Obama Vs. Conservatives: Sports Edition!


Courtesy of LouderWithCrowder.com 

It’s the opening week of baseball season… the last week of March Madness (in April)… and most real sports fans are just waiting for hockey and football seasons to resume. We kid, we kid! We love ALL sports, equally. Kind of.

In honor of this most momentous week in 2015 sports culture, we give you the President, a self-proclaimed athlete, vs. conservatives who are actually athletic. Enjoy!

BASEBALL – Throwing like a girl is what we’d call it, if the incident in the video below wasn’t a complete insult to all females, everywhere.

Compare President Obama’s wild pitching motion to the signature perfect strike of former President George W. Bush:


BASKETBALL – nothin’ but bricks for the President’s favorite sport! Ouch.

But you know, Sarah Palin was a real high school basketball star.  Talk about shootin’ like a girl!


GOLF – 200 plus rounds. Really slow rounds. Like 5 and 6 hours slow. That’s what happens when you’re a 20+ handicap, I suppose…

Compare that to President George H.W. Bush – who’s in the World Golf Hall of Fame. He was given the PGA of America Distinguished Service Award in 1997 and the USGA’s 2008 Bob Jones Award and the PGA TOUR Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009. Not only could the man golf; he made huge contributions to the sport itself!


BOWLING – we didn’t even know it was possible to bowl a 37 until Barack Obama became President and promptly showed us how it’s done! Just. So. AWKWARD.

President Nixon may be best remembered for Watergate, but he was also an avid sports fan. President and Mrs. Nixon both enjoyed bowling, and in 1969 had a one-lane alley built beneath the North Portico of the White House using private funds. His high score? A pretty impressive 232.

President Nixon bowling at the White House Bowling Alley.  3/10/70.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The White House Bowling Alley first opened in 1947 while Harry S. Truman was in office.  In 1955, it was moved across the street to the Old Executive Building. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Richard and Pat Nixon both enjoyed bowling, and so in 1969 they had a one-lane alley built beneath the North Portico using private funds. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> -More photos from the Nixon Centennial at the Nixon Library


FOOTBALL – Barack Obama said he’d never let his son play football. Considering how he himself “plays” football (and most other sports), that’s probably best.

Did you know Ronald Reagan attended Eureka College in Illinois on an athletic scholarship? He played football, ran track, captained the swim team, AND served as student council president. Now there’s a man’s man for you.


BIKING – the Presidential picture that’s worth a thousand words. Seriously.

President George W. Bush does some biking of his own. Real biking. With wounded warriors. Across deserts. And mountains. It’s a 100K. AWESOME.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Democrats Want Reagan National Airport Name Change

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

A poll commissioned by the Washington Post found that the vast majority of Democrats and nearly half of all respondents prefer the name Washington National Airport to its current name, Ronald Reagan National Airport. The airport was called Washington National Airport from 1941, when it opened, until the name was changed to Ronald Reagan National Airport in 1998 to honor the nation’s 40th president.

The poll asked over 42,000 people by what name they referred to the airport, which sits across the Potomac River from the Washington Mall. Forty-one percent referred to the airport as National, 31 percent as Reagan, 13 percent as DCA, and 12 percent as Reagan National. So, a slim majority, 43 percent, include Reagan’s name in the title.

A couple factors help explain the differences in what people call the airport, but political affiliation and age were the most determinant. The poll skews Democrat with 62 as being from that party, 18 percent Independent, 12 percent Republican, and 8 percent other. That Reagan did as well as he did, given that breakdown, is impressive. Additionally, the name was changed less than a generation ago (17 years); so for many, they are simply in the habit of calling it National.

Overall, 50 percent of Democrats in the poll call the airport National, while 35 percent call it either Reagan or Reagan National. With Republicans, the numbers more than flip, with 72 percent calling it either of the two Reagan variants (see chart below).

The numbers and time are working against those who may wish to revert the airport back to its former name. The majority of the millennial generation, 56 percent, know and refer to the airport as Reagan or Reagan National, while only 27 percent call the airport National.

