February 15, 2008

Et Tu, Romney?

By now you have probably observed that I am a big Mitt Romney fan.  There are few things Romney could do to damage my faith in him, but he managed to find one of them; Romney endorsed John McCain.

Now, to be fair, I understand the politics of it all.  I understand that Mitt wants to preserve his political future and as a party leader he is expected to fall in line with the party politics now that the nomination is all but wrapped up.  I understand that Romney is committed to party unity and whether we like it or not, McCain is our guy.

Having said that, I still don't like it.  I'm not a fan of John McCain.  I cheered Mitt on when he fired off his attacks on McCain's leftward tendencies.  I was with him completely when he argued that we need a Conservative in the White House and that McCain is no Conservative.  I can't help but feel a little betrayed.

Look, I'm gonna vote for John McCain if he is our nominee; I won't deny that.  But I also don't want to shove the last year and a half under the rug.  I don't want to ignore the fact that our party and the Conservative movement has a major problem in John McCain.  I had hoped that the man who is in the best position to really become the next big Conservative leader, Mitt Romney would have taken a bit more of a stand on this.

Wishful thinking I suppose.

I'm writing angry, never a good idea.  I'll stop now.

February 11, 2008

Picking Through the Leftovers: McCain or Huckabee

With Romney out of the race and a few days to ponder the remaining options, I've come to a decision on whether to cheer for Huckabee or McCain.  Neither of them were my first choice, but after spending some time evaluating what I like and don't like about both candidates, I've settled on a number of things I like about each, but alot more that I don't like about McCain than Huckabee.

I've noticed a trend during the candidacy of John McCain; that he seems to think that if he says something enough, that it is true.

I first noticed it in the back-and-forth between McCain and Romney when McCain took attempted to twist a Romney quote to allege that Romney supported a timeline to withdraw from Iraq.  When it was clearly showed that Romney never said nor meant such a thing, and McCain was confronted about the attack not being "straight talk" McCain simply held to his position that the attack was true and repeated multiple times that he was just giving "straight talk."

In recent months I've become confused about the definition of "straight talk" because I'm learning that it has less and less to do with the truth.

We've heard over and over from McCain that he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, when Kennedy-McCain clearly does. 

We've heard that he is pro-life, when he supports the expansion and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and opposes the human life amendment. 

We've heard that he supports traditional marriage when he staunchly opposed the federal marriage amendment.

We've heard that he will nominate strong judges, but not judges like Justice Alito who wear their Conservatism "on their sleeve."  (brief aside, in my opinion, Justice Alito is the best appointment to the Court since Justice Scalia.)

He tells us he is a fiscal Conservative but he opposed President Bush's tax cuts.  And while he says that he would not raise taxes publicly, there are reports that he has said the opposite privately.  Take that for what it is worth and a totally unconfirmed rumor.

Certainly, there are areas for debate and excuses that could be made for some of these, but when I find myself questioning the sincerity of a man over and over, it really makes it difficult to support his candidacy for the presidency.

Add to that the fact that he almost seems to relish crossing over the isle to not just work with Democrats, but advance their causes rather than those of the Republican Party, leaving us with gems like McCain-Finegold, and I've got some real concerns.

On the other hand, Huckabee is no knight in shining armor either.  His history of tax increases in Arkansas, his very recent conversion to strong immigration proponent and his "big government" approach on a number of issues leave me with many of the same questions.  But what I don't question is his position on social issues.  I don't question that he will nominate textualist judges.  I don't question that he will be a strong advocate for life and traditional marriage. 

I'm not totally sold on the Fair Tax idea, but I'd take almost anything as opposed to the IRS.  Though I'm also not convinced that we could get it passed.

I'm not sold on Huckabee's foreign policy credentials either, but this is an area that I see as being heavily influenced by advisors and military insiders as opposed to many of these social issues we face being a matter of personal conviction.  I believe Huckabee will stay the course in Iraq and while he doesn't have the same exposure to foreign policy that McCain does, I can't anticipate any tangible difference in the way they would handle foreign affairs.

