Rick Santorum in St. Louis

This afternoon I had the opportunity to hear former Pennsylvania Senator and Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum speak. It was a relatively small gathering, some 300 people in the Social Sciences Auditorium at St. Charles Community College, but the atmosphere was definitely charged.

Santorum himself seemed cheerful and upbeat, no doubt at least in part due to news that  his three-year-old daughter's health has been steadily improving since her hospitalization last week. His speech was animated and impassioned, his demeanor buoyant and jovial. He hit on the major issues and drove his points home with shrewd assessments and the occasional wisecrack.

Some highlights of the speech:

• A solemn promise (with a wink and a smile) to never blame any of his problems once elected on the previous administration. "Anyone who is elected to the office of President should take responsibility for doing the job once he gets there."
• A need to get rid of corporate taxes - especially for businesses that are trying to bring their companies (and the jobs that go with them) back into the United States.
• A need to scale back the regulations that strangle small businesses as much as they help larger ones.
• A commendation to Obama for doing what he said he would do when he campaigned in California. "He has certainly succeeded in raising the cost of energy. But in every nation in the world, the cost of energy is directly related to the quality of life. If we produce more energy in America, we will improve the quality of life in America. Oh, and we could do that by...building the Keystone Pipeline!"
• The fact that American success really just comes down to the basics. Three basic qualifications: 1)work hard, 2)graduate from high school, 3)get married before you have children. They seem simple enough, even silly. But the fact is that people who meet all three of those qualifications have only a 2% chance of ever living in poverty and a 77% chance of being in the top 50% of earners in America. People who only meet two of those qualifications increase their likelihood of living in poverty to 74% and reduce their chance of being in the top 50% of earners to only 4%. 
• One third of American students will not graduate from high school. "We are raising a generation of Americans who don't know what America is anymore." And this is because our education system is built to cater to bureaucrats in the Department of Education and the Teacher's Unions rather than to help parents educate their children.

His final assessment:

"If a Republican is not elected this time - and I mean a real, conservative, principled Republican - then I fear that Obamacare will go into effect. Dodd-Frank will continue to wreak havoc. And we will become an America that is completely dependent on our government.

We need to fix our economy. But we can't have a strong economy without strong faith and strong families."

And after the speech, once the crowd had dissipated, I got to say hello to Senator Santorum with Martin Baker, 2012 candidate for Missouri District 1. I got a smile and a heartfelt "thank you" when I handed the Senator a chain mail rosary for his daughter. Martin got a hearty handshake and a "best of luck running against Clay," and Santorum was out the door en route to Minnesota.

For more on Rick Santorum, tune in to The Dana Show on 97.1 FM Newstalk in St. Louis tomorrow from 12-3 Central or stream it live at 971talk.com.

Sell crazy someplace else... we're all stocked up here

Today I realized that I was quoted by a progressive blogger. His intent was to show that the Gateway Grassroots Initiative (who I associate with but DO NOT SPEAK FOR) has a bone to pick with Ed Martin, whose political aspiration of the month is Missouri Attorney General. What I said was that Missourians should be concerned in light of the fact that this is now the third 2012 contest in which Martin has declared his candidacy. And I stand by that assessment, mostly because I believe that it is the duty of the citizenry to scrutinize all candidates for public offices. But this blogger dragged GGI into it for other reasons.


All this goes back a couple of months to the straw that broke the St Louis Tea Party Coalition. This particular blogger has it in his head that people left the STLTPC because they wanted to support Ann Wagner instead of Ed Martin in the heated contest for Todd Akin's soon-to-be-vacated seat in Missouri District 2. I would love to hear his explanation as to why the "ultimate GOP insider Ann Wagner"-loving folks (who broke off from the STLTPC in order to endorse her) have not done so. The Gateway Grassroots Initiative, composed almost entirely of the people who left the STLTPC at that time, has yet to endorse...ANYONE. No one associated with GGI is out ringing doorbells for Ann Wagner - which seems off, since according to him, that's the only reason they left the STLTPC in the first place.