Washington Post/Express Poll

Washington Post/Express Poll


The Post notes that:

Reagan’s firing of 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981 may also be why neither pilots nor air traffic controllers seem to use the airport’s proper name. When talking to pilots, air traffic controllers say DCA or National, says Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown, who didn’t speculate as to why that is. Pilots tend to say “Washington Tower” or “National Tower.” (You can listen in at liveatc.net.)

The Republicans, who held a majority in the House and Senate, passed the bill creating the name change in 1998, which President Bill Clinton signed into law despite fairly strong Democrat opposition on Capitol Hill.

The Post asked Clinton’s former White House press secretary, Mike McCurry, why the president did not veto the bill; and he answered: “My memory is that in February 1998, we were rather occupied at the White House with a young lady named Monica. I have faint memories of this being a big deal on Capitol Hill, but I think we pretty much stayed out of it.”

A Gallup survey found that Reagan left office as one of the most popular presidents in modern history, with a 63 percent approval rating in December of 1988. He won his first term as president with the help of 44 of the 50 states, and won re-election with 49 states. His actions as president are credited with helping to win the Cold War and reviving an ailing United States economy; unemployment dropped from 10 to 5 percent.

h/t: The Federalist Papers Project

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Republicans Versus Republicans

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

When Ted Cruz officially stepped into the 2016 presidential ring last week, the boo-birds attacked immediately.

But it wasn’t just the liberals of the mainstream media who threw bottles and chairs at the conservative Texan.

It was Cruz’s fellow Republicans.

Is he qualified after only three years in the Senate? Where was he born again? Isn’t he too aggressively Christian?

Isn’t he too conservative to win the general election? Shouldn’t we nominate someone more moderate, someone who isn’t hated by the MSM and wouldn’t scare independents?

Unfortunately, we’re already heard lots of negative chatter — from Republicans — about the political weaknesses and ideological imperfections of candidates like Cruz, Bush, and Christie. There will be more.

It’s a shame. Thanks to Obama and his failures at home and abroad, Republicans are in a great position to retake the presidency next year.

Almost anyone who’s thinking of running in 2016 — Walker, Bush, Paul, Rubio, Christie, Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum, Kasich, Carson, Fiorina, Pataki, Bolton, even Donald Trump — has a decent chance of winning the keys to the White House.

But America’s most consistently conservative institution, talk radio, has already started stirring up trouble among Republicans the way it did in 2008 and 2012.

Talk radio is already taking sides and trying to tell conservatives which potential nominee is most worthy to wear the mantle of Ronald Reagan.

When my father ran in the 1980 primaries, he was lucky. He was a lone conservative in a sea of moderate and liberal Republicans. The moderates split the moderate vote, and he won the nomination.

Today, the situation is reversed. Conservatives are splitting the conservative vote in the primaries, and moderates like McCain and Romney are winning the GOP nomination.

Conservatives better watch out. If what happened in ’08 and ’12 happens in ’16, we are going to blow our chance to regain the White House once again.

We need to decide early who we want to lead the GOP ticket in 2016. Unfortunately, we probably won’t do that because we all have our favorite contenders.

When I tweeted that Cruz said something I agreed with in his speech, I got a flurry of tweets from Rand Paul people.

“Why do you hate Rand Paul?”

When I tweeted something nice about Rand Paul, I got a flurry of tweets from Cruz’s people. “Why do you hate Ted Cruz?”

This is one of the worst problems with conservatives. Liberals are led by ideology, and they’ll always support their nominee in the general election because of that.

Conservatives are always looking for their next leader — their next Ronald Reagan. But conservative nominees are all over the ideological map, and each one has too many spiteful followers.

If Rand Paul gets the GOP nomination, the Cruz people will stay home in November. If Cruz gets it, the Paul people will stay home. Ditto for the followers of Huckabee and others.

Barack Obama is president of the USA today because too many conservative Republicans didn’t show up to vote for Romney in 2012, not because too many Democrats voted to reelect Obama.

The GOP should nominate a strong conservative for 2016. I prefer ex-governors; but Cruz, Paul, Walker, Perry, Rubio, and Kasich all come to mind as good candidates.

It’ll take a miracle for Republicans to get their act together this time.