At the end of the day, as a Conservative, I find myself with an easy choice between McCain and Huckabee; Welcome to the Huckabee wagon.  I question his history, but I don't question that he will at least attempt to do the things he says he will.  I can't say the same for McCain.

Let us not forget the "is he electable" factor, however.  I know many have gone the way of McCain based solely on the idea that he is the only one who stands a chance against Hilary or Obama.  I'm an optimist though, and I truly believe that both McCain and Huckabee could beat either of the Democrats through their respective playing to the middle (as McCain is currently doing) or playing to Conservatives (as Huckabee is doing and Bush did in 2004).  Though Huckabee also has a tough road ahead to even secure the nomination, I also believe it is still a possibility.

Though as a Floridian I'm really just on the sideline as our primary has come and gone, I still encourage those of you out there who live in, or have friends and family in states with primaries yet to pass, hop on the Huckabee wagon with me.

January 31, 2008

Mr. Excitement McCain?

I normally really enjoy columns by Ben Shaprio; the young upstart Conservative columnist who offers a fresh perspective on politics.  But I have to say his most recent column makes me ask whether he has been paying attention to the primaries at all:

McCain won because Romney's Boring

Huh?  I'll admit, it takes a certain kind of sick person to get into politics like some of us do.  To the average person watching a concession speech by a primary candidate lands just above watching paint dry.  However, ever on the "normie" scale, I can't fathom how one would say that McCain is more energizing than a 72 year old tree stump, let alone Mitt Romney.

As I concluded in my post on the Florida primary:

"I will also say that watching the post results speeches that Romney looked more presidential and was more inspiring and energizing in defeat than McCain in victory."

As one observer noted, the only possible way to enjoy watching John McCain anymore is to play a drinking game where you take a swig every time he uses the phrase "No, that is straight talk.  No, that is straight talk.  No, that is straight talk."  Other might say the fun in watching him is waiting to see if he is going to actually try and choke a journalist

If I have to hear the term "straight talk" ten times a day for the next for years I can't promise that I won't resort to violence.

I would almost rather listen to Al Gore speak than John McCain.  At least Al Gore is hilarious.

I've sold several folks on Romney just by directing them to clips of his speeches at CPAC and the like.  It has been my experience that those folks who have actually sat down and taken the time to look at Romney's record, to hear him speak, and really look past the media hype almost without fail come out excited about his candidacy.

Let's be clear about what McCain is not: young, stylish, energizing, fair-tempered, Conservative, right on immigration, right on stem cell research, right on protecting traditional marriage, or a "straight talker."

January 30, 2008

Florida Primary Aftermath

Last night, for the first time, I was glad that only half of Florida's delegates will count.  With McCain's win he picks up not just 57 delegates, but he also now has the momentum required to win the Republican primary. 

I will try not to dwell too much on Romney's loss, but there was much screaming at the Mr. G house last night.

So where does this leave us?  There are a few things we learned on the Republican side last night:

1.  McCain can win without appealing to Conservatives.  The conventional political wisdom for a while has been that Republicans don't have to run Conservative candidates because Conservatives if pitted with the choice of voting for a non-conservative Republican vs. a democrat will normally pick the Republican.  This political strategy hasn't been put into practice often because Conservatives energize the party and make the race that much easier.  But for whatever reason, whether it is because some Conservatives are believe McCain is the most electable or because Romney and Huckabee are splitting votes, or that Conservatives just aren't energize, McCain is showing that he can get along just fine without really targeting Conservatives.

This is a pretty significant shift in Republican politics.  If McCain is able to win because of his broad appeal, it will set the standard for Republican candidates to come.  I've heard many argue that McCain is a good candidate because he will set the stage for a Conservative candidate, but I don't see that happening.  Once the party begins to go down the road towards solidifying in the middle it is going to be a tough task to get back to the right.

2.  The only chance for a Conservative to beat McCain is for Huckabee to drop out.  With Giuliani's impending endorsement of McCain, Huckabee and Romney can no longer afford to split votes.  As last night's results showed, Romney has a much broader base than Huckabee and is in a better position to win.  Huckabee has been sold as the strong pro-life and pro-family candidate.  Folks have joined him because of belief in those causes.  But it is now time for Huckabee to put those causes before his campaign.  The longer Huckabee stays in the race, the less chance a Conservative has of winning the primary.  It is time for Huckabee to take one for the team and do what is best for the causes we believe in; drop out and endorse Romney.  An exit by Huckabee after Super Tuesday may be too late.

I will also say that watching the post results speeches that Romney looked more presidential and was more inspiring and energizing in defeat than McCain in victory.

January 28, 2008

Crist Endorses McCain, America Yawns

So Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez have jumped on board with McCain.  Neither of these come as any real shock, though I'm a little disappointed.  Unlike many of my fellow bloggers and the media however, I do not expect this will have any huge effect on the Florida primary.  While both of these men are skilled politicians, I don't see them as wielding a huge amount of public influence.  With Crist, in fact, I would argue just the opposite, public opinion and polls likely have more effect on him than the other way around. 

Let me ask you this, knowing what you know about Charlie Crist, if Giuliani had remained the front funner, do you think he would still be endorsing McCain?  I digress...

As for Mel Martinez, his approval ratings will tell you how much support will come with his endorsement... not much... and this is coming from someone who approves of Martinez.

Both of these guys have performed well in their respective roles and I respect both of them for it, but let's be honest the person is few and far between who is going to be tipped in one direction or the other by a politician's endorsement unless that politician has a devoted following.  Folks like Daniel Webster may garner that kind of following, but I don't see that with either Crist or Martinez.  A Jeb endorsement would have carried some weight, though he's probably angling for a VP spot.

Yes, yes, I know, Crist has ridiculously high approval ratings, but let's be honest, the reason for this is that he has managed to to completely tick anyone off yet.  Thats what makes him a great politician, but its that same mushy middle position that will prevent his endorsement from carrying much weight.

The media and bloggers are making this into a much bigger issue than it really is.  Perhaps if the endorsement had come a month ago and Crist went stomping around Florida stumping for McCain he could have swayed some folks for McCain with some passionate speeches, but a mere endorsement won't cut it.

If John McCain pulls off the victory it will be because of John McCain, not because of Charlie Crist.

But all of this is a moot point because all of you Republicans out there are going to vote for Mitt Romney... right?   Right?

January 25, 2008

Mr. G's Thoughts on the Republican Debate in Florida

I managed to catch the midnight rerun of the Republican debate in Florida on MSNBC last night.  Allow me to give you might thoughts on the performances and even a little on the status of the campaigns.  Start with the best performance of the night and move down.

1.  Mitt Romney

Even right out of the gate I thought Romney gave a dominating performance.  The commentators last night, and many in the papers today are attributing this to the fact that the candidates didn't go after each other like the democrats have been doing.  We can speculate, but it doesn't really matter.  The fact is that Romney, as has become his style, looked presidential, sounded presidential and had all the right answers.

But hey, I'm biased.

Regardless of who you believe "won" the debate, there must at least be a consensus that Romney had the line of the night when asked by Tim Russert whether he is ready to face a campaign against both Hillary and Bill Clinton stating that he "can't imagine Bill Clinton in the White House again with nothing to do..."

Romney, in my mind really established himself as the guy to beat once again, in not just Florida, but the national race as well.

