So for those of you who have been readers here. I just wanted to drop by and let you all know that I am moving on. I am getting back into blogging and unfortunately can’t continue on here. The San Antonio Conservative is no more. I no longer live in San Antonio and I was eager to not only talk politics, but bring along a side of something else. I plan to attempt that with my new blog titled “brand politics.” I encourage all of you to update your blogrolls and read my new blog. Its just the beginning for this new project. In fact there is only one post thus far. But it should be fun. I am already excited about the new site.
So since my career might take me to any number of different locales, this blog is one that I can continue with no matter my geographical location. What I will be doing over at brand will be a mix of mostly politics (I am after all a Political Science graduate) but will also mix in my love of sports, music, entertainment, movies, and all else that is typical for 25 year olds. So thanks to everyone who ever read this blog, my first real project in the blog world. I appreciated all the comments and all those who listed my on their blogrolls. Because of you all, I actually stuck with a blog for more than a year. Previously, my longest running stint on a blog was about 3 or 4 months. So thank you.
You can get to the new blog by clicking here. A more permanent domain is coming soon.
See you in the blogosphere.
- The Associated Press is projecting that Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is now United States Senator-Elect Scott Brown. Republican Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts Senate seat held for nearly a half-century by Democrat Edward Kennedy.
Brown’s victory in the special election gives Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to block legislation favored by majority Democrats and President Barack Obama.
The Texas College Republicans issued the following press release in reaction to the tragic shooting this afternoon at Fort Hood:
TEXAS COLLEGE REPUBLICANS
Office of Communications and Public Relations
Andres Bocanegra, Director of Communications
2626 Babcock Rd #2407
San Antonio, TX 78229
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Contact: Andres Bocanegra
TCR RALLIES TO SUPPORT TROOPS AND FAMILIES AT FT. HOOD
AUSTIN – With the current events that occurred today at the Ft. Hood Army Post
in Killeen, Texas, the Texas College Republicans express our grief for the deaths of our members of the Armed Services in the United States Army and its support personnel.
The events that transpired today at 1:30PM CST, it has been reported that a tragic shooting occurred at Fort Hood military base, with at least 12 people who died tragically at the hands of an armed assailant and wounded an additional 30. The Texas College Republicans are very saddened at the events that have transpired. We ask that our members and the public pray for all of our soldiers, their families, and the support personnel at Ft. Hood and across the world who are bravely serving our country in this time of struggle.
For those of you, who wish to help, can go to your local Red Cross or blood bank center to donate blood to assist in the medical needs of your communities and this tragedy at Ft. Hood. You can locate your local Red Cross location at
. And for those College Republican chapters that are in the area, we would ask that you volunteer your time to assist in the USO effort at Fort Hood.
TEXAS COLLEGE REPUBLICANS IS AN OFFICIAL AUXILIARY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS AND IS A RECOGNIZED STATE FEDERATION WITHIN THE COLLEGE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. THE CRNC IS THE NATION’S LARGEST AND OLDEST YOUTH POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA. TEXAS COLLEGE REPUBLICANS HAS MORE THAN THIRTY CHAPTERS AND NEARLY 2,000 MEMBERS IN OUR CHAPTERS ACROSS THE STATE.
Former Republican presidential candidate and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, according to the New York Times, is possibly debating a run for the New York Governor’s Office in 2010. Here is the article from the August 24th edition of the NYT:
ALBANY — Nineteen months after ending his disastrous run for the presidency, Rudolph W. Giuliani is clearing a path for a possible race for governor in 2010, believing public anger at an ineffectual Albany and unease over the economy could create ideal conditions for a Republican to reclaim the governor’s mansion.
Mr. Giuliani has told associates that he will decide on a candidacy within 30 to 60 days, as he weighs whether he can be elected statewide and what impact another campaign would have on his business interests.
He is already laying the groundwork. On Friday he traveled to Long Island to encourage the state Republican Party chairman, Joseph N. Mondello, to step aside, a maneuver that party insiders viewed as the former mayor’s most concrete step yet toward a run.