They should follow “The Buckley Rule” and choose the best conservative who has the best chance of winning the general election. In other words, not a Goldwater of 1964 but a Reagan of 1980.

But no matter who Republicans nominate, to win back the White House, they’ll all have to follow my father’s 11th Commandment and fully support their party’s presidential nominee — no matter who it is.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Media Missiles Launched At Cruz Misfire

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com  Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

Former Senator Rick Santorum tells a story about his 2012 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. A group of deep-pocket donors called the Republican candidates to New York to be vetted. Santorum found it odd that all of the questions on social issues were directed at him.

Finally, he said to the donors: “Why are you only asking me about abortion and marriage? My opponents all have the same positions,” to which one responded: “Yes, but you mean it.”

That’s what scares the left and its media myrmidons the most about Ted Cruz – that he’s not Romney ’08, who dressed in conservative drag to seduce the party base. With the Texan, what you see is what you get.

The media response to Cruz’s first-out-of-the gate announcement was painfully predictable.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, and other citadels of advocacy journalism told us (while trying, not very hard, to maintain a veneer of objectivity) that this wing-nut Senator from Texas is “seen as a divisive figure in Washington” – plus “his colleagues don’t like him,” he “has denied prevailing science (theory) on climate change,” and has “defied and battled his party’s establishment.”

They quoted RINO Rep. Peter King that Cruz “brought the country to the edge of ruin” by trying to actually do something about Obamacare, and claimed his time in Washington “has been marked by accusations of demagogy.” (Words like “demagogy,” “intransigent,” and “hardliner” are reserved for a certain type of Republican.) Cruz is “The Most Hated Man In The Senate” (read the headline of a story in Foreign Policy); has “done nothing to endear himself to party elites”; and has either an exceedingly slim, razor-thin, anorexic, or absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Rarely was it told that Cruz is a Harvard-educated lawyer (Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that in decades of teaching, Cruz was one of his brightest students) who clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and, as the state’s solicitor general, represented Texas in cases before the Supreme Court.

Some actually had the nerve to argue that Cruz is a neophyte who’s served less than two years in the Senate and has no executive experience; and there are those nagging questions about where he was born – concerns that never bothered them in 2008. The Times noted that of the 112 bills the Texan sponsored, only one became law – but forgot to mention that Democrats controlled the Senate for all but 10 weeks of Cruz’s tenure.

That the GOP elite despise him may be Cruz’s crowning glory.

The Wall Street wing of the party (a stunted appendage) led us to defeat in four of the last six presidential elections. They prefer overripe veterans like Bob Dole and John McCain, who (like the pigs and the men at the end of “Animal Farm”) are virtually indistinguishable from the other party – or beautiful losers like Pretty Boy Mitt who thought he was running a campaign for president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce instead of president of the United States.

Cruz is a throwback to another presidential contender – one who was also “too extreme,” alienated the Republican establishment, was too flamboyant (appeared in Technicolor in a monochrome field), and, the pundits assured us, had absolutely no chance of becoming president.

Much has been made of Cruz’s choice of a venue to launch his presidential campaign – Liberty University (founded by “televangelist” Jerry Falwell, the media elite sneered) – and his faith-based message. “God’s blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn’t done with America yet.”

Cruz told the students of this Christian university: “I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America.”

On August 21, 1980, Ronald Reagan addressed 15,000 conservative Christians in Dallas. As church leaders, “I know you can’t endorse me,” Reagan famously told them. “But I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing.” Among them was Jerry Falwell.

Reagan said the Bible held the answers to all of America’s problems of the day and that if we would only return to that “old-time religion,” we could realize the dream of a shining “city on a hill.”

Ronald Reagan was unique; there will never be another like him. But like Reagan, Cruz understands the power of an army of passionate idealists – people who aren’t moved by marginal tax rates or the profit margin of the Fortune 500, but by family, faith, and freedom.

The Karl Roves and Ed Rollinses can’t begin to fathom the appeal of Cruz’s vision for the party’s conservative core: Stand with our loyal ally Israel. In order to fight Islamic terrorism, we first must acknowledge its nature. There’s no security without securing the borders. And “It is a time for truth, it is a time for liberty, it is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States.” It’s been 35 years since we’ve heard talk like this.