So why does he keep selling that story in the face of obvious facts? The answer is, well, obvious. It's easy to believe that people would engage in that type of infighting over support for a particular candidate. It's easy to believe that people are petty and vindictive - and for the most part, as humans, we all are. What's darn near impossible to believe is the idea that there are people who are willing to stand on principle regardless of the fallout. It's hard to stomach the notion that, after claiming to leave the STLTPC because they didn't believe grassroots organizations should endorse candidates, GGI proceeded to walk the talk. And he just can't force his brain to wrap around the fact that GGI - Dana Loesch in particular because of the DLRS and her ties to CNN - has the influence to throw real weight behind anyone we choose to endorse and we choose not to endorse anyone because principles matter more than power.


So blog on. Quote me if you like. You're spinning your wheels looking for a catfight where there isn't one. But until you find something original to say, do us all a favor and go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

St. Louis Welcomes Veterans

Today we took the kids downtown for a parade to celebrate our military. After the poor turnout at the parade last November for Veteran’s Day, I was apprehensive about the kind of crowd we might expect. Imagine my (pleasant) surprise when we had to park three blocks away from the parade route and fight large crowds to even find a spot where the kids could see what was going on.

More than once during the parade I felt grateful to have my camera as a buffer between myself and the veterans and their families as they marched by. More than once I had to check and then recheck the focus of my camera against the failing focus of my own eyes.

Shouts of “Thank you!” and “We love you!” echoed down the street as float after float passed by. After the Vietnam Veterans passed, an Air Force Veteran nearby said what I had been thinking: “You know, this might be the first ‘Welcome Home’ for them too.”

Every event for our military leaves me feeling torn – I am grateful for the opportunity to teach my children to show their appreciation for those who serve. But at the same time I am painfully aware of how little we offer them in return for their service.  Those Vietnam Veterans especially deserved more than a parade, and they deserved it a long time ago.

All the same, I am proud of St. Louis for being the first city to stand up and offer those who have served in more recent years the respect and honor that they have earned. May it be only the first of many such events.

Cut off the addicts!

Anyone who has ever lived with an abusive alcoholic knows the drill:


He's sweet and generous, accommodating and even helpful when he knows he's going to get a drink. He's still pretty magnanimous while he's drinking the first few. The problems exist when he is allowed too much or when he is cut off entirely.


Take the GOP establishment, for example: When they are given free access to taxpayer money, they are nearly as reckless in using it as Democrats. Sure, they are less likely to use it to fund things like abortion, but what about "No Child Left Behind," "TARP," bank bailouts, and any number of "green" initiatives such as the curly light-bulb mandate?


Enter the Tea Party, that mismatched and disorganized group of fed-up patriots who stood up and refused to be counted any longer as enablers...


When the Tea Party first burst onto the scene, the GOP tried to embrace them. "You're right, big government spending is bad." "We can quit any time we want to, stick with us and you'll see." And until the 2010 midterm elections, the GOP felt that they had done a decent job containing the Tea Party.


Once the "new class" moved in on Capitol Hill, congressional freshmen started doing the unthinkable: not only did they stand up against the Democrats, they also stood up against attempts by the established GOP to compromise with the Democrats. The GOP establishment realized quickly that if they wanted to be allowed even a few drinks a day, their allies were not in the Tea Party. And so the GOP made a deal with the devil, compromising on debt ceiling raises and tax cut extensions, to avoid the tee-totaling demanded by the Tea Party.


And now, in an election that stands to be one of the most important election cycles in United States History, the GOP sees their next fix slipping away. They see the Tea Party for what it really is, and they turn on it, viciously at times. They try to convince voters that the only way conservatives can win is to pick a more moderate, "electable" (read: establishment) candidate. They assist the media in bringing down the more conservative candidates, and then pretend that they did it "for the good of the Party." Why do you think the GOP establishment is so set on Romney? Because he's the best guy for America in 2012? Doubtful. More than likely it's because Romney's supporters tend to hate the Tea Party. And because he has a history of compromising moral ground to gain political ground. (He appointed liberal judges in Massachusetts because "conservative ones never would have been approved anyway.")


And the battered American public must choose. 
They can listen to the establishment: "We've been doing this for a long time, you need to trust us. We know what we're doing, and it's for your own good that we do it. Besides, if you leave you don't have anywhere to go - I mean, you know that a third party candidate can never win, so why bother trying?"
Or they can listen to the Tea Party: "The establishment needs you more than you need them. What they're really saying is that you aren't smart enough to choose a good candidate on your own, so they're going to do it for you. They are doing everything in their power to hold you back because they know that you have the power to stop them too."