On Monday, Mr. Mondello announced his resignation, and Mr. Giuliani’s lieutenants were working the phones to drum up support for the replacement they prefer, the Niagara County Republican chairman, Henry F. Wojtaszek, a longtime supporter of Mr. Giuliani’s.
Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to sound out party leaders about a candidacy have also intensified. He has crisscrossed the state meeting with local officials; after a motivational speech to a paying audience in Buffalo last Tuesday, he met with local Republican leaders in a private meeting room to talk about the race. In recent weeks, he has also discussed his possible candidacy with Mayor Michael R. Bloombergand met in Washington with Representative Peter T. King, a Republican who has considered running himself but said he would not if Mr. Giuliani became a candidate.
A friend of mine posted this video on their facebook of a visit that Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy made to Trinity University in San Antonio. This visit was made during a campaign swing through Texas for then Sen. Barack Obama. This campaign stop was made just months before he was diagnosed with the malignant brain cancer. The Senator started off with a seranade of a mariachi song. I felt like this video would be good to post since now the Senator is no longer with us.
The video is not the complete speech he made at Trinity University that day. You can find those links on the channel where this video comes from. Just FYI.
This morning we learned of the sad news of the passing of Massachusetts Senator Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy. He died at the age of 77 after a lengthy battle with brain cancer. These thoughts this morning that I type are rushed, so forgive my grammatical errors along the way.
Regardless of the political differences that I and many conservatives may have had with the liberal Lion of the Senate, my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. Sen. Kennedy may have been someone that I found myself disagreeing with on a number of political issues, but he was a faithful public servant to the people of Massachusets, and a true American statesman. He fought for and championed causes that he felt were right and was able to find and strive for compromise when necessary. He worked with Republicans on numerous pieces of legislation that have ended up benefiting the American people. In a political climate where there is much disagreement and contention, Sen. Kennedy worked and strived to find a common ground. Despite anyones feelings, political or otherwise, towards Sen. Kennedy, today we should pay tribute to a man who was a dedicated public servant. Today is not the day for politics, or barrages and attacks over past indiscretions or personal mistakes.
May Senator Kennedy rest in peace, and may his family find the comfort and condolence of a higher power to cope with this loss. May God bless Sen. Kennedy and provide his family a respite from their grief.
>UPDATE: Read the Police Report from Cambridge Police Dept. (.pdf) – HERE
By now we have all heard of the foot in mouth moment for President Obama at his Wednesday Press Conference. While responding to a question at the end of the conference relating to the arrest of well known Harvard black scholar Henry Gates Jr. President Obama said that Cambrige Police “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, accused the men of essentially being racist, and impugned police officers everywhere. All this, as with much of what Obama has done in his 6 months in office, without all of the facts.
Gates was arrested July 16th by Sgt. James Crowley, who was the first officer to respond to the home which the renowned scholar rents from Harvard University, after a woman reported seeing two black men trying to force open the front door. Gates said he had to shove the door open because it was jammed.
He was charged with disorderly conduct after police said he (Gates) yelled at the white officer, accused him of racial bias, made insulting remarks about the officer’s mother, and refused to calm down after Crowley demanded Gates show him identification to prove he lived in the home. Gates responded firstly to these requests with “Why because I am a black man in America?” It was Gates who became beligerent and began throwing around charges of racism, when it appears racial profiling had nothing to do with this situation. There was a report of two black men breaking into the house. JUST FYI, Professor Gates is BLACK! He wasn’t profiled, he fit a citizen’s description of someone who was thought to be breaking into a home! The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling. But it was Gates who is responsible for reverse racial profiling. He assumed that a white police officer was only asking him these questions because he was black.
Obama was asked about Gates’ arrest at the end of a nationally televised news conference on health care Wednesday night and began his response by saying Gates was a friend and he didn’t have all the facts.
