Yes, you are reading the headline correctly. The Republican presidential candidate in 2008 can and should fight for the wacko Golden State of California. Oh, not necessarily to win outright but to force the Democrat candidate to spend time and money and away from trying to take a Republican state like, maybe, Ohio or Florida and holding all their blue states.
Now, the statistics are daunting for the Republicans to try to make the race interesting here in the Golden State. The Democrats have won the last four presidential elections here, starting with former president William Jefferson Blythe Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry. The Golden State is nothing but a cash cow for both parties. Other than fund raisers, neither party candidates spend time here.
But, there are two things that can change the dynamic and if neither comes to pass, it still is time for the Republicans to make a serious challenge here in California.
For one, the presidential primary will be on February 5, 2008. It was moved up from June to have some impact on who the parties nominate for president. On the same date will be a ballot initiative that will change the way the electoral college votes here are distributed.
In the past the winner of the state took all 55 electoral votes. If the initiative passes, it will make a two-tier distribution. Two votes are automatic to the winner of the most votes in the state. But, the other 53 will go by the winner of the congressional district. Thus, the Republicans would possibly win 22 or as many as 25 electoral votes. That would offset a possible loss of Ohio or Florida. It would make both parties have to spend time here. The Democrats hate it, the Republicans are, correctly, looking at a real way to make California relevant in the election itself. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska have a similar system and it has worked fine.
Even if the initiative does not win, there are demographic reasons why the Republicans need to make a serious effort.
The Democrats strength is in two areas of the state. The nine Bay Area counties, led by Alameda (Oakland) and San Francisco, and Los Angeles county. California is like two totally different states. Most of the coastal counties are Democrat or Democrat leaning. Sure, there are some Republican pockets like San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Mecca to the GOP, Orange and San Diego counties, but it is mostly liberal and Democrat country.
On the other hand, the Republican strength is like a spine down the middle of the state. From Northern California to the Mexican border is the Republican stronghold. These are growing counties with wide suburban and exburban area, ripe for the Republican picking. And here the other way are some Democrat pockets like Sacramento in the north and much smaller Imperial county in the south, but by and large, the fastest growing area in this state is in the Republican spine.
How do these Republican voters get excited if the election is already in the bag for the other side?
The conventional wisdom is there are six to maybe eight states in play for either side. The Democrats would love Colorado, Virginia or maybe Florida or Ohio. The Republicans would love Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
My thought, the switches will be less than those states. Maybe New Mexico goes back to the Democrats and New Hampshire to the Republicans. Look at Nevada as a possible swing state.
Ohio is a swing state, but will lean to the Republicans. Forget the Dems taking Florida. It is still a reliable Republican state. Virginia will stay Republican, as well as Colorado, but marginally.
Minnesota is a swing state despite the huge gains made in 2006 by the Democrats. Michigan will go GOP if Romney is the nominee. Wisconsin will be a huge catch for the Republicans, if they can keep the votes relatively honest in Milwaukee.
So, both parties may have to think out of the box. The Republicans can do worse than looking at California to build strength if not in 2008, maybe 2012. Forget New York. If Sen. Hilary Clinton is the nominee, she could take 70% of the vote without a blink. Pennsylvania is a lock for the Dems.
I think that the Republicans are going to have to go for broke this presidential election and making a play for California is one way to do it. Anything to drain the Democrat bank account and candidate time is worth it.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Young People Are Not Enamored By Christianity?
An article in USA Today http://USAtoday.com that was published on Thursday paints a very uphill battle for the Christian faith among young people in the United States.
The article sites a book based on research by The Barna Group, an evangelical organization that analyzes religious trends, that says people in the always popular 18-29 age group are turned off by their perception of Christianity and the most highlighted negatives are the "judgementalism" and "anti-gay" attitudes of Christians.
The writer of the article, Adelle M. Banks of the Religion News Service really went after the modernists bogeymen, "judgementalism" and "anti-gay"
According to Miss Banks, the author of "UnChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity", David Kinnaman says the following:
"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the. . .defining response of the Christian church in the next decade. The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."
Hmm, what a loaded bunch of rhetoric considering that this is all based of a sample of 867 young people, 440 non-Christians and 305 active churchgoers.
According to the findings, 91% of non-Christians said that Christianity has an anti-homosexual image, 87% said too "judgemental" and 85% that it is hypocritical.
Now that I have presented the basis of the article, here are some observations.
It is not a good thing to use a mere 867 people and claim that is the prevailing view among young people about Christianity. The article implies that it is irreproachable to mend these young people's perception and understanding of the Christian message.
The fact that three points of note, views on homosexuality, "judgementalism" and hypocrisy, show the biases of both the book author, Mr. Kinnaman and the article's writer, Miss Banks.
How about the fact that when there is trouble, there are the multitude of Christian agencies from multiple denominations that are usually first on the scene to offer assistance? The Salvation Army was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina faster than the Louisiana National Guard.
It was Christian relief agencies that swarmed all over Asia in the wake of the Christmas earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia.
Also, what about the fact that it is Christians that run almost all of the rescue missions in most of the United States major cities? Take care of the homeless?
I will be the first to write that there is a lot of carnage in the dispute between Christians about homosexuality and there are flamethrowers on both sides who site the Holy Bible to prop up their view concerning homosexuality. But, if there are such disputes, why are these young people unaware that there are many Christians that are very sympathetic with homosexuals and are very welcoming to those who are gay or lesbian?
Also, I will agree that we who are Christian do often tell others what we are against and not what we are for.
Where I find all of this information faulting is the fact that there is an absolute hunger among this young group for something other than what this secular world offers. And that is where the church in general fails to go after the most vulnerable group in positive ways.
The reason that God gave the gift of Jesus Christ was to save people from their own ways and to show the ways of an almighty God.
The message of Jesus Christ is that the world can be better if people turn to God.
If there was not a hunger for faith, spirituality or whatever one wants to call it, then someone like Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California would not have one of the largest selling books of all time, "The Purpose Driven Life" which is a clear, positive message about Jesus Christ.
Pastor Warren was cited in the article and said something profound:
"The church will become know more by what it is for than what it is against."
AMEN, BROTHER!
Poor Pastor Warren ran into trouble when he hosted a conference on AIDS in Africa at his church earlier this year and invited two United States senators, Sam Brownback (R-Kans) and Barack Obama (D-Ill) because of inviting Sen. Obama because he is pro-abortion. Now, if we are going to change anyone, especially another professing Christian as is Sen. Obama, on an faith issue, we do not close the door. Clearly a case of what some Christians are against more than what they are for.
Sadly, politics has been a reason that there is such hostility between Christians and non-Christians and even among Christians. I for one believe in using the terms traditional and modernist rather than the political labels conservative and liberal in discussing affairs of church and faith. That maybe a little start.
I think that if nothing else, the article and book gives those of us who are Christians a way to take the negatives and make them positives. After all, that is what Jesus Christ did.
The article sites a book based on research by The Barna Group, an evangelical organization that analyzes religious trends, that says people in the always popular 18-29 age group are turned off by their perception of Christianity and the most highlighted negatives are the "judgementalism" and "anti-gay" attitudes of Christians.
The writer of the article, Adelle M. Banks of the Religion News Service really went after the modernists bogeymen, "judgementalism" and "anti-gay"
According to Miss Banks, the author of "UnChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity", David Kinnaman says the following:
"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the. . .defining response of the Christian church in the next decade. The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."
Hmm, what a loaded bunch of rhetoric considering that this is all based of a sample of 867 young people, 440 non-Christians and 305 active churchgoers.
According to the findings, 91% of non-Christians said that Christianity has an anti-homosexual image, 87% said too "judgemental" and 85% that it is hypocritical.
Now that I have presented the basis of the article, here are some observations.
It is not a good thing to use a mere 867 people and claim that is the prevailing view among young people about Christianity. The article implies that it is irreproachable to mend these young people's perception and understanding of the Christian message.
The fact that three points of note, views on homosexuality, "judgementalism" and hypocrisy, show the biases of both the book author, Mr. Kinnaman and the article's writer, Miss Banks.
How about the fact that when there is trouble, there are the multitude of Christian agencies from multiple denominations that are usually first on the scene to offer assistance? The Salvation Army was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina faster than the Louisiana National Guard.
It was Christian relief agencies that swarmed all over Asia in the wake of the Christmas earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia.
Also, what about the fact that it is Christians that run almost all of the rescue missions in most of the United States major cities? Take care of the homeless?
I will be the first to write that there is a lot of carnage in the dispute between Christians about homosexuality and there are flamethrowers on both sides who site the Holy Bible to prop up their view concerning homosexuality. But, if there are such disputes, why are these young people unaware that there are many Christians that are very sympathetic with homosexuals and are very welcoming to those who are gay or lesbian?
Also, I will agree that we who are Christian do often tell others what we are against and not what we are for.
Where I find all of this information faulting is the fact that there is an absolute hunger among this young group for something other than what this secular world offers. And that is where the church in general fails to go after the most vulnerable group in positive ways.
The reason that God gave the gift of Jesus Christ was to save people from their own ways and to show the ways of an almighty God.
The message of Jesus Christ is that the world can be better if people turn to God.
If there was not a hunger for faith, spirituality or whatever one wants to call it, then someone like Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California would not have one of the largest selling books of all time, "The Purpose Driven Life" which is a clear, positive message about Jesus Christ.
Pastor Warren was cited in the article and said something profound:
"The church will become know more by what it is for than what it is against."
AMEN, BROTHER!
Poor Pastor Warren ran into trouble when he hosted a conference on AIDS in Africa at his church earlier this year and invited two United States senators, Sam Brownback (R-Kans) and Barack Obama (D-Ill) because of inviting Sen. Obama because he is pro-abortion. Now, if we are going to change anyone, especially another professing Christian as is Sen. Obama, on an faith issue, we do not close the door. Clearly a case of what some Christians are against more than what they are for.
Sadly, politics has been a reason that there is such hostility between Christians and non-Christians and even among Christians. I for one believe in using the terms traditional and modernist rather than the political labels conservative and liberal in discussing affairs of church and faith. That maybe a little start.
I think that if nothing else, the article and book gives those of us who are Christians a way to take the negatives and make them positives. After all, that is what Jesus Christ did.
Jonah Knows Best
I urge all readers of this blog to go to National Review Online http://nationalreview.com and read Jonah Goldberg's piece on Ronald Reagan.
It is what many people on the center right say including Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com and myself.
Ronald Reagan was unique to his time. The right man at the right time. The conservatism that he espoused was right at the time.
Today, the issues are different and the fight for our survival is different. Some, like taxes and the proper role of government never go away. But, what can be learned from Ronald Reagan is the resolve and willingness to adjust the methods, but never waver from the message and the result.
One thing is clear. Conservatism is not just about saying no to change. It is to effect change that takes what is best from the past and adjust it to today. For instance, raising taxes does not make an economy better. Breaking up the traditional family, mom and dad and kids, does not make for a better society. There are many other examples.
So, we have to look at those who are running as a conservative Republican, look at their record and make an educated decision on who best to lead the Republican party to victory in 2008.
And, you know where I stand.
Mitt Romney has a chance to become a conservative hero and I believe that he will rise to the challenge.
It is what many people on the center right say including Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com and myself.
Ronald Reagan was unique to his time. The right man at the right time. The conservatism that he espoused was right at the time.
Today, the issues are different and the fight for our survival is different. Some, like taxes and the proper role of government never go away. But, what can be learned from Ronald Reagan is the resolve and willingness to adjust the methods, but never waver from the message and the result.
One thing is clear. Conservatism is not just about saying no to change. It is to effect change that takes what is best from the past and adjust it to today. For instance, raising taxes does not make an economy better. Breaking up the traditional family, mom and dad and kids, does not make for a better society. There are many other examples.
So, we have to look at those who are running as a conservative Republican, look at their record and make an educated decision on who best to lead the Republican party to victory in 2008.
And, you know where I stand.
Mitt Romney has a chance to become a conservative hero and I believe that he will rise to the challenge.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
How One Runs A Campaign And How One Governs Don't Always Jive
Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, is taking a hit from his left on the type of campaign he ran in in 1994 United States senate race against veteran gasbag, Ted Kennedy. Only it is not from Democrats but the most left-wing Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay and lesbian Republicans.
The Log Cabins are running television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire that are using statements Mr. Romney made in the campaign especially damning is how Mr. Romney admits that he was not a fan of the Reagan/Bush years. Mr. Romney also said that he would be better for gay and lesbians than Sen. Kennedy. That has to be a stretch. Maybe Mr. Romney had a mickey slipped to him to make such a claim. But, they are there.
And, no doubt that even in a Republican avalanche that was 1994, Mr. Romney lost to Sen. Kennedy. But, if there is any solace, Mr. Romney came the closest before or since to defeat the icon of the left.
And, Mr. Romney deserved to lose.
Fast forward to 2002 when Mr. Romney ran for and won as governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney moved to the right, as one can get, in Massachusetts on social issues and won.