The question we have to ask ourselves this (and every) election cycle: Do I trust myself more than I trust the government? If the answer is no, we have already lost the Republic.

Baker for Missouri District 1

In yesterday's post, I mentioned the fact that Missouri District 1 has been struggling under Democrat control since 1949. In fact, the District has been under the thumb of one family since 1969. From 1969-2001, District 1 was represented by William Lacy "Bill" Clay Sr. In 2001, he passed the reins to his son William "Lacy" Clay Jr.

During their tenure, both Bill Clay Sr. and Lacy Clay Jr. have watched while policies they have supported have compounded the problems already being faced by the St. Louis area. Increased regulations and corporate taxes combined with strengthening labor unions have caused an unprecedented flow of population away from the city and even from the state. Factories have been moved out of the city, out of the county, and even to other states or other countries to avoid oppressive regulations. Some entire businesses have been shut down entirely in the aftermath of government bailouts that were designed to "save or create" jobs - just apparently not in St. Louis.

Yesterday I questioned why, in the face of such obvious need, Ed Martin would step outside his own desperate district to launch a campaign elsewhere. The answer is as depressing as it is simple: most people actually believe, politically speaking, that Missouri District 1 is a lost cause. They believed that Bill Clay was their only choice, and that Lacy Clay was the natural successor. They believe that anyone who would dare to launch a campaign against a Clay would be destined for a quick defeat, and thus far history has proved them right. 

So what kind of man would launch such a campaign?

Martin Baker, for a start. 

So who is Martin Baker? He would tell you he's just a regular guy who sees a need in his own hometown. He would tell you that he is standing up because someone needs to stand up against the liberal policies that are taking our city - and our nation - down the wrong path. He would tell you that he is standing up because his faith and his education have taught him that occasionally the little guy has to stand alone for a difference to be made. (Think David and Goliath...)

But don't be fooled into thinking that Martin Baker is the "little guy." He is a fixture in St. Louis conservative circles, and co-founder of Move-On-Up.org, a social network for African American conservatives. He is a former Navy Seal (And he is probably yelling at me through his computer for telling you that) who looks at his time in service as something he owed his country rather than a feather in his own cap.

And please don't make the mistake of thinking that he is standing alone. 

Ed Martin for...what was that again?

Everyone in St. Louis knows Ed Martin. In 2010, he rose to prominence as a Tea Party darling in the Missouri District 3 Congressional race that he narrowly lost to incumbent Russ Carnahan (yes, one of THOSE Carnahans). Since then, he has remained a fixture in the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition - and a point of contention for many others involved with the group.

In early 2011, following a redistricting that eliminated Missouri's 3rd Congressional District, Martin announced his intentions to challenge Democrat Claire McCaskill for her US Senate seat in 2012. His decision was made in the wake of an announcement from former Senator Jim Talent (who lost the seat to McCaskill in 2006) that he would not be entering the race, choosing instead to remain in his position with The Heritage Foundation. (Talent is currently working as an adviser for the Romney Presidential campaign.)

Just four months after Martin began his Senatorial campaign, another announcement gummed his game. Long time Missouri District 2 Representative Todd Akin threw his hat in the ring, joining the campaign to unseat Clair McCaskill. Within days of Akin's campaign kickoff, Martin made a new announcement of his own: he would be dropping out of the Senate race and instead be seeking Akin's old seat.

The Missouri District 2 race, specifically the battle between Ed Martin and fellow Republican candidate Ambassador Ann Wagner, quickly became epic enough to be blamed for the recent schism within the St Louis Tea Party Coalition. Though that particular race only facilitated the problems already festering within, it became the tipping point for many involved.

But even that division seems now to be ireelevant, based on the whims of a mercurial candidate, since Ed Martin has changed course once again. This morning's press releases have him nailed down as a 2012 candidate for Missouri Attorney General.

But Missouri should be asking a couple of questions of Mr. Martin:

First, why has he never attempted to mount a campaign in his home district? Missouri District 1 has been struggling, strangling under Democrat control since 1949. The people in his own neighborhood are drowning under the weight of increased unemployment, and he chooses to step out on them to represent others.

Second, can we expect him to stay in the Attorney General's race if another, shinier candidate steps into the ring?

Did I tell you I'm running for reelection?

Last night's State of the Union Address, "An America Built to Last," was a farce. It was a Herculean effort in terms of pulling the wool over the eyes of the voting public, a massive exercise in forked-tongued double-speak and flat out lies. What was omitted from the speech screams nearly as shrilly as the hollow ring of what was actually said.  For your convenience (and, I'll admit, my own amusement) I will break it down for you here - what was said, what wasn't said, and what it all really means.


What he said: 

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. 

What he meant:

 Dude, did I ever tell you guys about the time I killed Bin Laden? I only bring it up because I wanted to remind you that I really do like the military. I don't want you to be confused by the fact that I spent the last two weeks silent while my administration condemned Marines for making a bad judgment call. 

Also, notice how I draw attention to the way the Armed Forces "work together?" You know how they do that? They do what they're told to do and they don't ask questions - sometimes they don't even ask questions when they should. I want you, the public, and Congress to "work together" the way the military services do - they shut up, quit whining, and do what I tell them to do. They're not concerned with personal ambition because they're not allowed to have any when there is a mission at hand. You guys should be like that too.

What he said:

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect. 

What he meant:

It's been awhile since I've come out and said this, so I feel that I need to take this opportunity to remind you just one more time that this was all George W. Bush's fault. And the rich bankers too. OWS, this one's for you!

What he said:

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. 

What he meant:

You can't see the improvement yet, but trust me, it's here. And if you reelect me, maybe you'll get a chance to see it too. If you reelect me, I also promise to continue to bypass people who have the audacity to disagree with me by taking unilateral actions in the form of non-recess "recess appointments" and executive orders that don't need to pass Congressional muster.

What he said:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company.

What he meant: 

Pay no attention to the Chrysler and GM workers who are still collecting unemployment checks. Pay no attention to the major factories that still stand empty in your towns. The auto industry was ,saved, I tell you!

What he said:

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

What he meant:

Major companies shouldn't get tax breaks. Unless they're GE. 

What he said:

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

What he meant:

I'm going to create a few more government jobs. You're going to have to pay their salaries, benefits and pensions, but it will be ok because they're going to make sure you don't get cheated by China.

What he said:

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

What he meant:

A vote for me will ensure that more money goes to the teachers' unions. There will be no safeguards put into place to ensure that the money actually goes to the teachers or the students rather than the union bosses. That isn't anything new, I just wanted to make sure you were clear on that point.

What he said:

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

What he meant:

What Keystone Pipeline?

What he said:

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

What he meant:

Banks are bad. Banks are evil. Imma punish them. (S'up, OWS?)

What he said:

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. 

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans. 

What he meant:

More government jobs. Yes, you're going to be paying their salaries, benefits and pensions as well. But they're going to make and enforce new laws that mirror the ones that are already in place and should have been enforced by the DOJ before now anyway.

 What he said:

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

What he meant:

 Rich people owe you something simply because they have it and you don't. You can call it class warfare if you want, because if I were telling the truth, I would call it that too.

What he said:

Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

What he meant: 

Did I happen to mention that I am running for reelection this year? Obama 2012!!!

That brings us to the things he left out: 

I let my administration run roughshod over the Marines who peed on the dead Taliban fighters because I was hoping that it would draw attention away from the fact that my Attorney General allowed American guns to be trafficked into Mexico, resulted in at least one dead American Border Patrol Agent.

I repeatedly blame House Republicans for budget standoffs when the Senate has gone over 1000 days without passing a budget - which was their job in the first place. 

I give money to failing companies like Solyndra while refusing to support job-creating projects like the Keystone Pipeline because I have bought into the Al Gore version of a greener America - even if it costs us our current version of America to get it.

Pay no attention to the fact that members of my party and even former campaign staffers are doing everything they can to create an environment that is conducive to continued fraudulent voting practices in the 2012 election.

So, what should we make of this? There are two possibilities:
First, President Obama has bought stock in the manure he's currently shoveling. If that is the case, then  we need to vote him out in 2012 and elect someone who has the ability to discern fact from crap.
The second alternative is that President Obama knows exactly what is going on. He knows that his policies will not have the effects that he tells us they will. If that is the case, then we need to vote him out in 2012 and elect someone who is a little less comfortable deceiving the American people.