This is Obama’s response from the press conference on Wednesday (and I will respond individually to certain aspects in bold), “But I think it’s fair to say (a), No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry. No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly (b) in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home (c). And No. 3 — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.” (d)
- A – “It’s fair to say that any of us would be angry.” Obama thinks that anyone of us would be angry if a police officer was investigating a break-in and asked us for identification to show we lived at the house. All Prof. Gates had to say was, ‘this is my home, here’s my ID that shows that.’ If it were me I would perhaps feel it to be awkward but would give the Officer a chance to explain and not accuse him of racial profiling.
- B – Is it stupid to arrest a man who essentially verbally acosts a police officer? Is it stupid to ask someone if they live at a home when it is reported that people are breaking into it? Lest we forget that someone reported to police that two BLACK men were breaking into Gates’ home. When the officer responded he saw Gates, who is a BLACK man. So one of two thoughts, this is either the homeowner and there two people in the home that he doesn’t know about, or this is one of the men who is reported to have broken into the home! How is that stupid, Mr. President?
- C – There was no proof the Professor Gates was in his home. Why? Because he initially REFUSED to provide identifcation to the officer. He could have been arrested for failure to identify himself to the officer. When he later identified himself, he began a tirade against the officer following the officer out on to the porch and lodging accusations of racism, making disparaging comments about the officer’s mother, and using foul and abrasive language. Remember, Prof. Gates was not arrested for trespassing but rather for disorderly conduct. He was warned that his behavior was disorderly and he could be arrested, yet he continued his tirade toward the officer. Race had nothing to do with it… in fact there are photos (which I will post links to here when I find them as I saw them on television) that shows black officers present as Prof. Gates was being arrested!
- D – Yes there is a history of people being pulled over for DWB or DWM (driving while black or mexican), but to assume based on what you’ve heard that the police are automatically at fault is just as wrong. Again I point out that the report was that two black men broke into this home and Prof. Gates is black. The officer wasn’t trolling the neighborhood looking for a black man going into a home … if he was I would say he was wrong. Gates was arrested for verbally acostive behavior not for trespassing. He was arrested for his actions after the officer realized he was the occupant of the home not based on race. The President is wrong, not because he’s black, but because he is simply wrong.
This afternoon, the President stopped short of apologizing. He said that through his words, “I gave an impression” that the Sgt. or the Cambrige police were wrong. Well, refer yourself to his statement from Wednesday. The Presient plainly said, “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” You didn’t give an impression, you SAID THAT! All this based on what you heard, not what you knew. You could have read the police report Mr. President, but you didn’t.
The President also said that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. I myself am a minority, and I have never felt maligned or profiled against. However, what appears to be a continued antagonism by high profile black activists (i.e. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have led to a culture where some blacks automatically assume any questioning of them by police is “racial profiling.” Does it happen? Yes, that can not be denied. However, at times some are too quick to rush to that judgement. This can even be seen in the statement from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D), who said that what happened to Prof. Gates was, “every black man’s nightmare.” I would say to Gov. Patrick that any policeman’s nightmare is likely being publicly accused of “stupidly” acting racist wether it be by the public, or by your President and Governor.
Another interesting take is found here from a Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. It is a good read!
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa has announced that he will not run for the California Governor’s Office in 2010. The Mayor made the announcement in an interview with CNN this afternoon (Monday 06/22). The Mayor has been facing many challenges at LA City Hall, including massive red ink as the budget has been out of balance during his first term. This from KCAL 9/KCBS 2:
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is out of the running in next year’s race for California governor.
The Democratic mayor was considering jumping into the 2010 contest, but he says he’s bypassing the campaign because he wants to finish his job as mayor. He starts his second term July 1.
He says “I’ve go a lot of work to do.”
Villaraigosa announced his decision Monday on CNN.
The mayor has been struggling with a budget crisis at City Hall after an uneven first term that included the breakup of his marriage during his affair with a TV newscaster.
As the Mayor nears the begining of his second term, his approval ratings have been falling with the voters of Los Angeles. The most recent numbers show that the Mayor is less popular than the much often criticized and maligned Los Angeles Police Department. Perhaps the reason is that Mayor Villaraigosa hasn’t been able to get a handle of the LA City Budget, had an affair, and other issues. Just as an FYI, the LAPD has nearly 77% approval rating, while the Mayor has a nearly 55% approval rating (just above the 53.3% vote total he got in March).
