>the water. The ones in the spreadsheets are
>direct and provable.
>
>In addition to being an astounding total, you
>can see a clear pattern of AVP giving $250, and
>VP/GM giving $1000. And then you have the
>spouse giving, listed below, where spouses of
>executives gave to the Ann Wagner campaign, but
>the executive didn’t. In our view, that’s what
>makes this the story. It’s not the typical
>doubling up you see where a husband and wife
>give money. This is an attempt to hide the
>source of the donations. Most of the names on
>the list below have another correlation. The
>Enterprise employees, who did not give to Ann,
>are regular contributors to the Enterprise
>Rent-A-Car Political Action Committee....

Rather than ask the Tea Party members involved with the story, Jim published information that is not true. That stands in stark contrast to the Daily Caller's Steven Nelson who spoke with and quoted sources both within the St. Louis Tea Party and Ann Wagner's campaign. We also received an email while Nelson was researching this story in which Dana Loesch implies that she spoke with Nelson. In short, while Nelson actually included sources and quotes, there's nothing to support Hoft's assertion that "Martin's team" is behind this. But Reboot Congress, who has been involved with this story from the begining, reported that the data was uncovered by a group of moms.

Let's return to Jim Hoft's post:

Nelson forgot about the Ronald Reagan dictum, “trust but verify.” Martin’s team claims that Enterprise Rent-A-Car from St. Louis made a play for TARP funds in the hit piece. Wrong. Enterprise is actually on-the-record saying, in effect, that they don’t want the TARP funds and they don’t need the TARP funds. A simple Google search could have prevented this sloppy error that has now been reported in a credible conservative blog.

This too fails, as the PR efforts of a $10 billion company to dismiss the idea of taking TARP funds isn’t proof that they were not involved. They were involved in lobbying TARP for their benefit, including Cash for Clunkers, which used TARP money.  If you remember Roy Blunt was a big Cash for Clunkers proponent, and it was Ann Wagner who chaired his campaign.  Roy Blunt also received a lot of donations from Enterprise, including hidden spouse donations that have not yet been revealed. 

Despite this, Jim posts a picture of Roy Blunt with Ed Martin.  This ignores that Roy Blunt endorsed Ann, has his daughter doing her FEC compliance, and it was Roy that was the biggest taker of Enterprise contributions until Ann came along.

The Martin camp claims, and Nelson writes, that Wagner’s husband Ray is a “registered lobbyist.” Oops. Wrong again. Ray Wagner actually de-registered as a lobbyist prior to Ann’s campaign kick-off last July. A simple search of publicly-available documents would have alerted Martin’s campaign and the Daily Caller to the actual facts. Ray Wagner’s highest ethical standards stand in sharp contrast to the Martin-machine’s attempt to go after a spouse and his employer in the Republican primary.

As everyone in the Tea Party knows Ray delisted himself in preparation for Ann’s campaign; however, he is still Enterprise's Government & Public Affairs Vice-President. In that capacity, he oversees Enterprise's lobbying and he helps determine where their campaign funds go.  Again, Jim knows this, but deliberately ignores it in the post.

And what about those claims that Enterprise Rent-A-Car is attempting to “buy a US House seat?” Consider that Wagner has raised nearly $1 million from donors who are not Enterprise-related. Consider that Enterprise is one of the largest employers in Missouri and has over 70,000 employees world-wide. For the Wagner campaign to receive donations from dozens of Enterprise employees is hardly a surprise, given that those relationships have been developed for nearly two decades. The Martin Campaign is wrong to attack Ann Wagner for her record fundraising.

Actually, Ann raised only about $800,000 without Enterprise. A lot of that was connected to the Enterprise network, like the $14,000 to lobbyists like Ogilvy, the Podesta Group, and Fleishmann Hillard. While Ray Wagner may have relationships with Enterprise executives, are we supposed to believe that Ann had relationships with Enterprise lobbyists?  And if Ann were so beloved by Enterprise employees, why are there no smaller donations?  These are hefty donations from over 100 executives and their spouses.  When you compare those results against any other candidate in the country, Ann wins out as some kind of super-candidate who generates blind loyalty from her husband’s company.  There is a pattern of giving that correlates with the Enterprise Political Action Committee and the spouses of executives that can not be explained by love for Ann Wagner.  If any Democrat did this, we’d be having a field day.  We cannot grant a pass because someone has an (R) by their name.