When the Massachusetts supreme court divined the constitutional "right" to same sex marriage, Mr. Romney led opposition to it and fought against all odds to try to put the question to a vote of the people. Unfortunately, to get a constitutional question on the ballot is almost an act of God and with Democrats in control of the state legislature with roughly 85% of all seats in the House and Senate combined, he failed and his Democrat successor, Deval Patrick, let it die in the state legislature.
Mr. Romney, carefully, said that he would do nothing to change the abortion laws in Massachusetts. Meaning that if the legislature tried to liberalize the law, Mr. Romney would veto it.
As governor, he did not raise taxes and balanced an out of control state budget.
For some reason, gay and lesbian Republicans do not like that.
The reason is obvious.
The Log Cabins in a sense feel that that the Romney of 1994, a loser and on the wrong side of social and economic issues, is better than the Romney of 2007, the very potential Republican nominee for president.
I suppose the fear of the Log Cabins is that a President Romney will appoint just enough justices to the supreme court that will more than likely decide whether there is a federal constitutional "right" to same sex marriage. And, they would be right. It is called a constructionist. Someone who does not divine the constitution to his or her whim, but tries to reason the intent of the authors.
Log Cabins need to do a better job at reaching out-to fellow Republicans-if they expect to change any minds on same sex marriage. Alienating their fellow GOPers makes no sense.
The other aspect is where are the Log Cabins getting the money to put on the television ads? Also, which Republican candidate are they supporting and if that candidate does not win the nomination, will they support the winner? I doubt it.
The interesting meaning of all of this is that sometimes a candidate, in a race for one office will run to the left and when running for another, and this is key, office in a different time, to the right. And for Republicans, the right always wins.
And that is the Romney story. And he is catching hell from a group that calls itself loyal Republicans, but more often than not, sound like Democrats.
For the Log Cabins, they are chewing their nose off for no other reason than to discredit the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. If they want to be recognized and given a place at the table, one would think that they can do better than the lifting for the Democrats.
The Log Cabins are running television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire that are using statements Mr. Romney made in the campaign especially damning is how Mr. Romney admits that he was not a fan of the Reagan/Bush years. Mr. Romney also said that he would be better for gay and lesbians than Sen. Kennedy. That has to be a stretch. Maybe Mr. Romney had a mickey slipped to him to make such a claim. But, they are there.
And, no doubt that even in a Republican avalanche that was 1994, Mr. Romney lost to Sen. Kennedy. But, if there is any solace, Mr. Romney came the closest before or since to defeat the icon of the left.
And, Mr. Romney deserved to lose.
Fast forward to 2002 when Mr. Romney ran for and won as governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney moved to the right, as one can get, in Massachusetts on social issues and won.
When the Massachusetts supreme court divined the constitutional "right" to same sex marriage, Mr. Romney led opposition to it and fought against all odds to try to put the question to a vote of the people. Unfortunately, to get a constitutional question on the ballot is almost an act of God and with Democrats in control of the state legislature with roughly 85% of all seats in the House and Senate combined, he failed and his Democrat successor, Deval Patrick, let it die in the state legislature.
Mr. Romney, carefully, said that he would do nothing to change the abortion laws in Massachusetts. Meaning that if the legislature tried to liberalize the law, Mr. Romney would veto it.
As governor, he did not raise taxes and balanced an out of control state budget.
For some reason, gay and lesbian Republicans do not like that.
The reason is obvious.
The Log Cabins in a sense feel that that the Romney of 1994, a loser and on the wrong side of social and economic issues, is better than the Romney of 2007, the very potential Republican nominee for president.
I suppose the fear of the Log Cabins is that a President Romney will appoint just enough justices to the supreme court that will more than likely decide whether there is a federal constitutional "right" to same sex marriage. And, they would be right. It is called a constructionist. Someone who does not divine the constitution to his or her whim, but tries to reason the intent of the authors.
Log Cabins need to do a better job at reaching out-to fellow Republicans-if they expect to change any minds on same sex marriage. Alienating their fellow GOPers makes no sense.
The other aspect is where are the Log Cabins getting the money to put on the television ads? Also, which Republican candidate are they supporting and if that candidate does not win the nomination, will they support the winner? I doubt it.
The interesting meaning of all of this is that sometimes a candidate, in a race for one office will run to the left and when running for another, and this is key, office in a different time, to the right. And for Republicans, the right always wins.
And that is the Romney story. And he is catching hell from a group that calls itself loyal Republicans, but more often than not, sound like Democrats.
For the Log Cabins, they are chewing their nose off for no other reason than to discredit the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. If they want to be recognized and given a place at the table, one would think that they can do better than the lifting for the Democrats.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Will Chris Matthews Ask Serious Questions About President Bush Siding WIth A Murdering Rapist Against The Will Of The American People?
Sorry for the long title of this post! But, tonight will be another Republican debate and it will be on MSNBC and Chris Matthews will be a moderator. I can leave it at that, but I would like to know, will Mr. Matthews ask the Republican candidates what their stand is on the Jose Medellin issue?
Jose Medellin is drawing international attention as the Mexican national who was convicted of the savage rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 16 and Elizabeth Pena, 14, in 1993.
According to decision of the International Court of "Justice" (my quotations) the aforementioned Mr. Medellin should not be sentenced to death in Texas because he was not told that he could contact a representative of the Mexican consulate as well as the right to remain silent and to an attorney.
Apparently, President Bush tried to put pressure on Texas to vacate the death sentence and the reasoning is that it may affect the way Americans are treated abroad to the whims of other nations legal systems.
Sorry Mr. President, but that just does not wash.
Mr. Medellin was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas where the crimes occurred. Mr. Medellin was aided in this latest scam by the government of Mexico, which does not have a death penalty in law, but is a very corrupt legal system in which the peso or the greenback talks.
So far, there has been no comment from the top-tier Republican presidential candidates as to the indefensible position that the Bush administration is going to argue before the United States supreme court tomorrow on the defendant's behalf.
Will Mr. Matthews spend any time on this very serious issue tonight? I do not think so. But, we can let the White House know how we feel now. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 and let them know how you feel about this. It may change the view and it may not, but it could determine what kind of argument the solicitor general makes tomorrow at the supreme court. Also, call the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500 and let them know that this does not help a party that stands for the rule of law and a federal system that devolves power to the most local level, not some potentates in the Hague. E-mail Chris Matthews at hardball@msnbc.com and let him know to ask the Republican presidential candidates what they would do in this situation.
If Chris Matthews wants people to know that he is not biased against the Republicans, ask him to put these candidates on the record. Time for these people who want our votes to take a stand for America and the rule of American law.
Jose Medellin is drawing international attention as the Mexican national who was convicted of the savage rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 16 and Elizabeth Pena, 14, in 1993.
According to decision of the International Court of "Justice" (my quotations) the aforementioned Mr. Medellin should not be sentenced to death in Texas because he was not told that he could contact a representative of the Mexican consulate as well as the right to remain silent and to an attorney.
Apparently, President Bush tried to put pressure on Texas to vacate the death sentence and the reasoning is that it may affect the way Americans are treated abroad to the whims of other nations legal systems.
Sorry Mr. President, but that just does not wash.
Mr. Medellin was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas where the crimes occurred. Mr. Medellin was aided in this latest scam by the government of Mexico, which does not have a death penalty in law, but is a very corrupt legal system in which the peso or the greenback talks.
So far, there has been no comment from the top-tier Republican presidential candidates as to the indefensible position that the Bush administration is going to argue before the United States supreme court tomorrow on the defendant's behalf.
Will Mr. Matthews spend any time on this very serious issue tonight? I do not think so. But, we can let the White House know how we feel now. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 and let them know how you feel about this. It may change the view and it may not, but it could determine what kind of argument the solicitor general makes tomorrow at the supreme court. Also, call the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500 and let them know that this does not help a party that stands for the rule of law and a federal system that devolves power to the most local level, not some potentates in the Hague. E-mail Chris Matthews at hardball@msnbc.com and let him know to ask the Republican presidential candidates what they would do in this situation.
If Chris Matthews wants people to know that he is not biased against the Republicans, ask him to put these candidates on the record. Time for these people who want our votes to take a stand for America and the rule of American law.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Whose Constitution Does President Bush Enforce?
In what can only be another bizarre move by the Bush administration whereas illegal immigration is concerned, the justice department will file a brief supporting the so-called International Court of Justice, or the World Court, in a case of a Texas death row inmate and thus vacating the death sentence.
President Bush is supporting the ICJ's interpretation of the 1963 Vienna Convention, but not really. http://www.townhall.com. According to the article, President Bush does not agree with the decision but will support it to protect American citizens abroad.
So, what is the decision?
That the ICJ said that convicted rapist and murderer Jose Ernesto Medellin was denied the "right" to contact the local Mexican consulate to get legal advice. The fact that the objection was not raised at trial was irrelevant to the ICJ. The fact that Mr. Medellin did give a written confession also did not matter.
Mexico decided to sue the United States in the ICJ because they do not have the death penalty and the United States does. And, Mr. Medellin is a Mexican citizen. It is not clear if Mr. Medellin was an illegal alien because he has been in the United States most of his life.
So, how brutal was the crime Mr. Medellin and his fellow gang-bangers commit?
Mr. Medellin and four others accosted Jennifer Ertman, 14 and her friend, Elizabeth Pena, 16 as they were taking a short cut home on a railroad trestle. The five cretins then gang-raped the two girls and strangled them to death and their bodies were found four days later.
Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death because the murder occurred during a sexual assault which is a capital offense in Texas.
So, amazingly, this occurred in 1993. Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced in 1994. And, he still languishes on Texas death row while coming up with a despicable way to avoid the state from carrying out the will of the people-his execution.
The United States Supreme Court will take up this case and we know there are several justices who like "International law" and convention over the United States constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer comes quickly to mind.
Hopefully, there will be five sane minds that tells the Bush administration and the ICJ that American law is supreme and what a state decides on these matters is even more supreme.
Now, the president wants to pull out and no longer enforce this aspect of the 1963 Vienna convention treaty. But, not before it tries to commute a legitimate sentence by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas.
It appears that once again, President Bush and the open-borders crowd are willing to cave in rather than side with the United States constitution which is the law of this land, not some globaloney from the Hague.
There has to be a Republican presidential candidate to stand up and say this is an abomination and they would never side with the ICJ on this kind of issue. There is a chance when Republican presidential candidates debate tomorrow evening.
President Bush needs to recognize that this goes against all conservative principles of devolution of powers and is kowtowing to a corrupt nation, Mexico, that cares not a wit about "human rights" but does care about dumping more of its citizens into the United States illegally. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will decide that for him correctly.
President Bush is supporting the ICJ's interpretation of the 1963 Vienna Convention, but not really. http://www.townhall.com. According to the article, President Bush does not agree with the decision but will support it to protect American citizens abroad.
So, what is the decision?
That the ICJ said that convicted rapist and murderer Jose Ernesto Medellin was denied the "right" to contact the local Mexican consulate to get legal advice. The fact that the objection was not raised at trial was irrelevant to the ICJ. The fact that Mr. Medellin did give a written confession also did not matter.
Mexico decided to sue the United States in the ICJ because they do not have the death penalty and the United States does. And, Mr. Medellin is a Mexican citizen. It is not clear if Mr. Medellin was an illegal alien because he has been in the United States most of his life.
So, how brutal was the crime Mr. Medellin and his fellow gang-bangers commit?
Mr. Medellin and four others accosted Jennifer Ertman, 14 and her friend, Elizabeth Pena, 16 as they were taking a short cut home on a railroad trestle. The five cretins then gang-raped the two girls and strangled them to death and their bodies were found four days later.
Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death because the murder occurred during a sexual assault which is a capital offense in Texas.
So, amazingly, this occurred in 1993. Mr. Medellin was convicted and sentenced in 1994. And, he still languishes on Texas death row while coming up with a despicable way to avoid the state from carrying out the will of the people-his execution.
The United States Supreme Court will take up this case and we know there are several justices who like "International law" and convention over the United States constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer comes quickly to mind.
Hopefully, there will be five sane minds that tells the Bush administration and the ICJ that American law is supreme and what a state decides on these matters is even more supreme.
Now, the president wants to pull out and no longer enforce this aspect of the 1963 Vienna convention treaty. But, not before it tries to commute a legitimate sentence by a jury of his peers in the state of Texas.
It appears that once again, President Bush and the open-borders crowd are willing to cave in rather than side with the United States constitution which is the law of this land, not some globaloney from the Hague.
There has to be a Republican presidential candidate to stand up and say this is an abomination and they would never side with the ICJ on this kind of issue. There is a chance when Republican presidential candidates debate tomorrow evening.
President Bush needs to recognize that this goes against all conservative principles of devolution of powers and is kowtowing to a corrupt nation, Mexico, that cares not a wit about "human rights" but does care about dumping more of its citizens into the United States illegally. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will decide that for him correctly.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Finally, A War The Left Likes. . .Against Rush Limbaugh!