Romney really got put on the spot by Russert when he was asked is he would share with Florida how much of his own money he has spent on his campaign here.  Romney explained that he wouldn't for strategy reasons as he didn't want to reveal that to his opponents just yet but would when the law requires.  I think that was a fair answer.  But then he really hit it out of the park by explaining that:
1.  He has raised more money than any of his opponents,
2.  He couldn't ask his others to donate to his campaign if he was not willing to make a substantial contribution himself, and
3.  The fact that he is his own biggest contributor means that when elected he won't owe anyone anything.

Well said.

2.  Mike Huckabee

Huckabee really gave a fantastic performance.  He was certainly the most likable of all the candidates.  He also managed to stay relevant in the debate which is important for a guy that is going to have a hard time remaining relevant in the upcoming primaries.  A few things he said concerned me though.  Huckabee really pushed the idea of the Fair Tax, which I'm not opposed to, but he made it seem like that was the end all solution to all our financial woes.  I'm sure that is not what he believes, but lets look at an example.

Huckabee was asked about problems with social security.  His solution?  The Fair Tax.  Why? because that would allow a more stable source of funding for the program.  That is not what I want to hear from a Conservative candidate.  The answer is, social security is broken and we need to find ways to begin moving away from it and replacing it with a financially stable system.  Romney was hit with a similar question right after Huckabee and responded with three viable solutions.  He also explained that these options would have to be explored with the democrats to reach an agreement on the best solution.  Romney sounded realistic.  I don't want to say Huckabee is dreaming because I think the Fair Tax is certainly a possibility, though it may be a good distance off.  Romney has solutions for us now.

Another thing that concerned me was when Huckabee was asked about whether he agreed with Chuck Norris, who endorsed him, that John McCain is too old to be president.  Huckabee responded that he was with Norris when the comment was made and that he didn't say anything because he was standing next to Chuck Norris who "can put this foot on that side of my face and there is nothing I can do about it."  He went on to explain that later he made clear that he doesn't think that McCain lacks the capacity to be president.

It was a cute answer, but the fact of the matter is that Huckabee stayed silent after the comment was made not because he was afraid of getting kicked in the face.  I realize that it was one of those in the moment experiences and he may have said something if he could go back.  However, it bothers me a little that the guy that is most vocal about other candidates changing with the polls stays silent when the comment is made, but then reveals this strong conviction about it mostly likely after a strategy meeting on how to handle it.  I'm probably making something out of nothing, but something just didn't sit right with me.

I like Huckabee, but he didn't do anything to resolve my fears about his domestic policy positions.

3.  Ron Paul
Confession: I love making Ron Paul out to be the crazy of the group, but I have to admit he is a sharp guy.  Not all of his ideas are that bad.  I thought his performance last was the best I've seen so far from him.  But his question to McCain about whether he would abolish the President's Working Group on Financial Markets confused me.  Most Americans don't know or care about the PWG and Paul wastes his one chance to really distinguish himself on trying to pin McCain to a position that no one cares about.  Paul is playing to a fringe audience in this primary, and that is why he will remain a fringe candidate. 

4.  John McCain
McCain looked comfortable, as well he should given his current poll numbers. I was a little confused by his presentation however, as he kept claiming that he is a Conservative but every chance he got he touted when he broke away from Republicans and Conservatives.  Let me assure you, McCain is no Conservative.  That said, he didn't do anything to really hurt himself last night, sat back a little, and tried to demonstrate that he's not as old as he may appear to be.  Exactly what the old guy in the lead needs to be doing.

If nothing else, the fact that the New York Times just endorsed McCain proves that McCain is no Conservative. 

5.  Rudy Giuliani
As the guy who is betting everything on Florida, Giuliani needed to have his best performance.  Instead, he looked like a man on the run.  His campaign is watching this focus on Florida strategy fail miserably as he has absolutely no momentum.  My guess is that this will be the last time we see this strategy employed.  Giuliani made the comment during the debate that he had lulled the competition into a false sense of security, which was cute. But the fact is that he doesn't decide the result of the election.  We do.  And  it is the voters have been lulled into the impression that his campaign in about to collapse.