For anyone who actually looked at the data, the pattern is clear.  Enterprise donations were hidden through the spouses of executives who themselves did not give.

And again, this is not the Martin campaign.  This originally was crowdsourced through members of the St Louis Tea Party, as was reported by Reboot Congress.  

Speaking of donors – it’s also interesting to note that Wagner has also raised over $145,000 from donors who supported Ed Martin during his 2010 campaign. No wonder the Martin camp is so upset with Wagner’s cash haul. Wagner actually collected more from former Martin donors this year ($145,000) than Martin was able to raise from his remaining donors last quarter (115,000). This obviously has Ed Martin worried. Hence, the attack on Ann Wagner, her husband, their friends, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car.

This is an interesting number.  Did Jim Hoft do this research?  Who provided him these numbers?  Was it the Wagner campaign?  Was it Chip Gerdes?  Was it Dan Riehl?  And if Jim Hoft didn’t do his own research, did he write this piece at all?  As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government.  That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri.  Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station.  If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?  

We ask: Where did those figures come from?  Dan Riehl and Dana Loesch have written on Twitter and in Tea Party emails that hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to Ed Martin by Ann Wagner’s Enterprise connections.  This has been proven false.  Who gave Jim the data and where is it? Let’s see some research.

It also must hurt to watch a series of notable conservatives endorse Ann Wagner – John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie to name a few.

But resorting to attacks on local job-creators, is something you’d expect from a goon at #Occupy LA not a conservative candidate for Congress. It also raises the specter of class warfare. The Daily Caller ought to check out the facts before they run with an Ed Martin campaign attack next time.

Note what Jim does here.  Earlier, he said the "Martin camp", which could include people who support him but who are not part of his campaign. Then he ends with the Ed Martin campaign, trying to claim Martin was the source of this story.

Martin was not the source.  Members and followers of the St Louis Tea Party were.  The same people who used to provide research and work with Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch to help them build their popularity.  The people who defended them, and protected them. 

One final point, both Ed Martin and Ann Wagner are friends of mine and capable conservatives. But this was a cheap hit on Ann Wagner. Ed Martin is a better person than this.

Again, the Daily Caller was only provided with the Enterprise-related contributions, the same numbers published on 24thstate.  We are sure the DC would be happy to own their own articles.  What is a "cheap hit" is writing a response to the DC as if Ed Martin had written in the Daily Caller himself.  Jim Hoft, Dana Loesch, Ann Wagner and Enterprise all received this data, but none have ever made a direct response to the level of candor in reporting those contributions to the press.  Instead, a never-ending stream of logical fallacies have been used to distract from the issue at hand:

If Enterprise-related contributions to Ann Wagner are above-board, then why were the total numbers not given to the press and why has the Wagner Campaign failed to address its candor to the public, directly.

Dan Riehl, Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft have taken the point on this issue, which begs the question, can we identify them as "Ann Wagner's Team," and attribute their responses to Ann Wagner?

The individuals below collaborated and/or approved this rebuttal.  None of them have taken money, nor coordinated with, the Ed Martin Campaign.

Jonathon Burns, Benjamin Evans, Michelle Moore

Petty Politics and the Prerogative of Motherhood

The war between Republicans Ann Wagner and Ed Martin promises to be a messy one. The two candidates are vying to be the GOP nominee in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District (MO2). Wagner has racked up endorsement after endorsement from establishment politicians and the occasional bigwig Democrat fundraiser while Martin is relying on his near fifty percent name recognition in the district and strong grassroots ties.

Last month, New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie keynoted a fundraiser for Country Club Conservative Ann Wagner. The $1000 a plate event was unremarkable until last Thursday when the St. Louis Post Dispatch's Jake Wagman saw fit to reveal the contents of a letter to Governor Chris Christie from Ed Martin's mother, Virginia Martin, who happens to be one of Christie's constituents:

"Perhaps your staff was not made aware of the fact that Ed Martin Jr. is the other Republican candidate in that primary," the woman from Whitehouse Station, N.J. wrote in a letter to Christie.

She questioned why Christie would support Wagner when "Ed is a native born New Jerseyan," the product of Readington Township Public Schools and St. Peter's Prep in Jersey City.

The writer was in a position to know.

"Ed Martin, Jr.," she wrote, "happens to be my son."