Maybe the legion of consultants and pollsters are right. Maybe Cruz can’t raise enough money fast enough to overcome the Bush printing press. But I’d rather lose on principle than win on expediency. That’s the only way to save America in the long-run.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.


The following story can be found on the GrassTopsUSA website at http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df032515.html

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Five Elections That Mattered For Conservatism

American Spirit / Shutterstock.com  American Spirit / Shutterstock.com

In 1970, a young conservative who once played professional football and served as an aid to California governor Ronald Reagan was elected in an upstate New York congressional district. He was a different kind of Republican from New York. Neither the heir to inherited wealth nor a seat on Wall Street, Jack Kemp, a football great for the Buffalo Bills, represented the hopes and aspirations of blue-collar, middle-class, hard-working Buffalo area constituents. He was also an idea man with cheerful energy and a winning personality. In today’s Washington of government shutdowns and funding disputes, a lot could be learned from Jack Kemp.

Kemp pushed ideas to the limit. He made these ideas understandable not only to average Americans but to opinion leaders as well. His advocacy for marginal tax rate reduction, urban enterprise zones, and empowering Main Street were to become the Republican agenda. His election in 1970 was consequential as the ideas he advocated became the cornerstone of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign.

But, Reagan may never had led such a campaign had it not been for the 1976 North Carolina Republican primary. In 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford. The early primaries and caucuses did not go well for Reagan. There were calls for him to withdraw from the race, and money was drying up. However, Reagan stunned the establishment by winning the North Carolina Republican primary. His decisive victory in North Carolina saved his campaign, and he came within a few delegates of defeating an incumbent president for the nomination. Reagan’s victory in North Carolina ensured his place on the podium at the 1976 Republican Convention, and assured his place as the conservative leader in the Republican Party after Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s victory in the North Carolina primary fortified his leadership of the conservative movement and allowed him to lead conservative causes during Carter’s presidency, including opposition to the Panama Canal treaties.

In 1989, a congressman from the back benches decided to challenge Edward Madigan for Minority Whip of the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. The improbable campaign of Newt Gingrich stunned Washington and excited conservatives across the country. Gingrich was an idea man, and was very interested in directly challenging the Democrats and liberals who controlled Capitol Hill. Unlike the more genteel Republican leadership, Gingrich sought to advocate conservative ideas through the use of the levers of the House and emerging media alternatives such as C-Span. His slim victory in the Republican caucus was consequential. He became the face and the strategist for the wave that eventually led to the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 and assured his election as the first Republican Speaker of the House since the 1950s. His leadership helped in part to reverse George H.W. Bush’s loss in 1992.

In 2010, a medical doctor from Bowling Green, Kentucky, began a campaign for the Republican nomination for the Senate. He was not the favored candidate of either the state Republican establishment or the national Republican establishment. However, Rand Paul won the Republican primary and was elected to the Senate in the Republican wave of 2010. Though the full consequences of his election are yet to be seen, his election to the Senate marked an important victory for the libertarian wing of the Republican Party where ideas of privacy, criminal justice reform, a restrained foreign policy, and personal liberty appeal to constituents not normally part of the Republican electorate. His ideas may play a major role in the 2016 presidential election.

In 2012, despite a very bad year for Republicans and conservatives, a young governor of Wisconsin beat back a recall election. Scott Walker became the first governor to survive a recall election in the nation’s history; and by 2014, he had won three statewide elections in Wisconsin. His efforts to curb the power of public employee unions, and the resolute stand he took in advocating his conservative positions, makes him a consequential leader of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Each of these elections have contributed to the conservative movement. Jack Kemp’s joyful advocacy of marginal tax rate reduction and economic liberty helped frame the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful race for president in 1976 assured his leadership of the conservative movement and set the stage for his victory in 1980, Newt Gingrich’s challenge to a genteel House Republican leadership set the stage for 1994, and today the emergence of Rand Paul and Scott Walker may very well define conservatism for a generation to come.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom