USD College Republicans

Election Wrap-up

As we all know, Barack Obama, Tim Johnson, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, and BJ Nesselhuf have all won election or reelection to President, US Senate, US House, and State Senate, respectively. CR friend Republican Dan Lederman of District 16 won his race for State House with around 35%. We congratulate Dan, as well as all of the Democrats.

This was an extremely trying election season. No Republican has ever run in such an unforgiving political climate, and the struggles were great.

Despite the difficulty, the USD College Republicans showed themselves to be a major player on campus. With respect to our friends in the USD Democrats, I think that the USD College Republicans greatly exceeded all expectations, mobilizing campus Republicans as they never have before. And it all happened in the most anti-Republican political climate in history.

Through canvassing and phone calls, debating the Democrats, putting flyers up around campus, and registering voters, the USD College Republicans made USD sit up and take note. I can only expect that they will be as- or more- active in coming years.

I think that the CRs hard work, dedication, and work on and off campus prove that they live up to their name as the BEST party on campus.

I thank them for all they have done, and I look forward to the gubernatorial race in 2010.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:51AM Nov 05, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

John and Barry at the Al Smith Dinner

If you're into politics, you've probably already seen this- McCain and Obama at New York's Al Smith Dinner. Obama was so-so, but McCain brought the house down, which is why I'm only posting his speech.

Posted at 08:25AM Oct 20, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[2]

Obama lets slip his economic philosophy

"I think, when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Yeah, Barry, except for the ones who earned the money in the first place.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:57AM Oct 16, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama's links to ACORN become clearer

The WSJ today published a scathing report about Barack Obama's ties to radical group ACORN

ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and Obama has been heavily involved in ACORN activities for years.

Of course, ACORN has been caught registering false voters- felons, those still in prison, dead people, Mickey Mouse, and paying homeless- just to name a few.

You can find reports HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The Obama campaign is now distancing "The One" from ACORN, but the facts are clear. Obama was involved. We just need to know how much he knew about the illegal acts perpetrated by ACORN.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:43AM Oct 14, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

Obama on his own proposal: "disastrous"

Today, Barack Obama rolled out a new proposal to deal with the financial crisis

The only problem is, Hillary Clinton had the idea before he did, and he called it "disastrous."

That's right, Barry, give 'em what they want to hear!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 03:05PM Oct 13, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Against Obama? You're racist.

From Real Clear Politics

This is becoming a very strange campaign.

On CNN last evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the "old" noble McCain is gone-and a "new" nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops.

Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. New York Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a "cancer," and he suggested that Obama's instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.

A couple of thoughts: the George Bush, Sr. / Willie Horton campaign was far tougher; so were the Bush 2000/2004 efforts. If anything, McCain's campaign is subdued in comparison to what we've seen on both sides in past years. Indeed, McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race.

Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the "race card"). When there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was--preemptively, on at least two occasions--warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping.

His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about Obama's past with racism. Second, for about 3 months all we've heard are references to McCain's age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can't remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc.

Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden's email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don't think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a 'messiah' or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on.

Instead I think what we are seeing again is an interesting phenomenon of the old nice/now mean McCain. A great many moderates and conservatives are worn out and tired of Bush and Bush hatred, the European furor, serial charges of racism and illiberalism, and finally, in their weariness, think that Obama will, in a variety of ways, just make all the ickiness go away-as if he will make all of us be liked abroad and end racial and red/blue fighting at home. They should ask themselves whether Jimmy Carter restored American popularity with his human rights campaigns, praise of left-wing dictators, dialogue during the hostage crisis (cf. "The Great Satan"), boasts of no more inordinate fear of communism, etc., or whether Obama, in his Trinity/Acorn/Pfleger years, brought racial healing and understanding to Chicago.

Second, with Obama now with an 6-8 point lead, some in the DC/NY corridor these last three weeks figure it's time now to jump or at least sort of jump, since the train they think is leaving the station and there might be still be some space at the dinner table on the caboose. They also believe as intellectuals that the similarly astute Obamians may on occasion inspire, or admire them as the like-minded who cultivate the life of the mind-in contrast to the "cancer" Sarah Palin, who, with her husband Todd, could hardly discuss Proust with them or could offer little if any sophisticated table-talk other than the proper chokes on shotguns or optimum RPMs on snow-machines.

And third, a lot of moderates who would not vote for McCain liked him when he was a sophisticated, ironic maverick loser scoring points against the simplistic Bush and other cardboard-cut-out conservatives. Now he has the onus of winning a campaign and can't be a noble, tragic loser; so it is easy to say he is no good since he is less than perfect. The sure iconoclastic loser has an attraction that the mainstream conservative possible winner does not.

Obama, as I have said ad nauseam, has brilliantly prepped the battlefield to such a degree that a Farrakhan endorsement or surrogates calling Palin a quasi-Nazi or a bimbo, or smearing McCain as near senile is irrelevant; yet one screamer in a crowd of tens of thousands is proof of McCain's and Palin's racism and hatred.

Again, most conservatives know this paradox, but for some being outraged, as the conservative voice of reason, at McCain's supposed low road ensures a CNN spot, or some future rehabilitation during the expected Obama regnum of the next eight years. I think should I write a column suddenly taking the "high road", praising Obama's wit, taste in books, and metrosexuality, I would be dubbed principled rather than cynical, 'even-handed' rather than self-serving, and a maverick rather than toadish.

Yet for a self-acclaimed conservative to vote Obama would mean that higher taxes, larger government, more entitlements, more of a UN-centered foreign policy, dialogue with an Iran, less coal,oil, and nuclear energy production at home, more "oppression" studies and "reparations", leftish Supreme Court judges, open borders (I could go on) were the truly conservative positions, or perhaps suddenly truly the 'right' positions. And as far as ethics go, in fact, a cursory review of the past Obama campaigns would reveal a ruthlessness never seen in any of McCain's efforts. Obama's record is far more left than McCain's is far right. Obama the healer has proven to be the most partisan in the Senate, McCain one of the most bipartisan.

Yet to believe that truth would be--if we remember that scene in Tolkien's The Two Towers--to trust the grating harsh voice of Gandalf detailing the dangers of Saruman rather than the mellifluous charm of the latter who in soothing tones outlines his own victimhood.

Posted at 12:40AM Oct 13, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama's 95% illusion

From today's Wall Street Journal

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Posted at 12:30AM Oct 13, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Biden's spin

Hey Joe- What good is getting money for armor when you're pulling the troops out in the same bill?

Posted at 08:46PM Oct 02, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Palin owning on energy

Palin knows about energy and she's kicking the crap out of Biden's radical talking points.

She also caught him on badmouthing clean coal a few weeks ago.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:36PM Oct 02, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Roll over, Marx

It's no longer "redistribution of wealth." It's "fairness."

Thanks for the update, Joe.

Posted at 08:21PM Oct 02, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Biden's Lies

Biden is talking about deregulation, deregulation, deregulation, and how it's so bad.

The truth is, deregulation has nothing to do with the current financial "crisis."

He also fails to mention that government is the PROBLEM with the current high price of health care. If we added MORE regulation to our health care system, we would have nationalized health care.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:14PM Oct 02, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Line of the night

"I agree with Senator McCain."

More to come.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:51PM Sep 26, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

NOW who's bringing politics into the financial "crisis?"

Mark Ambinder is reporting that Chris Dodd, another old, white-haired man, insinuated that John McCain caused a ruckus during yesterday's bigwig meeting about the bailout at the White House. But the truth is that McCain and the Republicans listened openly and calmly.
-----
Though Sen. Chris Dodd implied that Sen. McCain sandbagged the rest of the negotiators by bringing up alternative proposals, McCain himself did not bring up those proposals, according to four independent sources briefed by four different principals inside the meeting, including two Republicans and two Democrats.
-----
Even though I think the bailout is a terrible idea and a political stunt to begin with, the people who were crying about the evils of "presidential politics" in this process seem to be the ones who are INJECTING presidential politics into it themselves.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:11AM Sep 26, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama refuses to suspend campaign

I'm watching Barack Obama on CNN right now. He is saying that he won't suspend his campaign right now and that he wants to debate on Friday.

This move doesn't lend much to his lie that he works in a bipartisan fashion.

More updates as things occur.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 03:54PM Sep 24, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[4]

The Coal Miner

Either your support coal or not. Which is it?

Posted at 01:03PM Sep 24, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Ron Paul lets us down

Ron Paul recently endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president

Now, I wasn't a Paul supporter, (for reasons that the quote below will establish). But for perhaps the most well-known living American libertarian to endorse such a terrible choice is nearly unforgivable.

Who is Chuck Baldwin? He is the Constitution Party candidate for president. He is also the purveyor of whatever conspiracy theories are hot right now.

Yes, he's one of the "I can't deal with real life, so I've got to develop a story that makes me feel better" crowd:

------

Paul himself believes the ridiculous claim that the Bush Administration is trying to establish a "North American Union" uniting Mexico, the US, and Canada under a single government. Baldwin goes Paul one better. He not only endorses the NAU myth but also claims that "By 2015, I’m told, the powers that be want to merge Europe and America." He thinks that the Council on Foreign Relations is at the heart of a conspiracy to create a "global government" - a longstanding trope for conspiracy theorists. He rails against "moneychangers" who are supposedly destroying us by promoting free trade and international investment for the ultimate purpose of establishing a world government. Baldwin even wrote a 2007 column entitled "There is a Conspiracy" documenting the supposed plan to create world government. To prevent this, he is opposed to the "global economy," free trade, and international economic integration, a position radically at odds with that of most libertarians (see the last three links).

-----

Libertarians, big "L" and little "l," need to distance themselves from conspiracy theorists like Paul and Baldwin. Relationships with conspiracy theorists are steadily decreasing their credibility in the eyes of major political parties and the electorate as a whole.

HT: The Volokh Conspiracy

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:18PM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Biden: No coal plants in America, but China OK

"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."

"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.

--------

--------

HT: Ben Smith

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 07:07PM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Biden doesn't like Obama campaign's negativitiy

The Obama campaign has taken a turn toward Negative Town, but it appears Gaffe-Master General Joe Biden isn't on board.

The ad in question is the one that ridicules McCain for his inability to use the Internet (which is because he is physically unable to type).

Biden said:

"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."

Of course, after getting a tongue-lashing from his Obama Overlords, he changed his tune:

"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack's votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators,"

Speak your mind Joe, you're the only one on the Obama side who will open his mouth without a teleprompter in sight!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 07:42AM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Dems Prez off the mark

In response to my column last week, USD Democrats President, Brittany Neiles wrote a letter to the Volante editor. An Obama supporter, she was off-the-mark.

Her primary argument is that government-forced civil service, like USD's IDEA program and other programs, are already established in citizens' lives. Therefore, expanding them is acceptable.

But this assumes that those initial plans are acceptable. They are not. No kind of government-forced community service is acceptable. In a truly free country, citizens have the right to decide whether or not they want to serve.

Obama's plan would not only force us to serve, but it would tell us how to serve. We would no longer be able to work in ID Weeks or as a Tech Fellow for student work. Instead, we would be forced to work in a soup kitchen, pick up trash, or any number of community service positions.

A secondary assumption Neiles makes is that the actual work the government forces us to do is good work. By forcing us to do its bidding, the government is telling us what is important. For instance, if I value saving the environment, but am forced to work in a soup kitchen, my passion and knowledge about the environment is wasted. It wouldn't have been if I had the right to serve if/how I wanted.

The Democrats often say that the US cannot force democracy on nations like Iraq, because they didn't fight for, and earn, it. If fighting for, and earning, something is required to appreciate it, then it must be true that government-forced service does not instill any values into citizens.

Obama's plan is still a gross infringement on our freedoms.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:29AM Sep 17, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

Obama needs to try fact-checking

Barack Obama has launched a new ad that lampoons John McCain for his inability to use the Internet.

Unfortunately for Obama, his lack of fact-checking left this tidbit of information unfound:

"McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."

Yet more fact-less ad hominem attacks from Obama. It's becoming predictable. Maybe he'll put a fact in his next ad to throw us off.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:56AM Sep 13, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

Obama realizes tax increases are bad. Finally.

Barack Obama has finally realized that tax increases are bad.

Appearing with George Stephanopolous on one of the Sunday morning talk shows, Obama said he finally realized tax increases aren't the cure-all he has made them out to be.

From the Wall Street Journal:

-----

The good news is that Barack Obama said on ABC Sunday that he might not go through with his plans to increase taxes.

The bad news is that the economy has to be mired in recession to avoid the largest tax increase in the nation's history.

Our check of the Dow Jones Factiva database suggests that other than viewers of ABC's "This Week," only three or four newspapers carried an account of Senator Obama's amended tax plan. While it's possible that the story of a deferred tax increase could shock the media into paralysis, we take it as an encouraging sign. The education of Barack Obama continues apace.

For the record, here is what he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "So even if we're in a recession next January, you come into office, you'll still go through with your tax increases?"

Senator Obama: "No, no, no, no, no. What I've said, George, is that even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts. That's my priority."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But not the increases?"

Senator Obama: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. The economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers indicates that we're fragile. I want to accelerate those tax cuts through a second stimulus package, get more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, see if we can stabilize the housing market, and then we're going to have to reevaluate at the beginning of the year to see what kind of hole we're in."

* * *

Even individuals staring down the barrel of Mr. Obama's tax increases should not wish for an economic recession to give them a reprieve. The relevant point is that it was early last year, when the "Bush economy" was still humming, that Senator Obama first proposed pushing taxes sharply upward on "the wealthy," while giving what he calls "tax cuts" (actually they are credits, not rate reductions) to "the middle class."

At the time, Mr. Obama was the long shot in the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes, and it made some political sense to reassure the party's intensely liberal primary voters with class-war boilerplate on taxes.

Under ObamaTax 1.0, he would have repealed all the Bush tax cuts, lifted the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, put the top marginal rate up to 39.8% and raised the rate on capital gains and dividends to at least 25% from 15% now. The official campaign line was that tax rates really don't matter to economic growth.

Summer arrived, the Clinton challenge was history and with the general election ahead came ObamaTax 2.0. It posited that the top rate on capital gains now would be 20%, described on this page August 14 by economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee as "almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986." This was progress.

Now with the big vote less than 60 days off and John McCain pounding him as a tax-raiser and pulling ahead in some polls, the Democratic nominee has decided to release ObamaTax 3.0, the most interesting upgrade so far. If the economy is still weak in January, a President Obama might defer all of the planned increases.

Several interpretations of this shift are possible, none of which reflect badly on Senator Obama's political learning curve.

At the bloodless level of simply wishing to win, the Obama camp may have concluded that in the sprint to November it is a losing strategy to be the election's only doctrinaire tax raiser. A tight race tends to focus political minds, and none forget Walter Mondale's catastrophic promise in his 1984 acceptance speech: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

Beyond this lies the economic reality of jacking up income, investment and payroll taxes on "the wealthy" amid a flat or falling economy. In the standard narrative, these taxpayers exist as fat cats atop hedge funds, banks and megacorporations. Let's toss into the vat the top-tier managers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Beltway's own fat-cat sinecure.

The reality is that the creators of new jobs in the economy are more likely to be rising entrepreneurs or filers under Subchapter S, who typically pay taxes at individual rates. Hanging three or four tax millstones around their productive necks in January if the economy is weak will likely produce unimpressive growth and job numbers in the first year of the new Obama Presidency, and likely beyond. That in turn could drag down the Democrats in Congress who will get credit for voting these higher taxes into law.

Thus Mr. Obama's unambiguous answer Sunday to whether he'd insist on his tax increases if the economy is in an official recession: "No, no, no, no, no." It seems Mr. McCain is right that taxes do matter.

Mr. Obama's most ardent primary supporters may not like it, but we'll take the five "Nos" as evidence that Senator Obama may be learning the difference between liberal doctrine and sensible governance.
-----

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:08PM Sep 08, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama's protectionism isn't the answer

Today's Wall Street Journal offers a great op-ed about the history- and folly- of protectionist tendencies. The same tendencies toward which Barack Obama leans.

Here is the pertinent section, discussing Obama in particular:

----------

Mr. Obama would reverse regional trade progress. He supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's opposition to the Colombia FTA, even though it will open new markets for U.S. exporters. He promises to "stand firm" against pacts like Cafta and proposes to force a renegotiation of Nafta, which is likely to disrupt North American supply chains and damage the U.S. economy. By heaping new labor and environmental regulations on our trading partners, his "fair trade" proposal will raise costs for our trading partners and reduce their competitiveness.

Perhaps worst of all, his antitrade bias will signal the region that protectionism is back in style in the U.S., and encourage new trade wars. No good can come from that, for the U.S. or for Latin America.

----------

Don't worry. Given his history of being elastic on issues, Obama will probably issue a statement tomorrow in support of totally free trade.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 10:21AM Sep 08, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

GOP Convention Protests are out-of-hand

A great post from the Volokh Conspiracy.
-------
In light of the post I wrote yesterday on the arrests and search warrants targeting groups seeking to disrupt the Republican convention, I thought I would add this update:
Protesters smashed windows, punctured car tires and threw bottles Monday during an anti-war march to the site of the Republican National Convention. Police used pepper spray in confrontations with demonstrators and arrested five.
Instead of the single coherent march that organizers had hoped for, fringe groups of anarchists and others wrought havoc along the streets between the state Capitol and the Xcel Energy Center where the convention was taking place. . . .
About 200 people from a group called Funk the War noisily staged its own separate march. Wearing black clothes, bandanas and gas masks, some of their members smashed windows of cars and stores. They tipped over newspaper boxes, pulled a big trash bin into the street, bent the rear view mirrors on a bus and flipped heavy stone garbage bins on the sidewalks.
Meanwhile, a group of about 100 anarchists pushed a trash bin filled with trash and threw garbage in the streets and at cars. They also took down orange detour road signs. One of them used a screwdriver to puncture the back tire of a limousine waiting at an intersection and threw a wooden board at the vehicle, denting its side. Another hurled a glass bottle at a charter bus that had stopped at an intersection. The bottle smashed into pieces but didn't appear to damage the bus.
The Associated Press has a photo of protesters exercising their First Amendment right to smash the windows of police cars here.
---

This is ridiculous. Peaceful protests are one thing, but this is hate-filled violence that has no place in a civil political debate. I hope those like fellow blogger Douglas Bryenldson, who in previous posts, praised these creeps, wake up and realize that.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 12:26AM Sep 02, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

Biden's ridiculous speech

I just watched Joe Biden's speech on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are both salivating over THE ONE, as always. Their "objectivity" was shot LONG ago.

The only problem was that Biden's speech was riddled with so many economic and political fallacies, it made my head spin.

It seems like this ticket's strategy is to lie to the middle class- telling them that privatization is bad for them, that the minimum wage actually works, that government is good and will take care of them.

They keep talking about "working hard" to get what you want out of America. Why work hard when this ticket will only bring about massive entitlements that will allow us to sit on our hands and get all we need?

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 02:45PM Aug 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama picks way more experienced Biden

Barry has picked Joe Biden, Gaffe Master of the World, to be his VP nominee.

Just five short months ago, Biden called Obama "inexperienced" at every turn.

Of course, that sentiment is tacitly admitted by Obama because of the fact that he CHOSE Biden to supplement Obama's utter lack of foreign policy experience.

What a difference five months makes!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 12:45AM Aug 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[3]

Watching Clinton and Obama destroy each other

Republicans are sitting back and watching the action

---
"Republican strategists believe McCain has benefited from having won his party's nomination in March, giving him time to raise much-needed cash and lay the groundwork for his general election campaign, even though the Democratic battle has dominated U.S. headlines."
---
My Democrat friends think I'm crazy, but I assert that the Democratic Party is going down a rocky road with this battle. McCain will have a big opportunity to rise above the fray.

The fight between Clinton and Obama is politics as usual, and has nothing to do with "CHANGE." I hope that America will realize this when they hear the petty arguments between Clinton and Obama camps.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 11:28AM Apr 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Democrats bash McCain on Age...

...but they forget about Robert Byrd.

If McCain is too old to be president, why do the Democratic party bosses allow Byrd,who was IN THE KKK, for Christ's sake, to "serve" in the Senate. (By "serve," I mean drool on his desk).

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 03:14PM Apr 18, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Republicans no longer underdogs in 2008

Republicans are no longer underdogs in 2008
---
Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago - before either party had winnowed its field - the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.

Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.

The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.
---
Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.

"You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq.
---
Just wait until November!!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:13AM Apr 17, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Democratic Debate...Yawn

Both the Democratic candidates were terrible in tonight's debate. Especially Obama, though. He flubbed almost every question about the string of stupid stuff he has said and done and the stuff from his past.

The winner tonight? John McCain.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 11:52PM Apr 16, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Rockefeller apologizes

Senator Jay Rockefeller apologized to John McCain today.

What did Rockefeller, who hasn't served in the military, say?

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

WHAT? That's stupid. Pilots have to kill people just like infantrymen. They do it in a different, more detached way, but that doesn't mean that they don't know what life on the ground is like.

This is just the beginning of the Democrats' assault on McCain's military record. Next, they'll be saying the North Vietnamese was right to beat him.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 03:31PM Apr 08, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]