While it's disappointing that Gov Christie's people released this letter to the Ann Wagner campaign, it is downright surprising that Wagner's high-paid consultants would pass it to the press. it's surprising because it provides an opportunity for her critics to reveal all of the petty tidbits that otherwise would go unmentioned.

It's also a bit of a tell--despite great fund raising, Wagner's campaign is frightened by the grassroots support that Martin has in MO2 and her own lack of traction. 

As one tipster pointed out, Wagner's fund raising helps to gild the lavish tastes she developed as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Those tastes were on display in the 2010 election cycle. During that campaign, Wagner maintained an opulent and oft-empty corner suite in the MOGOP headquarters on Watson Rd.

Such is the luxury that an insider like Wagner has come to expect. Having once served as Chairman of the Missouri GOP she still has allies within the party. As another tipster pointed out, it was not Wagner's campaign that paid to bring Governor Christie to Missouri for her campaign fund raiser, but the state GOP (MOGOP) that picked up the tab. Why not bill it as a Christie-MOGOP event and broaden the appeal across the GOP base? Wagner's influence within the party allowed her team to wrest control and brand it a Wagner-Christie event, but did she really benefit from that?

My tipster also alleged that Christie was led to believe that Wagner was running unopposed. Since the state GOP had indicated months ago that it intended to remain neutral, the party is clearly playing unfairly in this primary now. The cheater inside MOGOP responsible for arranging Christie's visit should be ashamed of himself.

A thousand dollars a plate is a lot of money, but it should not be a barrier to a draw like Christie. I was told by a third tipster that Wagner had trouble filling the event and had to hold a fire-sale just days before Christie arrived. Those supporters that ponied up $1000 may be disappointed to learn that some groups and individuals were offered tickets for only a tenth of that.  Maybe if it was billed as the GOP event it was supposed to be instead of a Wagner fundraising opportunity, those seats wouldn't have been discounted.  Such is the price of hijacking a Garden State potentate in a primary run.

As a mother herself, I'm sure that Ann Wagner understands that it's her right always and everywhere to defend her children from injustice. That is the prerogative of motherhood that Virginia Martin was exercising. It demeans both the Christie administration and the Wagner campaign to attack that prerogative.

Ann, if you're going to pay Jeff Roe $14,000 a month you should demand better opposition research. That's a lot of money to spend to uncover the fact that Ed Martin's mother loves him. More importantly, is family really on the table in this primary? Really?

If you have news or information to share, please email me: 24thPM@gmail.com

 

The Patriot Act Failing To Be Extended Was A Good Thing

Tuesday night, an attempt to re-authorize and extend the Patriot Act failed to reach a 2/3's majority by the Republican House when several freshman Republicans joined  122 Democrats in voting against the bill.  The news in Washington is all about the failure of the Republicans to count votes correctly, with our own shameful Lacy Clay stating he was happy it failed.

Democratic Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.) laughed as he told The Hill, "We're so happy, I'm so happy. I voted against it. They tried to get enough Rs to switch their votes, because the Tea Party voted 'no' also... but it wasn't enough."

Now, I'm sure Clay was having a good laugh that Republican leadership got egg on its face, but he has been a opponent of the Patriot Act for some time, even when Democrats were in charge. 

I personally support the Patriot Act because I think it protects us, though I certainly respect the folks in the Tea Party who see it as overreach. At the same I think it's a terrible bill that was poorly thought through and is crushing to our freedoms, and considering it has been now 9 years since we passed it, the Congress should have been making lots of changes to it.   The sunset option is the only way to make the Act palatable, but regular votes forcing Congress to discuss the wisdom of keeping it in place without major upgrades should be something we see every year or two.  We should be improving it with each vote, and we should be taking the vote over and over, to remind the representatives that curtailing freedoms in the name of security has to come with a heavy political price.  If you're going to say we need the Patriot Act to keep us safe, then you ought to be prepared to take your electoral medicine. 

That's why trying to pass it with 45 minutes of debate is shameful, and I'm grateful for reps like Freshman Bobby Schilling (Illinois upgrade over Phil Hare) who voted no because he felt the issue was rushed.  From the Daily Caller:

TheDC: Why did you vote against the Patriot Act last night?

Rep. Bobby Schilling (BS): When I was running during the campaign, I even stated you know we need to increase national security, but not without a thorough and complete look at the Patriot Act. One of the things I look at is how much intrusion is enough.