Perhaps there will be tough times ahead in Los Angeles with Mayor Villaraigosa … but I think he realized that he had no shot if he couldn’t get the budget under control in LA. Voters want someone to run California that can get the budget mess under control and move California forward.
Protests still continue in Iran, after President Ahmedinejad being declared the winner over Mir-Hossien Mousavi in what has been percieved as a fraudulant presidential election. With the interest in these protests growing, it is important to look at what a President Mousavi would mean. This piece was in the Foriegn Policy blog by Ranj Alaaldin:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s official electoral victory in Iran continues to pit the baton against the green flag in a battle between state security forces and an army of Mir Hossein Mousavi supporters, armed with nothing but unity and a limited degree of strength in their numbers.
Amid the protests, the international community, most notably the United States, Britain, and the European Union, is either — depending on your viewpoint — taking a cautious stance or dithering over what to do. The dilemma for Western officials is this: Do they build on the democratic movement unfolding in Iran and assist with the uprising or a coup d’état, or do they bide their time, take a step back, and reconcile themselves to an Ahmadinejad-led Iran?
Serious events are unfolding in Tehran that make it tempting for foreign forces to capitalize on the moment and try to promote change, without necessarily resorting to armed conflict — simply take out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name, put in Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and you have 1978 Iran with the same fear, despair, and furious protests against dictatorship and tyranny.
What makes this discontent dangerous for the Islamic regime is that the widespread unrest, the biggest since 1979, is led not by some opposition group in exile or as part of some foreign-sponsored “color revolution,” but by domestic forces operating under the leadership of former post-Iranian Revolution Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has the backing of fellow presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, a collection of senior Islamic clerics, and powerful former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The regime’s reaction in the form of mass censorship, widespread arrests, and unleashing of security forces upon the population in a ruthless and systematic manner shows a government struck down with fear and worry, giving the lie to the calm and collected posture of Ahmadinejad in his numerous post-election appearances. For the first time, the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic is being questioned not just abroad, but also at home.
So why is the international community yet to seize on this opportunity? One reason could be that Western leaders think that any so-called “green revolution” would make no difference in the foreign-policy challenges that Iran, in its current shape and form, presents them, and as a result are reluctant to back a losing horse.
There’s something to this argument. Even with Mousavi in power, Iran’s foreign policy would likely be no different than it has been under Ahmadinejad. A 20-year absence from the public eye, coupled with dazzling words of change that skillfully capitalize on the “Obama effect” gripping the world, does wonders to beguile a young generation of supporters who never knew or have forgotten the radicalism and bloodshed that marked Mousavi’s tenure as prime minister from 1981 to 1989 (the Iranian Revolution’s most significant years).
Indeed, anyone believing Mousavi would be the one to unclench the Iranian fist for a hand-in-hand partnership of peace with the United States is guilty of wishful thinking. It was Mousavi, after all, who was at the center of the Iran hostage crisis and remains complicit in an operation he commended as “the beginning of the second stage of our revolution.” And it was Mousavi who was the protégé of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (chief architect of the Iranian Revolution and founder of theocratic Iran), a former member of Hezbollah’s leadership council, sworn enemy of Israel, and a prime minister under whose watch thousands of political prisoners were massacred in 1988. And finally, it was Mousavi who initiated Iran’s nuclear program in the 1980s and likely would be intent on carrying through Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the foremost issue central to any improvement in relations with the West.
All of this discussion assumes that it is even worth debating whether Mousavi would bring change to Iranian foreign policy when he would have no authority to do so in the first place. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the final say on matters of foreign policy, not the president. Given Khamenei’s clear approval of what he called a “glittering” Ahmadinejad victory, and because it is the theocracy that verifies the count in the absence of any outside monitors — meaning that any election rigging was done with the supreme leader’s backing — it is he who will need convincing if Iran is to divert from a path of nuclear capability, hostility toward the United States, and support for terrorism.