It is amazing and surreal that the hard-core Democrat, socialist left finally found a war that they can fully support and be in front of. No, it is not a shooting war. No, it is not a naval blockade or anything of that nature. The war that the socialists are in the middle of is the war against Rush Limbaugh and in general against conservative talk radio.
Since the socialist left has been called out and can not defend the odious MoveOn.org slanderous advertisement against Gen. David Petraeus, they have been looking to slam the conservative side any way they can.
They tried to slam television and radio talker Bill O'Reily over comments he made about Harlem. That did not work because they could not make it stick.
So, last week, Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller about "soldiers" who supposedly go to Iraq and report major atrocities supposedly committed by United States military personal.
Let us not forget Congressman John Murtha convicting in public a group of marines who were accused of massacring civilians in Haditha. Then there is The New Republic blogger, Scott Beauchamp, who supposedly witnessed some atrocities in Iraq. But, our friend Mr. Beauchamp, never saw Iraq. The worst atrocity happened in Kuwait.
Mr. Limbaugh and a caller were discussing the case of Jesse MacBeth who served a grand total of 44 days in boot camp and he could not hang and was discharged. But, somehow Mr. MacBeth claimed he was in Iraq and saw all kinds of atrocities committed by American troops. Well, since Mr. MacBeth could not even get out of boot camp, unless he was a civilian, he never made it out of the United States. So, the caller was referring to Mr. MacBeth as a phony soldier and Mr. Limbaugh used it as a plural, phony soldiers. Since there have been some of this nature, there is nothing wrong with an accurate description of those who claim one thing only to be called on the carpet and eventually have to retract the bulk of their lies.
Out of this, the Clinton front group Media Matters, led by former right wing hatchet-man David Brock, claimed that Mr. Limbaugh made a blanket statement about United States soldiers in general and specifically against those who have spoken out against the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
And, it has gained traction.
A lot of Democrat politicians, led by that paragon of virtue, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), the senate majority leader, have taken to the floor of congress and condemned the Limbaugh comments. Sen. Reid is even pushing a senate resolution condemning the accurate Limbaugh comments. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-Ga) is offering the opposite in the house. A resolution of support for Mr. Limbaugh.
What a great use of time for a congress that has a rip-roaring 11% approval rating!
And if that is not enough, gasbags like Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, and that ilk are jumping into the act, offering their opinions, which like Sen. Reid and those in congress who have wasted their time on this, are mindless.
The fact is that this is a battle for the socialists to make into law the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." If the socialists were to get their way, over the air conservative talk radio would be out of business.
The "Fairness Doctrine" was an archaic regulation in the days which there was only radio and television that was to insure that all views on a current event issue were portrayed on over the air broadcast outlets. Thus, few if any stations really aired both sides. Sure there were "public affairs" broadcasts. But they were very saccharine compared to when then President Reagan let the regulation die a timely death in 1987, with cable in full swing and satellite television in its infancy only to take off in the late 1990s.
For the socialists, the war is to shut down vocal opposition to their all encompassing efforts to build on centralized government provided health care, "Affirmative action", appointing judges that do not respect the United States constitution as much as "International law", ending traditional marriage, making more and more Americans dependent on the government for their well being.
Attacking those who are bulwarks against this power play, such as Mr. O'Reily, Mr. Limbaugh, Michael Medved, who Mr. Olberman accused of defending slavery, is just but a battle in this war.
So far, they are losing these skirmishes.
Sure, they got a piece of scalp when Media Matters got Don Imus off the air for dopey comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. And, I am sure they thought that going hog wild after Mr. O'Reily, Mr. Limbaugh and any one else who stands in their way would work.
But, Mr. Limbaugh has nothing to apologize for. Nor does Mr. O'Reily. Neither does Mr. Medved.
They are simply either providing commentary or reporting on issues of the day. And the fact is, the opponents can not argue on the merits. So, the socialists distort it and try as hard as they could to make it stick. With Mr. Imus, he walked into their trap and he is now out of work. The rest just mentioned have not walked in but fought back.
The fascinating aspect of all of this is that the Democrat, socialist left has found a war they like. They do not have to put on a uniform. They do not have to salute a flag or take an oath that swears allegiance to this nation. And, there are no bullets or bombs. The kind of war the left likes. Character assassination.
Since the socialist left has been called out and can not defend the odious MoveOn.org slanderous advertisement against Gen. David Petraeus, they have been looking to slam the conservative side any way they can.
They tried to slam television and radio talker Bill O'Reily over comments he made about Harlem. That did not work because they could not make it stick.
So, last week, Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller about "soldiers" who supposedly go to Iraq and report major atrocities supposedly committed by United States military personal.
Let us not forget Congressman John Murtha convicting in public a group of marines who were accused of massacring civilians in Haditha. Then there is The New Republic blogger, Scott Beauchamp, who supposedly witnessed some atrocities in Iraq. But, our friend Mr. Beauchamp, never saw Iraq. The worst atrocity happened in Kuwait.
Mr. Limbaugh and a caller were discussing the case of Jesse MacBeth who served a grand total of 44 days in boot camp and he could not hang and was discharged. But, somehow Mr. MacBeth claimed he was in Iraq and saw all kinds of atrocities committed by American troops. Well, since Mr. MacBeth could not even get out of boot camp, unless he was a civilian, he never made it out of the United States. So, the caller was referring to Mr. MacBeth as a phony soldier and Mr. Limbaugh used it as a plural, phony soldiers. Since there have been some of this nature, there is nothing wrong with an accurate description of those who claim one thing only to be called on the carpet and eventually have to retract the bulk of their lies.
Out of this, the Clinton front group Media Matters, led by former right wing hatchet-man David Brock, claimed that Mr. Limbaugh made a blanket statement about United States soldiers in general and specifically against those who have spoken out against the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
And, it has gained traction.
A lot of Democrat politicians, led by that paragon of virtue, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), the senate majority leader, have taken to the floor of congress and condemned the Limbaugh comments. Sen. Reid is even pushing a senate resolution condemning the accurate Limbaugh comments. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-Ga) is offering the opposite in the house. A resolution of support for Mr. Limbaugh.
What a great use of time for a congress that has a rip-roaring 11% approval rating!
And if that is not enough, gasbags like Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, and that ilk are jumping into the act, offering their opinions, which like Sen. Reid and those in congress who have wasted their time on this, are mindless.
The fact is that this is a battle for the socialists to make into law the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." If the socialists were to get their way, over the air conservative talk radio would be out of business.
The "Fairness Doctrine" was an archaic regulation in the days which there was only radio and television that was to insure that all views on a current event issue were portrayed on over the air broadcast outlets. Thus, few if any stations really aired both sides. Sure there were "public affairs" broadcasts. But they were very saccharine compared to when then President Reagan let the regulation die a timely death in 1987, with cable in full swing and satellite television in its infancy only to take off in the late 1990s.
For the socialists, the war is to shut down vocal opposition to their all encompassing efforts to build on centralized government provided health care, "Affirmative action", appointing judges that do not respect the United States constitution as much as "International law", ending traditional marriage, making more and more Americans dependent on the government for their well being.
Attacking those who are bulwarks against this power play, such as Mr. O'Reily, Mr. Limbaugh, Michael Medved, who Mr. Olberman accused of defending slavery, is just but a battle in this war.
So far, they are losing these skirmishes.
Sure, they got a piece of scalp when Media Matters got Don Imus off the air for dopey comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. And, I am sure they thought that going hog wild after Mr. O'Reily, Mr. Limbaugh and any one else who stands in their way would work.
But, Mr. Limbaugh has nothing to apologize for. Nor does Mr. O'Reily. Neither does Mr. Medved.
They are simply either providing commentary or reporting on issues of the day. And the fact is, the opponents can not argue on the merits. So, the socialists distort it and try as hard as they could to make it stick. With Mr. Imus, he walked into their trap and he is now out of work. The rest just mentioned have not walked in but fought back.
The fascinating aspect of all of this is that the Democrat, socialist left has found a war they like. They do not have to put on a uniform. They do not have to salute a flag or take an oath that swears allegiance to this nation. And, there are no bullets or bombs. The kind of war the left likes. Character assassination.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Television Channelling Democrat Talking Points
On the Laura Ingraham website http://lauraingraham.com, there is a link to a story on World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com about the latest episode of the CBS television series, "Cold Case".
Extensively, "Cold Case" is a police drama that opens up unsolved cases that can go back as much as 75 years and within an hour, the case is solved. Unfortunately, by a strange coinkidink, the plots of the unsolved cases tend to come right out of the Democrat National Committee.
Because we were exhausted from our cross-country travels this past week, I actually watched the episode in question.
The episode was about a high school Christian abstinence group that is chock full of "hypocrites" that are far from virginic. Why, even one of the gals is stooping the youth pastor that lead the group. Nice.
So, a another young girl joins the group and it turns out that she is one of those who just does not buy the whole agenda. She tells one of the boys, who believes he is gay, that it is OK and that he will find someone to love in his life. And this sends a core group over the edge and they get the interloper out into the woods and, get this, stone her to death. Why, one of the killers quotes Deuteronomy as she throws a stone at the interloper.
Talk about a not-so-hidden agenda in that plot!
So, what is the agenda in this series?
I think that it is clear. The writers pick a large city, Philadelphia, try to always make the case in question something against conservatives who are more than likely "hypocrites" and if the killer is alive, bring them to "justice."
This is not just hyperbole on my part. It is "Cold Case" in a nutshell.
I watched the show another time when it set the plot in the 1960's when a policeman realizes he is gay and finds "love" with another man on the force and, of course, the lover is married with children. The moral. Putting 2000 standards to the 1960s, that because there was prejudice against gays and that it was so terrible that the lovers had to be in the closet and the one who was murdered by fellow officers were evil incarnate.
And, that is the problem with the way the stories develop.
The writers are putting the standards of 2007 to you pick the year and era. It just does not work. Just as making the standards of those years and eras fit this time and place.
This is why people turn off network television.
People want to be entertained, not preached to. That is why the "reality" and game shows are what is popular on network television. If people want to be preached to, there is always PBS and many cable/satellite channels to fill that void.
"Cold Case" is a show that pushes the socialist agenda with a vengeance and people should be aware of it and stop watching this propaganda under the guise of a police drama.
Extensively, "Cold Case" is a police drama that opens up unsolved cases that can go back as much as 75 years and within an hour, the case is solved. Unfortunately, by a strange coinkidink, the plots of the unsolved cases tend to come right out of the Democrat National Committee.
Because we were exhausted from our cross-country travels this past week, I actually watched the episode in question.
The episode was about a high school Christian abstinence group that is chock full of "hypocrites" that are far from virginic. Why, even one of the gals is stooping the youth pastor that lead the group. Nice.
So, a another young girl joins the group and it turns out that she is one of those who just does not buy the whole agenda. She tells one of the boys, who believes he is gay, that it is OK and that he will find someone to love in his life. And this sends a core group over the edge and they get the interloper out into the woods and, get this, stone her to death. Why, one of the killers quotes Deuteronomy as she throws a stone at the interloper.
Talk about a not-so-hidden agenda in that plot!
So, what is the agenda in this series?
I think that it is clear. The writers pick a large city, Philadelphia, try to always make the case in question something against conservatives who are more than likely "hypocrites" and if the killer is alive, bring them to "justice."
This is not just hyperbole on my part. It is "Cold Case" in a nutshell.
I watched the show another time when it set the plot in the 1960's when a policeman realizes he is gay and finds "love" with another man on the force and, of course, the lover is married with children. The moral. Putting 2000 standards to the 1960s, that because there was prejudice against gays and that it was so terrible that the lovers had to be in the closet and the one who was murdered by fellow officers were evil incarnate.
And, that is the problem with the way the stories develop.
The writers are putting the standards of 2007 to you pick the year and era. It just does not work. Just as making the standards of those years and eras fit this time and place.
This is why people turn off network television.
People want to be entertained, not preached to. That is why the "reality" and game shows are what is popular on network television. If people want to be preached to, there is always PBS and many cable/satellite channels to fill that void.
"Cold Case" is a show that pushes the socialist agenda with a vengeance and people should be aware of it and stop watching this propaganda under the guise of a police drama.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Back To The Blog
I want to write that I have been involved in a personal family tragedy this past week and it has kept me from blogging. But, I am back and will be fully blogging tomorrow. I would ask that you pray for my family and I and at a later date, I will elaborate on this tragedy.
Monday, September 24, 2007
How The Republican Presidential Candidate Will Win In 2008
*****DISCLAIMER! THIS MAY BE A VERY LONG POST, BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT HOW THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CAN AND WILL BE WON BY THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2008*****
Now with that out of the way, I think I have been an activist in the political game about 25 years all told from college until now. Admittedly, I have not always been as active as now, and eight years of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton can do that to any sane person. If there is one thing that I have figured out is the trench warfare that many a presidential election is fought.
So, a little modern political history.
