Scott R. Sullivan

May 21st, 2008 by Scott

Three cheers. For what? Three candidates on the short list for McCain’s running mate.

I’ve been clear in the past that McCain wasn’t my first choice for the Republican nomination. There are many attributes that I do like about McCain, but I feel there are many others that represent the conservative base much more than he.

I have always maintained that Romney was more closely aligned with the conservative base than McCain.

In fact, I even posted an article back in March about the very real possibility of Romney being selected as the Vice Presidential running mate.

Well, the names are starting to surface and just as I had predicted, Romney’s in the top three. Not only that, but there are some very interesting things about the top three veep candidates.

First, all three are Governors. Gov. Romney (MA), Gov. Crist (FL), and Gov. Jindal (LA). I wrote a lengthy article in December of 2007 about how Governors have an advantage when running for the White House.

While anything can happen, I think this is very telling on how the 2008 general election will turn out in November. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama both have history against them against Sen. McCain and GOVERNOR Romney, Jindal or Crist.

I think part of this advantage comes from the fact that a Governor of a state is like a mini-federal government. They preside over a House and Senate of the state. They have state budgets they work with. They have State Departments, Departments of Commerce, Transportation, etc. and are in control of the state militia, the National Guard.

Compare this to a Senator, like Obama and Clinton. They are just one of 100 of a group. They are part of the “problem” of Washington, not the solution. That’s why even though the President has an all-time low approval rating, Congress’ approval rating is even LOWER!

Back to the top three names. I’ll skip Romney for now, since I’ve discussed him in depth before.

Gov. Jindal looks very promising. He’s the youngest Governor in the country and has been hailed as the next Ronald Reagan! His voting record backs up these claims. He has voted for gun rights, to lower taxes, and most importantly, understands the global war on terror. This is a man we need in the White House.

Gov. Crist is right up there as well. He’s a hardliner when it comes to law and order: he’s for the death penalty, and was called “Chain Gang Charlie” because he favored using convicts to be used for roadside labor.

There is much more to both of these Governors. Of these two new names, I personally favor Jindal. He’s likable, young, VERY conservative, and brings some energy and enthusiasm to the table.

If McCain chooses any of these three, I’ll be happy. If he chooses Jindal or Romney, I’ll be VERY happy. Because, in all likelyhood, this Governor turned Veep will run for President in 2012. Its just a hunch, but I just don’t see McCain running for two terms, due to his age.

And… as I’ve said before, my Governor v. Senator race will mean so much more. Can’t wait!

April 16th, 2008 by Scott

Obama’s been basing his campaign on the fact that he is “change” and isn’t the “typical” politician in Washington.

But listen to the progression of his statements, beginning with Saturday’s blunder when he spoke about small town Americans in Pennsylvania:

Saturday - First spoke the words

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.“

Monday - Twist meaning of word (ala what the definition of “is” is?)

“People may be bitter about their leaders and the state of our politics. That’s why they leave their homes…and travel—sometimes for miles, sometimes in the bitter cold—to attend a rally or a town hall meeting held by Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain, or myself.”

Tuesday - Bad word, but not backing down

“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.”

Wednesday - DISTRACT by claiming your opponent is doing the distracting!

“When we get past the politics of division and distraction and we start actually focusing on what we have in common, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.

He isn’t the new ‘change’ everyone wants. He is just a politician, just like Clinton, twisting words, distracting and blaming others. Republican and Conservative beliefs are based on personal responsibility. You make a mistake, you admit to it and work to make amends. That is also part of being a Christian.

You acknowledge your sins. You acknowledge that you are imperfect and pray for forgiveness. We don’t try and rewrite the past and pretend it never happened.

This might be why so many people are in love with Obama and Clinton. They don’t worry about taking responsibility for your actions, which seems a trend with many liberals today. Ignore morals and just do what “feels” good at the time.

Doing what is right and what is easy are never the same thing.

You don’t just pretend it didn’t happen, change the facts or blame the world for your mistake.

How very presidential, Obama.

January 8th, 2008 by Scott

So who else is sick of every candidate calling for “change.” It seems as if the shallow slogans of most of the presidential candidates have now not only become more shallow, but they are all “change.”

For anyone who has been under a rock for the last few weeks, it seems that most every candidate has been campaigning on “change.” Obama was campaigning on change. Then Hillary. Now McCain, Huckabee and many others are saying they are the candidate of change.

Sigh.

This is the problem I had during the last election and the reason the Republicans lost some seats. No one was telling us specifics of what they would do.

Remember back when Sen. Kerry said he was against the war in Iraq (this was after he was for the war he was against)? Kerry kept saying he would fight a “smarter” war. Huh? Give us some specific examples. Tell us exactly where YOU stand. Tell us exactly what YOU plan to do to solve these problems you claim are so common.

Unfortunately, this has become a campaign based entirely on emotion, and real messages and ideas have been lost in the “I’m for change” theme.

I miss the days when candidates would lay out specific ideas and mandates that they want to promote. The days when each candidate would debate the other on their ideas, not on how much money they have raised or how their campaign is negative. Let’s get back on message so we KNOW who we are electing, so we KNOW for what they stand, not just how they make us “feel.”

What would our founding fathers say?

December 29th, 2007 by Scott

History favors the Republicans for the 2008 Presidential Elections. Why is that, you ask? Looking back at where all the candidates come from, there is a statistical advantage for the Republicans this election year.

History has favored governors and vice presidents to win the White House. I went back and researched the qualifications and previous “jobs” of all U.S. Presidents since Roosevelt. Take a look at the positions held by our presidents at the time they ran for president:

Presidents who were Governors while running: 5

December 26th, 2007 by Scott

In a Washington Times article published today, Lawrence Kudlow hits some of the highlights of President Bush’s 2007 accomplishments. Kudlow is right on the mark in many areas. Allow me to expand with the Democratic/Republican “2007 predictions.”

After all, hindsight is 20/20.

The Economy

Democratic Prediction: 2007 Recession

The Huffington Post: Sep 10, 2007 - Strained by an ailing housing market and credit woes, the economy in 2007 is expected to log its worst growth in five years and should be somewhat sluggish next year. The No. 1 risk, though, is that the economy will lose its footing altogether and fall into a recession, forecasters say.

The New York Times: September 8, 2007 - Suddenly, analysts are talking about a possible recession. And that’s not good news for anybody. A few more months like August would make a recession likely.

ABC: Democrat Chris Dodd Predicts Recession: November 11, 2007 - Senate Banking Committee Chairman Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., predicted this morning that the country is headed into a recession. “Well, it’s certainly pointing in that direction. We hope that’s not the case, but there are many people who watch this minute to minute and would have drawn that conclusion. Some are even predicting a far greater likelihood than I would at this juncture,” Dodd said in a “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” interview.

Actual Outcome: 2007 Sees Record Economic Growth
(Source: Federal Fact Sheet: December 12, 2007)

• November 2007 Marks Record 51st Consecutive Month of Job Growth
• More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
• 94,000 jobs created in November.
• GDP grew at 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007 (six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001)

Iraq Troop Surge

Democratic Prediction: Troop Surge Will Fail

Democrat Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (in The Huffington Post) December 19, 2006 - Frankly, I don’t believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq.

Arianna Huffington (in the Huffington Post) June 14, 2007 - The Democrats need to stick with Reid’s plan to ratchet up the pressure on the president — and especially on Congressional Republicans who will have to face the wrath of voters in 2008. It is the right thing to do — both on moral grounds and on political grounds.

Stephen Schlesinger April 19, 2007 - This, after several months of the so-called Bush “surge”, which was going to decisively change the direction of the war in Iraq. The surge is a disaster.

‘Surge’ Strategy Is Recipe For Disaster - John Nichols, CBS December 20, 2006 - The “surge” strategy is ridiculous on its face. Strategists in Washington should be developing a plan for U.S. troops to surge homeward, not pushing a scheme to send more young men and women into a hopeless —and deadly — quagmire.

Actual Outcome: Troop Surge Worked

The Washington Times: August 21, 2007 - Top Senate Democrats have started to acknowledge progress in Iraq, with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee yesterday saying the U.S. troop surge is producing “measurable results.”

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan highlighted improved security in Baghdad and al Qaeda losses in Anbar province as examples of success — a shift for Democrats who have mainly discounted or ignored advances on the battlefield for weeks.

“The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results,” Mr. Levin said in a joint statement with Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, after a two-day visit last week to Iraq.

Facts from MIT: September 14, 2007 - … civilian fatalities have declined without any concurrent increase in casualties among coalition and Iraqi troops.

General Petraeus: Iraq troop surge is working (UK Telegraph) December 9, 2007 - America’s military commander in Iraq gave President George W Bush a major boost last night by telling the US Congress that his “surge” policy was working and troop levels should be reduced by 30,000 over the next 10 months.

Iraq says most of Al-Qaeda network destroyed in 2007 - The Iraqi interior ministry lauded its achievements over the past year on Saturday, saying that 75 percent of Al-Qaeda’s networks in the country had been destroyed in 12 months.
Ministry spokesman Abdul Karim Khalaf also outlined sharp falls in the numbers of assassinations, kidnappings and death squad murders. Breitbart, Dec. 29, 2007

What’s Ahead in 2008?
I even see the trends pointing to a better 2008. With Congress’ dismal approval ratings, I even predict that we’ll see a return to a Republican controlled House and Senate in November 2008 and continue to hold the White House.

I will continue to document why I feel the Republicans will win all three branches as I follow the course of the primaries and the election year events. But there is one underlying theme that you’ll see and you can see in the above analysis.

Democrats like to lower the bar and tell us how much things will go wrong. Republicans like to look forward and find ways to raise the bar.

After all, look at the predictions above. Even with a Democratic controlled House and Senate, the Democrats had to shout doom and gloom. “We’re going to have a recession! We’re losing in Iraq!”

Why? Because anything that is good for the country is bad for them. Success for the country means that the Bush Doctrine is working. It means the tax cuts worked. It means the troop surge worked.

Stay tuned!