Still, these assumptions — widely held in the international community — are now open to question. Although a Mousavi presidency itself would probably not deliver a sensational change in Iranian foreign policy, the movement he has spawned might. The tenacious middle-class, educated, and youthful Mousavi supporters who have cried foul and rallied and bled in the streets could bring a new order to Tehran by forcing the country’s supreme leader to take into account public opinion that demands engagement with the West.
More likely, however, the unelected mullahs who rule Iran behind the scenes will be concerned about a galvanized army of reformists who have undermined its authority in recent weeks by, for example, entering the squares and openly mixing and dancing in groups of males and females in direct contravention of clerical law. The leadership might therefore double down on its hard-line foreign and domestic policies, starting with a ruthless endeavor to keep Ahmadinejad in power through any means necessary, so long as the end remains a theocratic Iran.
Whoever wins this violent showdown, there is one clear loser — the Islamic Republic, whose internal legitimacy has forever been shattered. Should Mousavi go down fighting, that’s one victory that can never be taken away from his brave supporters.
I think this is the overall arc of story for this event. It isn’t necessarily that Mousavi would be better for American foriegn policy than Ahmedinejad (even though he might be incrementally better), its that we in America feel a connection to the struggle the protesters have now. The outcome of the election is not necessarily the most important, what is important is the impression that the government has actually counted the ballots and made an attempt to make this a fair, free, open, and honest election. They didn’t do that in this case, and if you are going to have these elections, you should count the votes. If you were simply going to have Ahmedinejad win from the outset, then why have the campaign, let the people get invested, and risk this reaction? There is now a permanent crack in the institutions of the government, and even if the fall of the theocracy doesn’t happen now, it will. The youth who are protesting, will teach this lesson to their children, and grandchildren, and we could see another revolution in Iran sooner than we could possibly assume.
TEXAS COLLEGE REPUBLICANS
Office of Communications and Public Relations
Andres Bocanegra, Director of Communications
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 8, 2009
Contact: Andres Bocanegra
STATE OFFICIERS RESIGN, REPLACEMENTS NAMED
AUSTIN – The Texas College Republicans has the duty to announce the resignation of two of the organization’s state officers. Both Ryan Pitts (SMU) and Lance Kennedy (Texas) have announced their resignations from the organization.
In an e-mail to executive board members Ryan Pitts said, “With much gratitude and humility I would like to announce my resignation as State Treasurer. This was by no means an easy decision for me but after much thought and consideration I have decided this is the best course of action personally and for Texas College Republicans. I will be attending law school in the fall and do not feel confident I will be able devote all of the time needed to properly address the needs of treasurer.” Pitts will be attending the Texas School of Law in Austin in the fall. The executive board then approved Ryan Ellis (Texas-Austin) as Pitts’ replacement as State Treasurer.
Lance Kennedy (Texas-Austin) has also announced his resignation as State Chairman of the Texas College Republicans. Kennedy is resigning because he has been accepted, and will be attending Notre Dame Law School in the fall. Upon his resignation, Vice Chairwoman Nickole Heater (Texas-El Paso) assumed the position of Chairwoman.
In an email statement Heater said, “Not only do I want to congratulate Lance, I also want to take the time to thank him for all that he is done for the State Organization. He will be missed. … As Chairwoman, I am going to continue what Lance has started. I feel that it isn’t neccessary to wipe clean the great things that have been accomplished here in such little time. I want to continue to increase membership as Chair, because we will be working in a primary season, and I think it is important that we turn College Republicans into volunteers during elections.”
Geoffrey Geiger (Texas-Austin) has been appointed and approved by the State Board to replace Heater as State Vice Chairman. Geiger was recently re-elected by the chapters in his region to serve as Regional Vice Chair for the Central Texas Region. Central Texas includes schools such as University of Texas-Austin, Baylor, St. Edward’s, Texas State, Southwestern University, and others. Chapters in the Central Texas region will conduct a vote for a new Regional Vice Chair, which will take place on or before the first statewide meeting in November.
Texas College Republicans wishes the best to both Lance and Ryan as they move forward with their academic careers. The organization thanks both of them for their service to the organization and congratulates them on all of their achievements.