fwdaj 051012 pt1

fwdaj 051210 pt2

We start with dogs (don’t ask) on to Romney’s excellent week, Lizzie Warren, Eric Holder and the usual suspects.

The first thing to note is due to redistricting, the landscape has changed significantly. In the past, the middle of the district was Sturbridge, in Central MA. Due to redistricting, the middle of the district is now 35 miles to the west in Westfield. Central MA is generally the most conservative part of the state.

The Ron Paul people were well organized, handing out a flyer that called the Paul delegates “The Ronald Reagan ticket”. I’m not sure I ever quite figured out the connection. All three delegates noted they are “social conservatives” with 2 specifically mentioning their pro-life credentials, which also seemed rather anti-libertarian.

Over at The Daily Caller Steven Nelson quotes Policymic as follows:

“An older woman specifically called out the Ron Paul supporters, accusing them of undermining the democratic process[.]”

I am not that “older woman”, but I was with her. Her complaint was that none of the candidates announced they supported Ron Paul, or that they would support Mitt Romney when giving their campaign speech before the vote.

Still there is no doubt the Paulians got out their voters and they came through for him.

In 2000, I was still learning about my newly adopted party when that conversation that clarified a lot of things. It boiled down to a difference between how liberals and conservatives see human nature. My liberal friend believed that man is imperfect and the way to correct that imperfection was by government force. He believed that no one, on their own, would do “the right thing” so government was needed to change human nature by imposing laws that forced people to do the right thing. According to him, the will of the people was pretty much a joke given how flawed we all are. He was comfortable ceding his will to elected officials. That is pretty much the antithesis of my belief that government’s job is to reflect the will of the people, and should always take a second place to freedom and individuality.

Last weekend I interviewed National Review’s Kevin Williamson about his article on Elizabeth Warren, the democrat running for Senator in Massachusetts. He’d just spent a few days on the campaign trail following her, which along with her books and past actions gave him some insight into her beliefs.

In comparing Scott Brown with Warren, Williamson noted that Warren clearly believes lawyers are best equipped to determine what is best for us. Furthermore it was clear to Williamson, that Warren believes she is one of the few who have the necessary qualifications to make those decisions for us – a one hundredth of a 1 percenter, if you will. In contrast, Brown, (also a lawyer) trumpets the notion that any of us can make it if we are willing to work hard enough, and understands his job is do ‘the people’s business”.

The choice we are facing this year could not be clearer. The Massachusetts senate race this year boils down to whether we want to be ruled or represented. It may be our last chance.

Thanks to Kevin and Peter. It was great fun!

We have found many willing partners in our efforts, and this weekend we begin to plant the trees. Please come and join us. We are meeting beginning at 8:00 AM in Southbridge at KDC – Kennedy Donovan center – the yellow building across from the Knights of Columbus, 486 Worcester Street Southbridge, MA 01550.

See you there!

Click on the WCRN link to listen live!

Gee, why wasn’t I invited?

In 1976 after graduating from college, I sought my first professional job. I’d been working since first grade when I gave out milk and cookies so I could get mine for free. I grew up in an all woman household where my mother held 3 jobs and my sister and I always worked. We had to. So by the time I applied to be a claims adjuster I knew all about working, and was quite good at it.

In 1976 the woman’s movement was just getting started. Liberty Mutual had been told that they could no longer hire only male claims adjusters, so getting the job was a synch. And I stayed there for 2 years until I got a risk management job at an up and coming high tech company that, until me, had an all male risk management department. Once again, it certainly was to my benefit to be a woman.

In the mid-eighties I decided to go to law school. Lucky me, I am both a woman and was older than the average candidate. Two legs up, no heavy lifting, law school here I come.

My attitude about all these chits for being female was always the same. I didn’t need any special rules. Male dominated companies would be stupid to not hire women. After all, half of the consumers in the country are women, and one fails to get their input at their own peril. Liberal elected officials felt differently, so the chits continued. Forget merit, the only issue is whether you pee sitting down.

My first job out of law school was hopefully a result of merit and experience, altho being a woman didn’t hurt. Two years later I started my own lawfirm, which put me out of the reward- for-gender market. Never once did I consider gender when hiring anyone. But I did notice early on that many women in the courtroom seemed to think the deference to them should continue regardless of the case they presented. I only appeared in front of one judge who seemed to not like women. Interestingly he was a black judge.

Mr. President, For as long as I can remember women have had a leg up. And I’m no spring chicken. I will retire this decade (hopefully) after a life time of supporting myself. I had more jobs before I graduated high school than you have had in your entire life. Working hard is what makes you equal in this world, not free birth control. If anything, you should be having a seminar for white men, who are the only people who have never been treated as “extra special” with free stuff.

Assuming I’m wrong and Zimmerman was a cold blooded murderer, how exactly are you going to prove that? Where are the facts? From what I can tell, there are none.

And my sinister side thinks all the attention was just another plant by the Obama administration to defer from gas prices, promises to Russia that in the next term the President will be “flexible”, and the White house cover-up of Fast & Furious.

We’ve now had Fluke and Martin. Any bets on the next diversion?

As in all things democrat, “equal” doesn’t mean “equal”. It means special, and unequal. It means white men will pay – unequally. It also means the democrats think women are helpless and unable to make it on their own.

After all, if women are actually equal, shouldn’t we have to pay for our own birth control.