But the big problem I have, is that we had 45 minutes of debate on that thing and I wasn’t comfortable going with just the party-line vote. The people of the 17th district that I represent  – I get a lot of people that sent letters to me saying, “hey, do not vote for this, this an infringement of the Fourth Amendment.”

The bill was rushed to the floor with limited debate. I’m huge on national defense. I’ve got a large family. That is the number one thing we have to do here in Congress is to protect the citizens of the United States. I went with my gut. I didn’t have a lot of information on it and the problem I see with some parts of the Patriot Act is that the wrong person is able to access your information. That could be a problem.

It's brilliance.  A congressional representative, backed strongly by the Tea Party, says he voted no because he wasn't given enough information to make an informed decision.  A couple thousand more votes like this from conservatives and we start to think that the Tea Party has staying power.

When it came to healthcare "reform", for those of you who remember, many Tea Party citizens did read the different versions of the healthcare bill, and what was in there had no relation to what we were told by the news media or our political leaders.  That's true of every bill, and it's something that we need to get a hold of in the political process.  If you don't like the influence of lobbyists, corporations, unions, special interest, crony capitalist, and communist green jobbers in Washington, you've got to simplify the legislation and change the way our politicians vote on that legislation. 

Bobby Schilling did a simple thing, but a brave one.  If Blue Dog Democrats had done the same, they would have noted no on the healthcare bill for the simple reason that it was, and remains incomprehensible.  They could not understand what was in the bill, and yet they voted on it, which is why many of them are out of office. 

The Patriot Act defeat was a small thing, and it will be passed when it comes back up, from some reports, as early as today.  The price paid, which was a loss in the confidence of the Republican leadership to count votes, was a small one.  They tried to rush it through, without thought.  That's how we got into this mess in the first place. 

Do it right the first time. Keep it simple.  Understand what you're voting on.  And vote no if you feel rushed or marginalized.  That's leadership. 

 

What Leadership Looks Like

From the Weekly Standard:

The new House will, for instance, systematically review federal regulations that depress job creation. It will also require that before bills reach the floor their sponsors articulate what constitutional authority justifies the action they propose and why it is an action better taken at the federal than the state or local level. Boehner and Cantor, moreover, have promised to bring back the practice of rescission bills, which take back spending that has been appropriated but not yet spent; to ban earmarks; to build the House schedule around committee hearings rather than floor votes; and to do away with silly votes to commemorate local events or declare national popcorn month.

There will be no silly parading around with a monstrous gavel. No fake cries of racism.  No silly votes to make it look like Congress is doing something.

Boehner and Cantor are focusing on the limits of federal power.  They will be working inside the structure of the Constitution. 

It will also require that before bills reach the floor their sponsors articulate what constitutional authority justifies the action they propose and why it is an action better taken at the federal than the state or local level.

No more "Good and Plenty" clause jokes or nonsense about the Commerce clause justifying every whim of the federal government.  What we'll see is a serious attempt at governing from the House of Representatives.  There won't be Democratic bills brought to the floor, but you will have Congressman getting in the habit of defending the use of their power. 

Which should make great theater for state legislatures, who are ready to flex some muscle and take back their powers.

If the Republicans want to take the Senate and Presidency in 2012, the best way to do so is to show that given all three branches of government, they will govern responsibly.  It's a very good sign.

 

Voter Guide Links For 2010 Election

I'm here phone banking at the St Louis Tea Party Headquarters at 4512 Hampton Ave, and got the request for a voter ballot guide.  I'll try to put one out this weekend, but in the meantime, check out the MissouriFamilyNetwork for a guide on the propositions.

The League of Women Voters has also provided a voters' guide for the St Louis Region for candidate education.

Short version from me would be:

1) Robyn Hamlin, Todd Akin, Ed Martin in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts.

2) Yes on Prop A, No on Prop B. 

3) If a politician is running unopposed, leave that part of the ballot blank to encourage an opponent the next year.

 

OUCH: Republican Governor's Hands Hits Obama Hard, Very Hard

James Carville has a cameo in this one, asking when Obama is actually going to do something

Great points, from giving contradictory statements that healthcare won't cost a dime to admitting they always knew it would cost money to try to add 30 million people to the insurance rolls by subsidizing them.

Long, but fast-paced and powerful.  Four Weeks And Counting

 

Guest Post By Michael Steele: The Obama-Carnahan Economy

The RNC reached out to 24thstate.com today with a column from RNC Chairman Michael Steele on the state of the Missouri economy. While I'm not usually up for posting general press releases, after speaking to the press contact, I understood this is a broader and part of a personalized outreach attempt by the RNC to connect with conservative blogs across the country, and I fully support that.

This is the guest column in full.

By RNC Chairman Michael Steele

For Missouri, the Obama-Carnahan economy would mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and more burdensome government regulation for small businesses.  Despite an $862 billion stimulus package, the Obama Administration has failed to create jobs and national unemployment remains at an unacceptable 9.5 percent.  Still – the Obama Administration is moving ahead with more spending and bigger government at the expense of our children and grandchildren.  

Last week, Missourians went to the ballot box and delivered an overwhelming rebuke of Barack Obama’s signature achievement, ObamaCare.  Despite more than 70 percent of the electorate voting to oppose ObamaCare’s individual mandate, the White House arrogantly dismissed Missouri’s vote as meaningless. Robin Carnahan not only failed to stand up and defend her own state, but she also voted against Prop C – placing her at odds with the vast majority of the people she hopes to represent.    
 

It’s clear to the people of Missouri that the Obama Administration is leading America down a path towards perpetually high unemployment, massive growth of government, and a culture of political bailouts.  Missouri voters already know what they can expect from the Obama-Carnahan economy.  America can’t afford another Senator who will simply rubberstamp Barack Obama’s big-spending, liberal agenda – against the will of the people.  It’s time to cut through the rhetoric and demand results from this Administration.  

14 Weeks: An Ad From The Republican Governor's Association

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Move On Up PAC Or How The New York Times Got Me To Donate Money

I was reading through blogs last week and several linked to this story from the New York Times about a wave of Black Republicans running for Congress in 2010. Some, like Colonel Allen West, I knew because of great blog coverage, most of course had never crossed my radar.

Now I'm a big believer in merit over skin color or other chromosomes as the deciding factor in a political candidate, but I did flash to just a moment of thinking how awesome it would be if 34 freshman Congressman, all black, were to suddenly burst on the scene.

It would be the end of the Democratic Party, and a huge step towards racial reconciliation.  Imagine what would happen if being Black didn't mean that you faced intense pressure to support Democrats. Imagine what would happen if Republicans were forced to deal with "black" issues because they actually had a chance at winning black votes.  Without a monolithic black vote in the urban areas, Democrats would never win a national election and they'd be hard pressed to win even 40 Senators in their current incarnation.

The Republicans aren't going to do it on their own.  This isn't a matter of race, it's a matter of power.  Democrats "own" the black vote.  They OWN it.  They see it as their by right.  And they'll say and do anything, from spreading lies about Republican politicians to destroying any black conservative who dares to speak out.  But thirty four black conservatives, all in Congress?  It would signal an end to the divide and conquer policies of political hacks like Sara Howard and her hateful flyers.

Now - 32 black Republican Congressman is a pipe dream.  They need one first, having not had one since J.C. Watts retired.  But even that one needs a start.  A base.  Millions of black men and women vote for Republicans each election, even if tens of millions vote for Democrats.  Those millions need strong voices, and so when I read the article, I figured I'd look around for a PAC to donate to that supported black conservatives.

Before I even typed a search into Google, one popped up in front of me.  Move On Up, the social network for black conservatives that is based here in St Louis, just started a PAC.  As in, they just started it this week.  Call it serendipity, or call it blind luck, but the email appeared at just the right time, and so I gave $100 to the PAC, with the hope that they spend the money wisely and help at least a few of those 32 across the finish line in November.

The announcement is here at the website.  You can give money through Paypal, as I did.  But let me caution you.  This funding vehicle isn't for white people.  I don't mean they'll turn the money away, but understand this PAC is about black conservatives empowering black conservatives, not asking white people for a handout. 

I gave because I don't think racial grievances can be healed until black people are well represented in both parties, and I see this as a valid vehicle to do so.  From the announcement.

In politics, numbers and money are the grease that gets the squeaky wheels (your cause) attention, not any past loyalties. We have a clear choice. We can either continue to complain and keep experiencing neglect during and after the campaign season, or, we can begin right now to build a grassroots organization that has hundreds of thousands of members that will advance our agenda due to its sheer size and influence.

And because this is a PAC - let me be clear - I'm not associated with this PAC in any fashion.  I'm not associated with any PAC, or any formal structure, or any political organization, in any fashion, with the lone exception of volunteering for various Tea Party events. 

I am simply, the Editor.