For some reason, the American people were led to believe that we had never had such an election until the 2000 Bush-Gore saga. But we have. And, for the most part, those kind of elections took place in the 19th century. We had some very close ones in my 43 years on God's earth. Take 1968. Republican Richard Nixon barely beat Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Mr. Nixon did not get a majority of the popular vote, but got the majority of the electoral college. Same goes for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford. And that was right after Watergate and with then President Ford starting at least 20 points behind Mr. Carter. And, how can we forget, but the election of 1992 was actually very close and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton only got 42 percent of the popular vote. In 1996, Mr. Clinton still could not break the 50 percent ceiling. Mr. Clinton got 49 percent against a weak Republican Bob Dole and an even weaker gadfly Ross Perot.
So, we have had a lot of close elections in the last forty years. Not every election can be a Ronald Reagan blowout.
Now that the history is done, here are the nuts and bolts.
Each party, Democrat and Republican starts any presidential campaign with roughly 30 percent of the voters of each party. These are the die hard, activist, vote for any candidate with a D or R after their name. Heck, one could be Kim jong-Il and if there is a D or an R, well you get the picture. That takes about 60 percent of the electorate out of the picture. They are in like flint.
Then, there are the 10 percenters. These are people who are registered either Democrat or Republican, but not necessarily loyal. These are the voters that a candidate needs to make feel like they are part of the party, either D or R. These people need a little more convincing. They need to be convinced that the candidate will address their pet issue or issues. Usually, they come along about a month after the political conventions. Another 20 percent of the electorate no longer up for grabs. That is a total of 80 percent of voters already spoken for. So, what about the magical 20 percent?
The 20 percent is what each campaign is going for. Usually these are the people that make up their minds at the last minute. These voters are not tied to any party. Amazingly, these voters are what I would refer to as instinctively conservative, but swayable. It is these voters that returned the Democrats back in control of congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
How do Republicans go after this 20 percent when things do not look so good?
Well, for one thing Republicans have got to clean house. Here is an example. In California, near the state capital, Sacramento, there is Republican congressman John Doolittle. Any day now, Mr. Doolittle may be indicted on corruption charges. If the Republican party was smart, they would strongly encourage Mr. Doolittle to stand down for reelection. It is time for Mr. Doolittle to term himself out of office. Same goes for Alaska senator Ted Stevens. If they continue to think it is all about them, then the Republican National Committee has to tell them, they can run, just do not expect the RNC to send cash their way. This would show the so-called swing voter that the Republicans do mean business that they would get dead weight out and the base excited. Corruption is a large issue for swing and loyal Republican voters.
Another fact is that there are certain issues that Republican voters like to hear and should be limited to the primary campaign season. Yes, the Democrat machine, essentially the DDBMSM, will bring those issues up. Well, that simply means the Republicans need to go on offense. And yes, it can be done.
The Republican candidate will be strong on the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but may want to take a different approach. Maybe try to get European allies more involved. Maybe not using overt military actions, such as the war in the Iraq theatre. Also, the Republican candidate needs to really tie Iraq with the overall War Against Islamofacsist Terror. As President Bush has made some mistakes, it is a golden opportunity for the Republican candidate to say what he would do differently, but adhere to the fact that there is a serious war against fanatical Islam.
And what would make people excited than an issue that always serves Republicans well, taxes?
The candidate can not run on defense. He needs to come up with a comprehensive reform. Talk about the flat tax, the VAT, or fair tax. These are issues that resonate with voters, especially the 20 percenters.
And some honesty will help. The Republican candidate has to bluntly tell the American people that there is no quick fix to health care reform. The Republican has to promote choice and that one size does not fit all. The candidate will have to encourage state reforms. The Democrats are already for the socialized medical card, and the Republicans can not let them seize the issue. It could make or break a Republican candidacy.
It will be a good offense that overtakes a potential Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) candidacy. Sen. Clinton needs to be on the defensive and be prone to make fatal errors that will cripple her candidacy. Yes, I know, the Washington DDBMSM crowd all but swooned over Sen. Clinton's performance this past Sunday on the five Sunday gas bag shows like Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week With George Stephanopolus, Fox News Sunday, Last Edition. But when you are getting softballs when the media needs to throw high, hard ones, someone like Sen. Clinton makes it look easy. So, will that help the Republicans? Absolutely. I think that the right candidate, say Mitt Romney will be able to deliver on an offense agenda. Remember, Mr. Romney was the most conservative Republican governor of Massachusetts since Calvin Coolidge. And yes, I know he was not as conservative as some, but I believe that he has growing and that is what we want, isn't it? I mean, do we not go through all of this to convince people a certain candidate and way he or she would govern is what is the correct course for the country? I know so.
As it was for George H. W. Bush in 1988, the Democrat presidential nominee will be up possibly 20 points. But, run an aggressive, offense-minded campaign and look what happens? And, remember former president Ronald Reagan was crippled during most of 1986 and a lot of 1987 due to the Iran-Contra affair. Granted, Mr. Reagan's numbers were not as lousy as President George W. Bush, but there is room for improvement and that can only help the Republican candidate.
I am not a gloom and doomer. If I were, then I would say let us coronate the Democrat candidate as president. There is a much better than a 50/50 chance for the Republicans to keep the White House and maybe take back one or both houses of congress. Again, the Republicans can win one or both houses if they get some kick-ass candidates in the mix. And, if that does not happen, at least keeping the Democrats from increasing their majorities maybe all that can be done this election cycle.
I think that if the Republican candidate endorses an aggressive agenda and campaign, I firmly believe that it will lead to victory in 2008. No more of this there is not a real conservative in the race. There are several and we need to keep encouraging them to stay in that direction. It is what this is all about. Getting more voters acquainted with and keeping them as Republicans.
Now with that out of the way, I think I have been an activist in the political game about 25 years all told from college until now. Admittedly, I have not always been as active as now, and eight years of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton can do that to any sane person. If there is one thing that I have figured out is the trench warfare that many a presidential election is fought.
So, a little modern political history.
For some reason, the American people were led to believe that we had never had such an election until the 2000 Bush-Gore saga. But we have. And, for the most part, those kind of elections took place in the 19th century. We had some very close ones in my 43 years on God's earth. Take 1968. Republican Richard Nixon barely beat Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Mr. Nixon did not get a majority of the popular vote, but got the majority of the electoral college. Same goes for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford. And that was right after Watergate and with then President Ford starting at least 20 points behind Mr. Carter. And, how can we forget, but the election of 1992 was actually very close and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton only got 42 percent of the popular vote. In 1996, Mr. Clinton still could not break the 50 percent ceiling. Mr. Clinton got 49 percent against a weak Republican Bob Dole and an even weaker gadfly Ross Perot.
So, we have had a lot of close elections in the last forty years. Not every election can be a Ronald Reagan blowout.
Now that the history is done, here are the nuts and bolts.
Each party, Democrat and Republican starts any presidential campaign with roughly 30 percent of the voters of each party. These are the die hard, activist, vote for any candidate with a D or R after their name. Heck, one could be Kim jong-Il and if there is a D or an R, well you get the picture. That takes about 60 percent of the electorate out of the picture. They are in like flint.
Then, there are the 10 percenters. These are people who are registered either Democrat or Republican, but not necessarily loyal. These are the voters that a candidate needs to make feel like they are part of the party, either D or R. These people need a little more convincing. They need to be convinced that the candidate will address their pet issue or issues. Usually, they come along about a month after the political conventions. Another 20 percent of the electorate no longer up for grabs. That is a total of 80 percent of voters already spoken for. So, what about the magical 20 percent?
The 20 percent is what each campaign is going for. Usually these are the people that make up their minds at the last minute. These voters are not tied to any party. Amazingly, these voters are what I would refer to as instinctively conservative, but swayable. It is these voters that returned the Democrats back in control of congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
How do Republicans go after this 20 percent when things do not look so good?
Well, for one thing Republicans have got to clean house. Here is an example. In California, near the state capital, Sacramento, there is Republican congressman John Doolittle. Any day now, Mr. Doolittle may be indicted on corruption charges. If the Republican party was smart, they would strongly encourage Mr. Doolittle to stand down for reelection. It is time for Mr. Doolittle to term himself out of office. Same goes for Alaska senator Ted Stevens. If they continue to think it is all about them, then the Republican National Committee has to tell them, they can run, just do not expect the RNC to send cash their way. This would show the so-called swing voter that the Republicans do mean business that they would get dead weight out and the base excited. Corruption is a large issue for swing and loyal Republican voters.
Another fact is that there are certain issues that Republican voters like to hear and should be limited to the primary campaign season. Yes, the Democrat machine, essentially the DDBMSM, will bring those issues up. Well, that simply means the Republicans need to go on offense. And yes, it can be done.
The Republican candidate will be strong on the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but may want to take a different approach. Maybe try to get European allies more involved. Maybe not using overt military actions, such as the war in the Iraq theatre. Also, the Republican candidate needs to really tie Iraq with the overall War Against Islamofacsist Terror. As President Bush has made some mistakes, it is a golden opportunity for the Republican candidate to say what he would do differently, but adhere to the fact that there is a serious war against fanatical Islam.
And what would make people excited than an issue that always serves Republicans well, taxes?
The candidate can not run on defense. He needs to come up with a comprehensive reform. Talk about the flat tax, the VAT, or fair tax. These are issues that resonate with voters, especially the 20 percenters.
And some honesty will help. The Republican candidate has to bluntly tell the American people that there is no quick fix to health care reform. The Republican has to promote choice and that one size does not fit all. The candidate will have to encourage state reforms. The Democrats are already for the socialized medical card, and the Republicans can not let them seize the issue. It could make or break a Republican candidacy.
It will be a good offense that overtakes a potential Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) candidacy. Sen. Clinton needs to be on the defensive and be prone to make fatal errors that will cripple her candidacy. Yes, I know, the Washington DDBMSM crowd all but swooned over Sen. Clinton's performance this past Sunday on the five Sunday gas bag shows like Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week With George Stephanopolus, Fox News Sunday, Last Edition. But when you are getting softballs when the media needs to throw high, hard ones, someone like Sen. Clinton makes it look easy. So, will that help the Republicans? Absolutely. I think that the right candidate, say Mitt Romney will be able to deliver on an offense agenda. Remember, Mr. Romney was the most conservative Republican governor of Massachusetts since Calvin Coolidge. And yes, I know he was not as conservative as some, but I believe that he has growing and that is what we want, isn't it? I mean, do we not go through all of this to convince people a certain candidate and way he or she would govern is what is the correct course for the country? I know so.
As it was for George H. W. Bush in 1988, the Democrat presidential nominee will be up possibly 20 points. But, run an aggressive, offense-minded campaign and look what happens? And, remember former president Ronald Reagan was crippled during most of 1986 and a lot of 1987 due to the Iran-Contra affair. Granted, Mr. Reagan's numbers were not as lousy as President George W. Bush, but there is room for improvement and that can only help the Republican candidate.
I am not a gloom and doomer. If I were, then I would say let us coronate the Democrat candidate as president. There is a much better than a 50/50 chance for the Republicans to keep the White House and maybe take back one or both houses of congress. Again, the Republicans can win one or both houses if they get some kick-ass candidates in the mix. And, if that does not happen, at least keeping the Democrats from increasing their majorities maybe all that can be done this election cycle.
I think that if the Republican candidate endorses an aggressive agenda and campaign, I firmly believe that it will lead to victory in 2008. No more of this there is not a real conservative in the race. There are several and we need to keep encouraging them to stay in that direction. It is what this is all about. Getting more voters acquainted with and keeping them as Republicans.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Did Fred Jump In Too Late?
According to David Fredosso of National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com, Fred Thompson spoke to a large Republican gathering at the world famous Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island in Michigan tonight.
Mr. Fredosso was not impressed.
And, that is not the first time that people have said that Mr. Thompson has not impressed them in a speech.
Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com was at a large Republican meeting in Orange County, California earlier this year before Mr. Thompson made his candidacy official. He was not impressed nor were many in the red-meat Republican group.
Which leads to the question.
Did Fred Thompson wait too long to get in the Republican race for the presidency?
At this point I would say, maybe.
I think that it is troubling that an experienced actor as is Mr. Thompson is having trouble rallying the troops. Is it because it does not have the fire in the belly?
I know that all reports indicate that Mr. Thompson is far off the mark in raising necessary funds to make a serious run at the presidency. That can not be good when you have to take some funding away from Rudy Giuilani and Mitt Romney.
The case for the Thompson candidacy has been that he is the next Ronald Reagan.
But, I just do not feel it. I do not feel any of the Republican candidates are the next Ronald Reagan. They have the ability to make good on some aspects of Mr. Reagan's agenda, but again I will write it. There will NOT be another Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan was a one of a kind and a man of his time.
Thus, we conservatives need to stop saying we are looking for the next Reagan. It ain't gonna happen with this bunch of candidates.
So, what would Mr. Thompson do differently than the other top three, Giuiliani, McCain or Romney?
So far, I do not see much difference in any of the four.
So, I think that the major problem for Mr. Thompson is that he got into the race too late and is probably peaking about now.
And that is too bad because we Republicans need to have a strong race and I am afraid that Mr. Thompson may not be one to get this race going.
Mr. Fredosso was not impressed.
And, that is not the first time that people have said that Mr. Thompson has not impressed them in a speech.
Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com was at a large Republican meeting in Orange County, California earlier this year before Mr. Thompson made his candidacy official. He was not impressed nor were many in the red-meat Republican group.
Which leads to the question.
Did Fred Thompson wait too long to get in the Republican race for the presidency?
At this point I would say, maybe.
I think that it is troubling that an experienced actor as is Mr. Thompson is having trouble rallying the troops. Is it because it does not have the fire in the belly?
I know that all reports indicate that Mr. Thompson is far off the mark in raising necessary funds to make a serious run at the presidency. That can not be good when you have to take some funding away from Rudy Giuilani and Mitt Romney.
The case for the Thompson candidacy has been that he is the next Ronald Reagan.
But, I just do not feel it. I do not feel any of the Republican candidates are the next Ronald Reagan. They have the ability to make good on some aspects of Mr. Reagan's agenda, but again I will write it. There will NOT be another Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan was a one of a kind and a man of his time.
Thus, we conservatives need to stop saying we are looking for the next Reagan. It ain't gonna happen with this bunch of candidates.
So, what would Mr. Thompson do differently than the other top three, Giuiliani, McCain or Romney?
So far, I do not see much difference in any of the four.
So, I think that the major problem for Mr. Thompson is that he got into the race too late and is probably peaking about now.
And that is too bad because we Republicans need to have a strong race and I am afraid that Mr. Thompson may not be one to get this race going.
Romney Hits It On The Nose
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has a new television commercial in which he says, bluntly, that Republicans can not act like Democrats and that when Republicans do, America loses.
AMEN, BROTHER!!
The ad is on the Romney for President web site http://mittromney.com, and it is going to be running in the first caucus state of Iowa and the first primary state of New Hampshire.
It is important because Mr. Romney does two very important things.
First, Mr. Romney is making the case that the Republican party is moving in the disastrous direction of becoming Democrat lite. Remember, given the choice between genuine Democrat and a pseudo-Democrat lite, the voters will almost always choose the Democrat. Why vote for a little when you can have the real thing? Also, remember how wonderful and successful the Republican party was in the 1960's?
Second, Mr. Romney also makes the case that the Republican party has to move back to first principles. It is what gave the Republican party the control on congress in 1994, having a firm set of principles and running and for a time governing in that way. Mr. Romney also makes the case that it will take someone outside of Washington to clean up the Republican party and government in general.
That is what is attractive about Mr. Romney and to many Republicans, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. They are both Washington outsiders.
And, in another post, I will wonder why the buzz over former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who like is friend Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) a member of the Washington Club.
But, it is Mr. Romney who has taken on the bad Republicans in Washington and yes, even President Bush, who has made some stumbles in the second term that former presidents Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton also made.
When the other so-called top tier Republican candidates take on the corruption in Washington, they can be taken as serious Republicans. Until then, Mitt Romney is the gutsiest of the field at this point.
AMEN, BROTHER!!
The ad is on the Romney for President web site http://mittromney.com, and it is going to be running in the first caucus state of Iowa and the first primary state of New Hampshire.
It is important because Mr. Romney does two very important things.
First, Mr. Romney is making the case that the Republican party is moving in the disastrous direction of becoming Democrat lite. Remember, given the choice between genuine Democrat and a pseudo-Democrat lite, the voters will almost always choose the Democrat. Why vote for a little when you can have the real thing? Also, remember how wonderful and successful the Republican party was in the 1960's?
Second, Mr. Romney also makes the case that the Republican party has to move back to first principles. It is what gave the Republican party the control on congress in 1994, having a firm set of principles and running and for a time governing in that way. Mr. Romney also makes the case that it will take someone outside of Washington to clean up the Republican party and government in general.
That is what is attractive about Mr. Romney and to many Republicans, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. They are both Washington outsiders.
And, in another post, I will wonder why the buzz over former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who like is friend Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) a member of the Washington Club.
But, it is Mr. Romney who has taken on the bad Republicans in Washington and yes, even President Bush, who has made some stumbles in the second term that former presidents Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton also made.
When the other so-called top tier Republican candidates take on the corruption in Washington, they can be taken as serious Republicans. Until then, Mitt Romney is the gutsiest of the field at this point.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
25 Ignorant Buffoons
Today, the senate voted in large numbers to condemn the traitorous MoveOn.org advertisement in the New York Times libeling Gen David Petreaus. But, where did Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin, Grand Wizard, er Sen. Robert Byrd, stand on this vote? Well, these sycophants, except Sen. Obama, voted against the Sense of the Senate resolution by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
The SOTS passed 72-25 with three abstentions. Again, one of the three abstentions was Sen. Obama. The other two were Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Here is the list of the 25 ignorant buffoons who are so blinded by MoveOn.org that they can not bring themselves to vote against one of the most treacherous bits of propaganda in recent memory:
Daniel Akaka-HI
Jeff Bingaman-NM
Barbara Boxer-CA-no surprise!
Sherrod Brown-OH
Grand Wizard Robert Byrd-WV
Hilary Clinton-NY
Christopher Dodd-CT
Dick Durbin-IL
Russ Feingold-WI
Tom Harkin-IA
Daniel Inouye-HI
Edward Kennedy-MA
John Kerry-MA
Frank Lautenberg-NJ
Carl Levin-MI
Robert Menendez-NJ
Patty Murray-WA
Jack Reed-RI
Jay Rockefeller-WV
Bernard Sanders-VT
Charles Schumer-NY
Debbie Stabenow-MI
Sheldon Whitehouse-RI
Ron Wyden-OR
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, no Republican voted against the SOTS.
What a rouges gallery of sycophants!
It is most troublesome that these buffoons can not stand up to an ally and say they went over the line. And, these people want to make the American people believe that they will stand up to the al-Queda terrorists? To Osama bin Laden? To North Korean president Kim jong Il? To Iranian president Mahmoud Ahamdinejad?
It is unbelievable that these buffoons can not distinguish between a group that seeks to undermine the last chance to bring about a victory in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror and that the American people may have misgivings about the war in Iraq but know the difference between character assassination and potential victory.
But, one can not expect anything less from these fools.
Time to call and e-mail these senators http://capwiz.com and tell them that you are outraged by their vote on the SOTS and while you are at it, tell them to vote against the "Dream act".
Maybe, they will get the message.
The SOTS passed 72-25 with three abstentions. Again, one of the three abstentions was Sen. Obama. The other two were Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Here is the list of the 25 ignorant buffoons who are so blinded by MoveOn.org that they can not bring themselves to vote against one of the most treacherous bits of propaganda in recent memory:
Daniel Akaka-HI
Jeff Bingaman-NM
Barbara Boxer-CA-no surprise!
Sherrod Brown-OH
Grand Wizard Robert Byrd-WV
Hilary Clinton-NY
Christopher Dodd-CT
Dick Durbin-IL
Russ Feingold-WI
Tom Harkin-IA
Daniel Inouye-HI
Edward Kennedy-MA
John Kerry-MA
Frank Lautenberg-NJ
Carl Levin-MI
Robert Menendez-NJ
Patty Murray-WA
Jack Reed-RI
Jay Rockefeller-WV
Bernard Sanders-VT
Charles Schumer-NY
Debbie Stabenow-MI
Sheldon Whitehouse-RI
Ron Wyden-OR
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, no Republican voted against the SOTS.
What a rouges gallery of sycophants!
It is most troublesome that these buffoons can not stand up to an ally and say they went over the line. And, these people want to make the American people believe that they will stand up to the al-Queda terrorists? To Osama bin Laden? To North Korean president Kim jong Il? To Iranian president Mahmoud Ahamdinejad?
It is unbelievable that these buffoons can not distinguish between a group that seeks to undermine the last chance to bring about a victory in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror and that the American people may have misgivings about the war in Iraq but know the difference between character assassination and potential victory.
But, one can not expect anything less from these fools.
Time to call and e-mail these senators http://capwiz.com and tell them that you are outraged by their vote on the SOTS and while you are at it, tell them to vote against the "Dream act".
Maybe, they will get the message.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Dumb And Numb-Just How The Eilites Like It
I have to say, I can not wait to buy and read Laura Ingraham's http://lauraingraham.com latest tome, "Power To The People."
One thing that she said on her radio program today has stuck with me. She said that it appears that many Americans like to be dumb and numb. It was one of the most accurate comments I have heard in a long time.
In defense of many Americans, there are thoughtful people and yes on both sides that are trying to push for better education for Americans and a better informed citizenry.
But, let us face facts. I feel like I am in a time warp.
Yesterday, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) unveiled her Hilarycare II, trying to sugar-coat the socialization of medicine in the United States, and O. J. Simpson is in jail again. And, for good measure, there is still rumblings that Newt Gingrich is thinking about running for president.
Is this 1995 or 2007?
So, I have a pop quiz.
How many know anything about the Israeli air raids into Syria? Or, how many know about the story of a group of Iranians and North Koreans in Syria who died in a chemical weapons accident? (HT: Jerusalem Post http://jpost.com)
Not many, I am sure because the DDBMSM likes you to not know, thus not care. It is more important for some news outlets to show you what O. J. Simpson's jail toilet looks like http://FoxNews.com. It is more important to show an ignorant Sally Field railing at the Emmy Awards that if mothers ruled the world there would be no more war.
An aside, I believe that former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was a woman, and a mother, and led Britain to war with Argentina over Argentina's illegal invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1981. What does Miss Field have to say about that?
It amazes me to converse with people and when I bring up what is going on in the world what little people know. And with all the options out there such as the Internet, television, radio and yes, even newspapers, it appears that most Americans are dumber and number.
Does the United States need to have a major city nuked to wake up the majority of people? Does the United States need to continue to allow abortion on demand unabated because seven men in black robes mysteriously found a "right" in the constitution? How about banning school prayer? What about spending at all levels of government going unchecked? May I go on?
That is what I try to address when I can. We need to do what Miss Ingraham is saying in her book. We need to take back this nation from the abyss.
In the post previous to this, I implore on people to call their senators and congressmen to tell them NOT to pass the "Dream Act" which, among other things, gives illegal alien college students in-state tuition. It is amnesty through the back door. The American people were able to change the senate's mind once, now it is time to do it again.
When it comes to public education, we all need to get involved, whether we have children in the public schools or not. It is there that minds are being molded and mostly by left-wingers. If we are to take back something, it will have to start at public education.
What Miss Ingraham is saying is what I will say. Educate yourselves. Be on top of issues. Do not fall into the trap of being dumb and numb.
One thing that she said on her radio program today has stuck with me. She said that it appears that many Americans like to be dumb and numb. It was one of the most accurate comments I have heard in a long time.
In defense of many Americans, there are thoughtful people and yes on both sides that are trying to push for better education for Americans and a better informed citizenry.
But, let us face facts. I feel like I am in a time warp.
Yesterday, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) unveiled her Hilarycare II, trying to sugar-coat the socialization of medicine in the United States, and O. J. Simpson is in jail again. And, for good measure, there is still rumblings that Newt Gingrich is thinking about running for president.
Is this 1995 or 2007?
So, I have a pop quiz.
How many know anything about the Israeli air raids into Syria? Or, how many know about the story of a group of Iranians and North Koreans in Syria who died in a chemical weapons accident? (HT: Jerusalem Post http://jpost.com)
Not many, I am sure because the DDBMSM likes you to not know, thus not care. It is more important for some news outlets to show you what O. J. Simpson's jail toilet looks like http://FoxNews.com. It is more important to show an ignorant Sally Field railing at the Emmy Awards that if mothers ruled the world there would be no more war.
An aside, I believe that former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was a woman, and a mother, and led Britain to war with Argentina over Argentina's illegal invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1981. What does Miss Field have to say about that?
It amazes me to converse with people and when I bring up what is going on in the world what little people know. And with all the options out there such as the Internet, television, radio and yes, even newspapers, it appears that most Americans are dumber and number.
Does the United States need to have a major city nuked to wake up the majority of people? Does the United States need to continue to allow abortion on demand unabated because seven men in black robes mysteriously found a "right" in the constitution? How about banning school prayer? What about spending at all levels of government going unchecked? May I go on?
That is what I try to address when I can. We need to do what Miss Ingraham is saying in her book. We need to take back this nation from the abyss.
In the post previous to this, I implore on people to call their senators and congressmen to tell them NOT to pass the "Dream Act" which, among other things, gives illegal alien college students in-state tuition. It is amnesty through the back door. The American people were able to change the senate's mind once, now it is time to do it again.
When it comes to public education, we all need to get involved, whether we have children in the public schools or not. It is there that minds are being molded and mostly by left-wingers. If we are to take back something, it will have to start at public education.
What Miss Ingraham is saying is what I will say. Educate yourselves. Be on top of issues. Do not fall into the trap of being dumb and numb.
Backdoor Amnesty, Back To Work
Apparently, the United States senate does not like to take the public "no" for an answer. Crafty devils they are. Instead of the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam they tried to shove down the American people's throats, they are trying the "drip, drip, drip" method of sneaking it in piece by piece.
The new attempt is the so-called "Dream Act" which would allow college-age illegal alien students to get in-state tuition and access to student aid that many American students need to go to even a state university. Call it the "Nightmare Act" is more like it!
It is nothing more than a weird way to reward parents for coming here illegally in the first place and their children. Now, to be fair, many children did not have much choice in the matter, but when they know at a certain age, if their parents tell them, that they are not American citizens, they should not be able to access higher education at the front of the line over American students or those that are from other nations that are playing by the rules.
So, since the Republicans stopped it when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was trying to get this Nightmare Act when the Republicans controlled the senate, now Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) is trying to get it through a nominally Democrat controlled senate.
Here is a clue. If Republicans think that they can pull the wool over our eyes and let this abysmal piece of legislation pass, then they will be in for a rude awakening.
So, it is time to contact your senators, for now, and tell them to vote no if this Nightmare Act does come for a vote this week.
Go to Capital Contacts http://www.capwiz.com/ for the phone number to your senator in the Washington, D. C. office and in your home state. Also, e-mail them as well. If they get another great flood of phone calls and e-mails, as in the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam, they will get the message and vote no.
This continuing message from some members of congress that breaking the law in the first place gets rewarded need to be stopped and stopped now.
If we can do that here, then maybe the senate and or the house will stop bringing the Federal Rewards Programs For Illegal Aliens up for vote after vote.
Time to stop the backdoor amnesty and for us to get back to work reminding the senate who they work for.
The new attempt is the so-called "Dream Act" which would allow college-age illegal alien students to get in-state tuition and access to student aid that many American students need to go to even a state university. Call it the "Nightmare Act" is more like it!
It is nothing more than a weird way to reward parents for coming here illegally in the first place and their children. Now, to be fair, many children did not have much choice in the matter, but when they know at a certain age, if their parents tell them, that they are not American citizens, they should not be able to access higher education at the front of the line over American students or those that are from other nations that are playing by the rules.
So, since the Republicans stopped it when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was trying to get this Nightmare Act when the Republicans controlled the senate, now Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) is trying to get it through a nominally Democrat controlled senate.
Here is a clue. If Republicans think that they can pull the wool over our eyes and let this abysmal piece of legislation pass, then they will be in for a rude awakening.
So, it is time to contact your senators, for now, and tell them to vote no if this Nightmare Act does come for a vote this week.
Go to Capital Contacts http://www.capwiz.com/ for the phone number to your senator in the Washington, D. C. office and in your home state. Also, e-mail them as well. If they get another great flood of phone calls and e-mails, as in the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam, they will get the message and vote no.
This continuing message from some members of congress that breaking the law in the first place gets rewarded need to be stopped and stopped now.
If we can do that here, then maybe the senate and or the house will stop bringing the Federal Rewards Programs For Illegal Aliens up for vote after vote.
Time to stop the backdoor amnesty and for us to get back to work reminding the senate who they work for.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The GOP Spent How Much To Try To Help Lincoln Chafee Win Reelection To The Senate?
In today's Providence Journal http://www.projo.com, former United States senator, Lincoln Chafee, said that he has left the Republican party and is now an unaffiliated voter.
The Rhode Islander was somehow going to win reelection in 2006 and keep the senate in GOP hands.
Or, so that is what the GOP thought. The National Republican Senate Committee spent a lot of money fending off a serious primary challenge from Cranston mayor Steven Laffey and in the general election and Mr. Chafee still lost.
I think that the voters of Rhode Island could not really tell the difference between Mr. Chafee and the Democrat challenger, now senator, Sheldon Whitehouse. Hence, rightviewfromtheleftcoast rule number one: when faced between a "moderate" Republican and an unapologetic liberal Democrat, the voters will elect the real deal, the Democrat.
So, I ask again in looking back and hearing the warnings from conservative activists, was the money that the NRSC spent to try to defend a seat that would have probably become independent, leaning Democrat, worth it?
It was not. And Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) needs to remember this as we head into the 2008 election in earnest.
Firstly, let the state party decide the nominee. The NRSC blatantly interfered with the process by giving Mr. Chafee a ton of money to fend off Mr. Laffey's challenge. No more of that.
Second. See if the candidate has a realistic chance to win. The only way to really win is to concentrate on state races that the GOP has a chance to win. Too much money was wasted in Rhode Island on a race that was doomed from the start.
Third, start rebuilding state parties. If the GOP lets New England stay in Democrat hands, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The RNC needs to put some professionals in each state's party and find ways to run candidates in every race in that state. Even if it will be a blowout on election day, it keeps the Republicans in the news and makes the Democrats have to spend money where they should not have to. Also, it will be the only way to rebuild the Republican brand in this part of the United States.
Wasting money needs to stop for the NRSC. Getting great candidates is and has to be the first priority if there is any chance, and I am an optimist, to regain the senate. It is true, all it will take is two seats to reclaim and maybe even one if the Republicans win the White House.
So, I for one am glad that Mr. Chafee has left the Republican party. For one can be an iconoclast and not always vote the party line, but Mr. Chafee was doing it with so much impunity that he might as well have become independent before the 2006 election. It would have saved the NRSC a lot of money and may have made the difference in a couple of close races.
The Rhode Islander was somehow going to win reelection in 2006 and keep the senate in GOP hands.
Or, so that is what the GOP thought. The National Republican Senate Committee spent a lot of money fending off a serious primary challenge from Cranston mayor Steven Laffey and in the general election and Mr. Chafee still lost.
I think that the voters of Rhode Island could not really tell the difference between Mr. Chafee and the Democrat challenger, now senator, Sheldon Whitehouse. Hence, rightviewfromtheleftcoast rule number one: when faced between a "moderate" Republican and an unapologetic liberal Democrat, the voters will elect the real deal, the Democrat.
So, I ask again in looking back and hearing the warnings from conservative activists, was the money that the NRSC spent to try to defend a seat that would have probably become independent, leaning Democrat, worth it?
It was not. And Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) needs to remember this as we head into the 2008 election in earnest.
Firstly, let the state party decide the nominee. The NRSC blatantly interfered with the process by giving Mr. Chafee a ton of money to fend off Mr. Laffey's challenge. No more of that.
Second. See if the candidate has a realistic chance to win. The only way to really win is to concentrate on state races that the GOP has a chance to win. Too much money was wasted in Rhode Island on a race that was doomed from the start.
Third, start rebuilding state parties. If the GOP lets New England stay in Democrat hands, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The RNC needs to put some professionals in each state's party and find ways to run candidates in every race in that state. Even if it will be a blowout on election day, it keeps the Republicans in the news and makes the Democrats have to spend money where they should not have to. Also, it will be the only way to rebuild the Republican brand in this part of the United States.
Wasting money needs to stop for the NRSC. Getting great candidates is and has to be the first priority if there is any chance, and I am an optimist, to regain the senate. It is true, all it will take is two seats to reclaim and maybe even one if the Republicans win the White House.
So, I for one am glad that Mr. Chafee has left the Republican party. For one can be an iconoclast and not always vote the party line, but Mr. Chafee was doing it with so much impunity that he might as well have become independent before the 2006 election. It would have saved the NRSC a lot of money and may have made the difference in a couple of close races.
The Food And Health Police Will Just Not Leave Us Alone
On the Nanny State front, a Los Angeles city councilwoman, Jan Perry, has a very ingenious idea to stem the "tide" of obesity in the city council district that she represents.
Miss Perry would like a two-year moratorium on the building of fast food restaurants.
WHAT?!?!?
It has to prove two things.
That the Los Angeles city council does not have anything better to do. While the city can not fix potholes, they will consider this absurd legislation.
Secondly, the reason that there is a proliferation of fast food establishments in South Central Los Angeles is the fact that it is a social and economic basketcase and until the former situation is solved, the latter will not transform.
But, Miss Perry obviously does not understand both the problem in her district and the free enterprise system.
Gang activity, which leads to crime, broken families, which leads to multiple children and many times from multiple fathers, and lack of innitive is the greatest problem in the district Miss Perry represents. But, true socialist that she is, she does not want to address the real problems but blames the outside forces that makes these people do what they do.
Really? So, these people do not have minds of their own and know how to make the right decisions over the wrong decisions? I do not think so, but if one makes people feel like victims rather than part of the problem, what you get is an unending cycle.
So, if the police were able to go all out to break the power of gang life, many young people will have potential opportunity to better their lives and thus the lives of their neighbors. These people are tired of the empty promises to improve their neighborhoods.
It is time for the police to be able to break heads and let the gangs and gangbangers know who runs the neighborhood.
Also, their is a spiritual bankruptcy, which leads to the problems of gangs and cheap sex that leads to out of wedlock children which cause a drain on the economy in general as the state has to dole out welfare benefits to these people. There is a serious need for spiritual renewal. This is a great vineyard for Christians to speak the gospel and bring people to Christ. Also, there is room for many faith traditions to help those who want to break the cycle of economic and spiritual poverty gripping this area of Los Angeles.
It would amaze Miss Perry that if that were done, then many businesses would want to flock to this area to build it up, to provide jobs and a way for many to move up the ladder and become great role models for their neighbors. But, why would say a major supermarket chain want to go into such an area? The risks far outweigh the possible benefits.
The reality is that people want to sweep the real problems under the rug and blame someone else and feel good about it.
So, then the Food Police will be active in trying to stop another McDonalds from being built in an area where it is popular. And the Nanny State continues to astound those of us that believe this is the last place where government should be involved.
Methinks that until the larger problems are solved in this area of Los Angeles, it will not matter if one or a thousand fast food restaurants are built. There needs to be a rethinking of the proper role of government. All I can say is that this is not the proper role of government.
Miss Perry would like a two-year moratorium on the building of fast food restaurants.
WHAT?!?!?
It has to prove two things.
That the Los Angeles city council does not have anything better to do. While the city can not fix potholes, they will consider this absurd legislation.
Secondly, the reason that there is a proliferation of fast food establishments in South Central Los Angeles is the fact that it is a social and economic basketcase and until the former situation is solved, the latter will not transform.
But, Miss Perry obviously does not understand both the problem in her district and the free enterprise system.
Gang activity, which leads to crime, broken families, which leads to multiple children and many times from multiple fathers, and lack of innitive is the greatest problem in the district Miss Perry represents. But, true socialist that she is, she does not want to address the real problems but blames the outside forces that makes these people do what they do.
Really? So, these people do not have minds of their own and know how to make the right decisions over the wrong decisions? I do not think so, but if one makes people feel like victims rather than part of the problem, what you get is an unending cycle.
So, if the police were able to go all out to break the power of gang life, many young people will have potential opportunity to better their lives and thus the lives of their neighbors. These people are tired of the empty promises to improve their neighborhoods.
It is time for the police to be able to break heads and let the gangs and gangbangers know who runs the neighborhood.
Also, their is a spiritual bankruptcy, which leads to the problems of gangs and cheap sex that leads to out of wedlock children which cause a drain on the economy in general as the state has to dole out welfare benefits to these people. There is a serious need for spiritual renewal. This is a great vineyard for Christians to speak the gospel and bring people to Christ. Also, there is room for many faith traditions to help those who want to break the cycle of economic and spiritual poverty gripping this area of Los Angeles.
It would amaze Miss Perry that if that were done, then many businesses would want to flock to this area to build it up, to provide jobs and a way for many to move up the ladder and become great role models for their neighbors. But, why would say a major supermarket chain want to go into such an area? The risks far outweigh the possible benefits.
The reality is that people want to sweep the real problems under the rug and blame someone else and feel good about it.
So, then the Food Police will be active in trying to stop another McDonalds from being built in an area where it is popular. And the Nanny State continues to astound those of us that believe this is the last place where government should be involved.
Methinks that until the larger problems are solved in this area of Los Angeles, it will not matter if one or a thousand fast food restaurants are built. There needs to be a rethinking of the proper role of government. All I can say is that this is not the proper role of government.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Kathy Griffin Is NOT Funny At All
In today's coarsened "culture", there are few things off limits.
Oh, one can not say anything negative about "victim" groups, you know, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, Islamics, and the rest of what now makes up the Democrat base.
But God and Jesus, oh to those who think all of us who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and that with the Father and the Holy Ghost he influences many Americans in their everyday lives, that is not off limits. It is considered cool.
Along comes "comedienne" Kathy Griffin. She has a "reality" show in which she mocks the fact that she is not even a "B" list celebrity. Her show, "My Life On The D List" celebrates mediocrity.
So, when a mediocre "comedienne" says something so outrageous, it should not get any notice.
But, this time, Miss Griffin decided to take on the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the big cheese, Jesus Christ.
In the background and creative Emmy Awards show that will be broadcast this Saturday night, in a clearly unbelievable act, Miss Griffin actually wins an Emmy.
In an act of ingratitude, Miss Griffin says:
A lot of people come up here to thank Jesus for winning this award. I want to let you know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.
Beautiful! But, Miss Griffin felt that she did not go far enough in this diatribe. Miss Griffin went on to proclaim:
Suck it, Jesus! This award is my God!
Outstanding!
On a slew of different levels, this is absolutely revolting. This goes beyond the pornification of the "culture" that Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com talks about in her latest book, "Power To The People".
If it were not for William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, these remarks would have probably aired on the on the disgusting E! Channel this Saturday night.
Talk about a Power To The People moment!
I can not help but wonder, would Miss Griffin even thought to slam Mohammed in the same way, saying "Suck it Mohammed! This award is my Allah!" Of course not!
For whatever reason, people who profess the Christian faith, no matter what, are mocked in this way. At one time in the United States, this mocking would have been roundly condemned and the person saying it would have been, rightfully, out of a job.
Now, it is cool to slam Christians. It is cool to put Jesus in a jar of urine and call it "Piss Christ" and pass it off as art. Or, in Australia, where there has been an art show where the traditional image of Jesus morphs into, I kid you not, Osama bin Laden http://americasnewspaper.com.
Every slam in this fashion seems to be protected according to those who like this sort of thing by the United States constitution. It may be true in a literal sense. But, why do people go out of their way to offend a huge segment of the American populace and in fact make them feel marginalized? Does it make them feel cool? Do they realize, not everyone who is a professing Christian practices their faith a same way?
No, these people do not usually know Christians. They are the ones that think "fly over country" are a bunch of illiterate hayseeds who have no brains and must hold onto the Christian thing as a crutch. Remember, the award is Miss Griffin's God. How sad and pathetic.
I would ask you to read the piece by Fox News Channel's religion correspondent, Lauren Green http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296683,00.html. It is a reasoned answer as to why Miss Griffin's comments were so offensive.
What those who do these kinds of actions, whether it is outright repugnant comments about Jesus, or trying to block nativity scenes at Christmas time or replacing the Resurrection story of Jesus with the spring bunny at Easter, they make all Christians, traditional and modern, stand up and say no more. Stop this now!
The sad part for Miss Griffin is that I have watched her and she can be funny, but there is a fine line between being funny and outrageous and being downright offensive. Like Michael Richards use of the N word during a performance, this marginalizes and comedienne who can be funny.
I think Miss Griffin should be punished by spending a week with the practicing Christian family of her choice and see that most of us are not all that bad.
Oh, one can not say anything negative about "victim" groups, you know, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, Islamics, and the rest of what now makes up the Democrat base.
But God and Jesus, oh to those who think all of us who profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and that with the Father and the Holy Ghost he influences many Americans in their everyday lives, that is not off limits. It is considered cool.
Along comes "comedienne" Kathy Griffin. She has a "reality" show in which she mocks the fact that she is not even a "B" list celebrity. Her show, "My Life On The D List" celebrates mediocrity.
So, when a mediocre "comedienne" says something so outrageous, it should not get any notice.
But, this time, Miss Griffin decided to take on the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the big cheese, Jesus Christ.
In the background and creative Emmy Awards show that will be broadcast this Saturday night, in a clearly unbelievable act, Miss Griffin actually wins an Emmy.
In an act of ingratitude, Miss Griffin says:
A lot of people come up here to thank Jesus for winning this award. I want to let you know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.
Beautiful! But, Miss Griffin felt that she did not go far enough in this diatribe. Miss Griffin went on to proclaim:
Suck it, Jesus! This award is my God!
Outstanding!
On a slew of different levels, this is absolutely revolting. This goes beyond the pornification of the "culture" that Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com talks about in her latest book, "Power To The People".
If it were not for William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, these remarks would have probably aired on the on the disgusting E! Channel this Saturday night.
Talk about a Power To The People moment!
I can not help but wonder, would Miss Griffin even thought to slam Mohammed in the same way, saying "Suck it Mohammed! This award is my Allah!" Of course not!
For whatever reason, people who profess the Christian faith, no matter what, are mocked in this way. At one time in the United States, this mocking would have been roundly condemned and the person saying it would have been, rightfully, out of a job.
Now, it is cool to slam Christians. It is cool to put Jesus in a jar of urine and call it "Piss Christ" and pass it off as art. Or, in Australia, where there has been an art show where the traditional image of Jesus morphs into, I kid you not, Osama bin Laden http://americasnewspaper.com.
Every slam in this fashion seems to be protected according to those who like this sort of thing by the United States constitution. It may be true in a literal sense. But, why do people go out of their way to offend a huge segment of the American populace and in fact make them feel marginalized? Does it make them feel cool? Do they realize, not everyone who is a professing Christian practices their faith a same way?
No, these people do not usually know Christians. They are the ones that think "fly over country" are a bunch of illiterate hayseeds who have no brains and must hold onto the Christian thing as a crutch. Remember, the award is Miss Griffin's God. How sad and pathetic.
I would ask you to read the piece by Fox News Channel's religion correspondent, Lauren Green http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296683,00.html. It is a reasoned answer as to why Miss Griffin's comments were so offensive.
What those who do these kinds of actions, whether it is outright repugnant comments about Jesus, or trying to block nativity scenes at Christmas time or replacing the Resurrection story of Jesus with the spring bunny at Easter, they make all Christians, traditional and modern, stand up and say no more. Stop this now!
The sad part for Miss Griffin is that I have watched her and she can be funny, but there is a fine line between being funny and outrageous and being downright offensive. Like Michael Richards use of the N word during a performance, this marginalizes and comedienne who can be funny.
I think Miss Griffin should be punished by spending a week with the practicing Christian family of her choice and see that most of us are not all that bad.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
MoveOn.org Should Just Move On Out
I have waited to comment on the traitorous advertisement that MoveOn.org had published in the New York Times, in the A section at a discount no less, defaming the United States commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus and questioning the validity of the report to congress.
I have waited because I actually thought, silly me, that the leading Democrat presidential candidates would have distanced and or condemned the advertisement.
But, alas, no one would. Oh, of course the pseudo Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) did condemn it. Not Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Not Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). Not former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). Not a one.
So, what was so bad about this advertisement?
Besides the caption, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Oh, real cute. The advertisement went on to not just imply but downright say that Gen. Petraeus was cooking up the report in a favorable light to the Bush administration.
Now, why would a decorated, injured twice, general of Gen. Petraeus stature lie about the progress, militarily, in Iraq? Gen. Petraeus has nothing to gain by "cooking" the report.
What is nauseating about this tactic by MoveOn.org is that by making Gen. Petraeus their scapegoat, they lead the way in attacking the very troops that are in Iraq now fighting the insurgents and al-Queda In Iraq.
Yes, our friends on the left say that they have nothing against the troops. Why, they even support the troops, so they say. But, if Gen. Petraeus is lying, then what the troops are doing in the fight is nothing but a big lie.
So, why do the Democrats let this libel stand? Because MoveOn.org is doing two things. The Democrat bidding in discrediting Gen. Petraeus and United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. According to news reports, an unidentified Democrat senator said that they will leave it to the outside groups like MoveOn.org to do their dirty work. So brave of the senator, not even to identify him or herself. So brave to not do the dirty work his or herself. What a slime!
Today's New York Post http://nypost.com/seven/09122007/postopinion/smearing has an excellent editorial slamming MoveOn.org for taking this tack, the New York Times for publishing and essentially agreeing with the content of the advertisement and the Democrat presidential candidates for not condemning this libel.
The second thing that MoveOn.org is doing is ginning up their members and in turn the Democrat base by renewing the anti-war creed of the Democrat party. MoveOn.org gets more cash and that goes, indirectly, to Democrat candidates.
Since the Democrat party is showing it self to be the cowards that they are, I predict that this will backfire and that the sober, no sugar-coated report of Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker will gain support for the surge and repulse the centrist voter that the Democrats believe they have in their hip pocket.
If the Democrats are a serious party and want to be a centrist party, the first thing that the leadership and presidential candidates must do is distance themselves from this fifth-columnist group, MoveOn.org, and stand up and say that they will give the surge a full chance and if their is no tangible results by spring, then pursue legislation that will end the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror and try to get some Republican support.
Being cowards as the Democrats are is unbecoming of a party of the stature that they have been-until now. To start, responsible Democrats need to tell MoveOn.org to move on out.
I have waited because I actually thought, silly me, that the leading Democrat presidential candidates would have distanced and or condemned the advertisement.
But, alas, no one would. Oh, of course the pseudo Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) did condemn it. Not Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY). Not Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). Not former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). Not a one.
So, what was so bad about this advertisement?
Besides the caption, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Oh, real cute. The advertisement went on to not just imply but downright say that Gen. Petraeus was cooking up the report in a favorable light to the Bush administration.
Now, why would a decorated, injured twice, general of Gen. Petraeus stature lie about the progress, militarily, in Iraq? Gen. Petraeus has nothing to gain by "cooking" the report.
What is nauseating about this tactic by MoveOn.org is that by making Gen. Petraeus their scapegoat, they lead the way in attacking the very troops that are in Iraq now fighting the insurgents and al-Queda In Iraq.
Yes, our friends on the left say that they have nothing against the troops. Why, they even support the troops, so they say. But, if Gen. Petraeus is lying, then what the troops are doing in the fight is nothing but a big lie.
So, why do the Democrats let this libel stand? Because MoveOn.org is doing two things. The Democrat bidding in discrediting Gen. Petraeus and United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. According to news reports, an unidentified Democrat senator said that they will leave it to the outside groups like MoveOn.org to do their dirty work. So brave of the senator, not even to identify him or herself. So brave to not do the dirty work his or herself. What a slime!
Today's New York Post http://nypost.com/seven/09122007/postopinion/smearing has an excellent editorial slamming MoveOn.org for taking this tack, the New York Times for publishing and essentially agreeing with the content of the advertisement and the Democrat presidential candidates for not condemning this libel.
The second thing that MoveOn.org is doing is ginning up their members and in turn the Democrat base by renewing the anti-war creed of the Democrat party. MoveOn.org gets more cash and that goes, indirectly, to Democrat candidates.
Since the Democrat party is showing it self to be the cowards that they are, I predict that this will backfire and that the sober, no sugar-coated report of Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker will gain support for the surge and repulse the centrist voter that the Democrats believe they have in their hip pocket.
If the Democrats are a serious party and want to be a centrist party, the first thing that the leadership and presidential candidates must do is distance themselves from this fifth-columnist group, MoveOn.org, and stand up and say that they will give the surge a full chance and if their is no tangible results by spring, then pursue legislation that will end the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror and try to get some Republican support.
Being cowards as the Democrats are is unbecoming of a party of the stature that they have been-until now. To start, responsible Democrats need to tell MoveOn.org to move on out.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Cast Your Vote!
Well, I am trying to figure out if the polling mechanism on e-blogger is working.
If it is, take part in my straw poll on the right, of course, of who will be the Republican presidential nominee.
If it is not working, please vote here by using the comments.
You have until Friday at 9pm, Pacific Time.
At that time, I will tabulate the votes and post them within the hour.
Please take part!
If it is, take part in my straw poll on the right, of course, of who will be the Republican presidential nominee.
If it is not working, please vote here by using the comments.
You have until Friday at 9pm, Pacific Time.
At that time, I will tabulate the votes and post them within the hour.
Please take part!
Patriot Day, Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Today is Patriot Day.
Not many Americans know it.
It is because of an act of congress right after the vicious terrorist attacks on the United States on this day six years ago. It is to remember the events of that horrible day in which 19 terrorists showed how they could change a nation in a matter of hours and awaken a sleeping giant.
And, the sad part is how soon people WANT to forget the fateful day six years ago.
New York City "independent" mayor, Michael Bloomberg was trying to prevent the ceremony from taking place at the former World Trade Center site that has taken place the previous five years. Mr. Bloomberg cited the construction going on there. But, thankfully, many of those who wanted to have the ceremony took over the mayor's head and it has already occurred, as it should.
Too many people are now using the old moral equivalence that permeated during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. If you forget, the left tried to downplay any of the evil of the Soviet's by trying to equalize what the United States was doing. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan put a stop to that and defeated the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States was something special and history has proven that correct.
Now, we are not even bothering to teach our young people what happened and if there is anything, it is in "context", so what that means is that somehow the United States will be made to be the bad guy and those in al-Queda and their allies are the good guys.
Then, what is the point of Patriot Day?
It will be up to people like us to remind the American people what happened on that fateful September morn six years ago. It is up to us to tell the story as to why we are fighting those who will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life and liberty and replace it with a repugnant form of Islam that is demeaning and degrading.
Today is Patriot Day. Please remind those who want to forget we can not forget and make victory in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
Not many Americans know it.
It is because of an act of congress right after the vicious terrorist attacks on the United States on this day six years ago. It is to remember the events of that horrible day in which 19 terrorists showed how they could change a nation in a matter of hours and awaken a sleeping giant.
And, the sad part is how soon people WANT to forget the fateful day six years ago.
New York City "independent" mayor, Michael Bloomberg was trying to prevent the ceremony from taking place at the former World Trade Center site that has taken place the previous five years. Mr. Bloomberg cited the construction going on there. But, thankfully, many of those who wanted to have the ceremony took over the mayor's head and it has already occurred, as it should.
Too many people are now using the old moral equivalence that permeated during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. If you forget, the left tried to downplay any of the evil of the Soviet's by trying to equalize what the United States was doing. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan put a stop to that and defeated the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States was something special and history has proven that correct.
Now, we are not even bothering to teach our young people what happened and if there is anything, it is in "context", so what that means is that somehow the United States will be made to be the bad guy and those in al-Queda and their allies are the good guys.
Then, what is the point of Patriot Day?
It will be up to people like us to remind the American people what happened on that fateful September morn six years ago. It is up to us to tell the story as to why we are fighting those who will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life and liberty and replace it with a repugnant form of Islam that is demeaning and degrading.
Today is Patriot Day. Please remind those who want to forget we can not forget and make victory in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
Power To The People Out Today
Today is the day that radio talker Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com new book, "Power To The People" is out for public sale.
I usually am not a huckster for books, but Laura is one of the best conservative lights in public view and by buying her book, we are supporting her and what she talks about.
It is her kind of inspiration that leads people like myself to take the time to do this blog.
So, go out and buy her book and make sure that it gets into the New York Times top 10 ASAP!
I usually am not a huckster for books, but Laura is one of the best conservative lights in public view and by buying her book, we are supporting her and what she talks about.
It is her kind of inspiration that leads people like myself to take the time to do this blog.
So, go out and buy her book and make sure that it gets into the New York Times top 10 ASAP!
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Former Mrs. Reagan Dies
Jane Wyman, a great actress and the former Mrs. Ronald Reagan died today at 93.
Miss Wyman was a classy lady who did not dish any dirt on her former husband when he was elected to be governor of California or president of the United States. When Mr. Reagan died in 2004, Miss Wyman said that "America lost a great president and a kind and gentle man."
In a strange twist, Miss Wyman's career had a revival when Mr. Reagan was elected to the White House in 1980.
Miss Wyman became the star of the 1980's night time soap opera, "Falcon Crest" as a cunning, ruthless wine owner in the Napa Valley of California.
But, because she believed that it was not right to talk about an ex-husband or ex-wife, we do not and will not know if there was anything bad between Miss Wyman and Mr. Reagan. And, that is how it should be.
It is a shame that in today's celebrity culture that is beyond narcissistic, these toads could learn something from the generation of Miss Wyman and Mr. Reagan and some of the great actors and actresses of all time.
CLASS!
Today, not too many entertainers do have class. They would rather talk about their pathetic, loser lives and diss others just to make themselves look good.
People of that era just did not think it was right and proper and I for one would like to return to that time.
But, as those from that era continue to leave us for the Glory of God, so too will the decency and class that was with them.
And, that was Jane Wyman, a class act.
Miss Wyman was a classy lady who did not dish any dirt on her former husband when he was elected to be governor of California or president of the United States. When Mr. Reagan died in 2004, Miss Wyman said that "America lost a great president and a kind and gentle man."
In a strange twist, Miss Wyman's career had a revival when Mr. Reagan was elected to the White House in 1980.
Miss Wyman became the star of the 1980's night time soap opera, "Falcon Crest" as a cunning, ruthless wine owner in the Napa Valley of California.
But, because she believed that it was not right to talk about an ex-husband or ex-wife, we do not and will not know if there was anything bad between Miss Wyman and Mr. Reagan. And, that is how it should be.
It is a shame that in today's celebrity culture that is beyond narcissistic, these toads could learn something from the generation of Miss Wyman and Mr. Reagan and some of the great actors and actresses of all time.
CLASS!
Today, not too many entertainers do have class. They would rather talk about their pathetic, loser lives and diss others just to make themselves look good.
People of that era just did not think it was right and proper and I for one would like to return to that time.
But, as those from that era continue to leave us for the Glory of God, so too will the decency and class that was with them.
And, that was Jane Wyman, a class act.
General Petreaus & Ambassador Crocker 1-Left Wing Loons 0
Today before a hostile joint Democrat-controlled House International and Defense committee, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, laid it all out there for the world to see.
In a nutshell, both admitted that while there was tangible progress both militarily and politically, it was not enough and more time would be needed. No punches where pulled. Nothing grandiose. Just the facts. In other words, to use baseball lingo, they hit a 1-2 homer out of the park.
On the other hand, the left-wings loons, led by the fifth-columnist MoveOn.org that ran a traitorous advertisement in the New York Times with this catchy tag line "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" Get it?! So funny, I forgot to laugh.
If that was not enough, lunatic leftists Code Pink interrupted the hearing several times shouting and screaming. Some of the screaming was blood curdling, as if they were being beheaded by one of the al-Queda enemies that we are fighting not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but worldwide. Among them, the Queen Loon herself, Cindy Sheehan. And just when you thought she would just be campaigning for Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's seat. Can you imagine some campaign propaganda from the Sheehan campaign with that photo?!
And, of course you had a couple of fringe Democrat inquisitors, Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Florida) and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif)-and I am embarrassed she is from here!
trying to slap down Gen. Petreaus. The good general would have none of it and when it became clear that Laurel and Hardy were just trying to score political points, Ambassador Crocker answered their moronic questions.
Some of the highlights http://FoxNews.com are:
By the sectarian factions dropping their association with al-Queda in Iraq violence has greatly decreased. General Petraeus
Gen. Petraeus blamed the al-Queda in Iraq bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in February 2006 for the huge spike in violence. Gen. Petraeus noted that this has been the quietest two weeks since February, 2006.
According to Gen. Petraeus, one marine unit will be sent home at the end of this month and an army brigade will be sent home in mid-December. Gen. Petraeus said that the troop levels should be at pre-surge levels by July, 2008.
Of course, the Democrats could not see the forest through the trees and beat Gen. Petraeus up on something that President Bush said last week in reference to the United States pullout from South Vietnam that led to the South being conquered by the Communist North.
Here is the reality.
It is not just about breaking the pottery and having to fix it as Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said during last week's Republican presidential debate. It is not just honor, also as Mr. Huckabee said. It is about the fact that the United States and allies can not leave Iraq and just hope that everything works out. For it will not. Sooner or later, the United States would be right back in the thick of battle, only it would be worse because the Islamofacsists, al-Queda in Iraq and other allies will be loaded for bear and much more deadly than they are now.
With some, but not enough, political gains and more to come and the military goals within reach, it is time to unite for victory. It is not time for the loons on the left to dictate the terms of surrender, which a time-table troop withdrawal would be.
I will write here and now that I am as weary of this battle in this theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but we have made real military and political progress and we need to see it through so that Iraq will be a reliable ally in the War Against Islamofacsist Terrror. The same for Afghanistan.
President Bush on more occasions than one can remember said that this would be a long struggle and it is apparent that a large segment of the American population can not deal with such a long term struggle. We all want it to be like a two hour movie and it to be over and the good guys, the United States and the West, beating the bad guys, al-Queda in Iraq and their bloodthirsty allies.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave a sober assessment of the situation in the Iraq theatre. Because of that, I do believe that for the first time in a long time, the American people are ready to back the current course and that may be a quicker than thought victory in the war.
The United States is lucky to have such leaders. Because they were honest, and the Democrats and their allies looked foolish, the light maybe at the end of the Iraq tunnel.
In a nutshell, both admitted that while there was tangible progress both militarily and politically, it was not enough and more time would be needed. No punches where pulled. Nothing grandiose. Just the facts. In other words, to use baseball lingo, they hit a 1-2 homer out of the park.
On the other hand, the left-wings loons, led by the fifth-columnist MoveOn.org that ran a traitorous advertisement in the New York Times with this catchy tag line "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" Get it?! So funny, I forgot to laugh.
If that was not enough, lunatic leftists Code Pink interrupted the hearing several times shouting and screaming. Some of the screaming was blood curdling, as if they were being beheaded by one of the al-Queda enemies that we are fighting not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but worldwide. Among them, the Queen Loon herself, Cindy Sheehan. And just when you thought she would just be campaigning for Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's seat. Can you imagine some campaign propaganda from the Sheehan campaign with that photo?!
And, of course you had a couple of fringe Democrat inquisitors, Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Florida) and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif)-and I am embarrassed she is from here!
trying to slap down Gen. Petreaus. The good general would have none of it and when it became clear that Laurel and Hardy were just trying to score political points, Ambassador Crocker answered their moronic questions.
Some of the highlights http://FoxNews.com are:
By the sectarian factions dropping their association with al-Queda in Iraq violence has greatly decreased. General Petraeus
Gen. Petraeus blamed the al-Queda in Iraq bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in February 2006 for the huge spike in violence. Gen. Petraeus noted that this has been the quietest two weeks since February, 2006.
According to Gen. Petraeus, one marine unit will be sent home at the end of this month and an army brigade will be sent home in mid-December. Gen. Petraeus said that the troop levels should be at pre-surge levels by July, 2008.
Of course, the Democrats could not see the forest through the trees and beat Gen. Petraeus up on something that President Bush said last week in reference to the United States pullout from South Vietnam that led to the South being conquered by the Communist North.
Here is the reality.
It is not just about breaking the pottery and having to fix it as Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said during last week's Republican presidential debate. It is not just honor, also as Mr. Huckabee said. It is about the fact that the United States and allies can not leave Iraq and just hope that everything works out. For it will not. Sooner or later, the United States would be right back in the thick of battle, only it would be worse because the Islamofacsists, al-Queda in Iraq and other allies will be loaded for bear and much more deadly than they are now.
With some, but not enough, political gains and more to come and the military goals within reach, it is time to unite for victory. It is not time for the loons on the left to dictate the terms of surrender, which a time-table troop withdrawal would be.
I will write here and now that I am as weary of this battle in this theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, but we have made real military and political progress and we need to see it through so that Iraq will be a reliable ally in the War Against Islamofacsist Terrror. The same for Afghanistan.
President Bush on more occasions than one can remember said that this would be a long struggle and it is apparent that a large segment of the American population can not deal with such a long term struggle. We all want it to be like a two hour movie and it to be over and the good guys, the United States and the West, beating the bad guys, al-Queda in Iraq and their bloodthirsty allies.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave a sober assessment of the situation in the Iraq theatre. Because of that, I do believe that for the first time in a long time, the American people are ready to back the current course and that may be a quicker than thought victory in the war.
The United States is lucky to have such leaders. Because they were honest, and the Democrats and their allies looked foolish, the light maybe at the end of the Iraq tunnel.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Hagel NOT Running For Reelection Or President-HOORAY!
Nebraska Republican senator Chuck Hagel is calling it quits http://owh.com. Sen. Hagel is not running for reelection or for the presidency. All I can say is HOORAY!
Sen. Hagel has been a thorn in the side of the Republican party for a long time now. Not unlike Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz), Sen. Hagel has thought that he is a party of one. If one does not listen to the pontifications of the Sage From The Heartland then one is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal.
Sen. Hagel is one of those Republicans that just does not learn. Sen. Hagel loves to reach out to the Democrats, again not unlike Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Here is the first lesson for a Republican that "reaches out" to the Democrats. Make sure to watch your back and that YOU have all the cards in the deck in your favor.
People like Sen. Hagel and his erstwhile ally Sen. "F--- You" McCain always go out of their way to Democrats. Take the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. People like Sens. Hagel and McCain let the Democrats pretty much write the bill.
It is one thing to reach out to the other side, but to let them use you to embarrass your party is not a good thing.
Oh, sure, Sen. Hagel loved to get the face time on the Sunday morning talking head shows. And., Sen. Hagel loved to get tomes published in the New York Times. Of course his appearances on television and tomes in the den of the enemy were almost always critical of the party he claimed to represent, the Republican party.
As Nebraska is one of the Reddest states in the United States, there should be no problem for the Republicans to keep this seat. And, elect an actual Republican, not a publicity-seeking sycophant.
Let us hope that Sen. Chuck Hagel simply slithers off into the sunset and now we Republicans can elect one that remembers that he, or she, is a Republican.
Sen. Hagel has been a thorn in the side of the Republican party for a long time now. Not unlike Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz), Sen. Hagel has thought that he is a party of one. If one does not listen to the pontifications of the Sage From The Heartland then one is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal.
Sen. Hagel is one of those Republicans that just does not learn. Sen. Hagel loves to reach out to the Democrats, again not unlike Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Here is the first lesson for a Republican that "reaches out" to the Democrats. Make sure to watch your back and that YOU have all the cards in the deck in your favor.
People like Sen. Hagel and his erstwhile ally Sen. "F--- You" McCain always go out of their way to Democrats. Take the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. People like Sens. Hagel and McCain let the Democrats pretty much write the bill.
It is one thing to reach out to the other side, but to let them use you to embarrass your party is not a good thing.
Oh, sure, Sen. Hagel loved to get the face time on the Sunday morning talking head shows. And., Sen. Hagel loved to get tomes published in the New York Times. Of course his appearances on television and tomes in the den of the enemy were almost always critical of the party he claimed to represent, the Republican party.
As Nebraska is one of the Reddest states in the United States, there should be no problem for the Republicans to keep this seat. And, elect an actual Republican, not a publicity-seeking sycophant.
Let us hope that Sen. Chuck Hagel simply slithers off into the sunset and now we Republicans can elect one that remembers that he, or she, is a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)