After the race, Giuliani's campaign manager was asked about the dropping poll numbers and he responded that people are most concerned about the "issues" that the "horse race."  It is not that simple.  Voters are concerned with both.  The truth is that front-runners are attractive because people don't want to feel like they are throwing their vote away.  I was at dinner with an Evangelical family last night who asked who I though they should vote for.  They like Huckabee, but wanted to vote for someone who was electable as well to help the cause of the best candidate with the best chance.  For the Huckabee supporters out there, I didn't tell them that a vote for Huckabee was a wasted vote.  I did sell them on Romney, however...

Giuliani looked like Giuliani last night.  Great guy, great leader, but nothing to pull himself out in front of the other candidates.

January 24, 2008

Another NYT Hit on Romney

It is like clockwork, whenever there is something embarrassing going on among Democrats the media instantly starts to pump out stories trying to put Republicans in the same light.  We've spent the last couple of days waiting to see if Hillary and Bill are going to get into a fist fight with Obama and wondering why John Edwards is still hanging around.  Then today, we get this piece from the New York Times telling us that the real action is among Republicans.  Specifically, that everyone is ganging up on Romney.

The article focuses on a quote from McCain referring to mud-slinging.  But I'm trying to figure out who McCain hasn't said something nasty about at this point.  It used to be cute because I thought he was really standing up to for himself.  Now I'm realizing that he's really just a cranky old man.  Remember that old neighbor who used to sit on his porch solely so he could yell at you if you stepped on the grass or "dawdled" too long on the sidewalk?  Yeah, that's old-man McCain.

The article also references some quotes from McCain and Huckabee staff. 

NEWSFLASH:   Huckabee and McCain staff are not fans of other candidates.

So what we are left with is one candidate who is crabby to everyone making crabby comments to Romney, and then paid staff of that candidate and one other making snarky statements as well.

How is this news?  It isn't.  It is a diversion from the bickering among Democrats and just another pathetic attempt to try and break down the unstoppable Romney machine.

All you need to know is this; Mr. G likes Romney.

Now let's get back to seeing which Democrat throws the first punch.  My bet is Hillary, she's more of a man than the other two put together.

FL Conservative Pro-Family Endorse Huckabee - Mr. G is Unmoved

I received via email today this press release concerning a number of Florida's Conservative and Pro-Family Leaders who have hopped on the Huckabee Wagon.  I'm told it is because Churck Norris threatened to round-house kick the roofs off their houses.

There are a good number of people on this list who I have great respect for.  These are some sharp folks and seeing their endorsement really made me question my Romney support for a moment.  But after some thought, I found myself right back where I started impressed by the family value convictions of Mike Huckabee, but afraid of his positions on domestic issues, particularly immigration, the economy, taxes and spending.  Again, I'd happily vote for Huckabee if he ends up being the nominee (which I don't think he will), but as far as being the total package, Mitt Romney is our man.

I do have to say that I've been impressed both impressed and depressed by the conversations I've had with the Evangelicals in my life who are Huckabee supporters.

I'm impressed that so many are excited about him, especially given the lack of campaigning he's been able to do in our state. 

I'm depressed that so many have jumped to a quick decision based solely on his stances on family values issues and have not done the research on the other candidates.

If you're touting yourself as a "big Huckabee supporter" when I ask you what you think about his immigration positions or his economic positions the answer should not be "I don't know."  Take the time to learn about the candidates, folks.

I'll give you the same challenge that I've given to these folks:  I challenge you to find a candidate in this race who has reacted more consistently on major family values issues such as marriage and life than Mitt Romney. 

The truth is that Romney has had more of an opportunity to stand for major family values issues than the others.  Perhaps they would do so if the opportunity comes up.  But Romney has proven himself willing and capable to stand up to a liberal legislature for what is right, even if it means he has no chance of being able to run for a second term.  In Massachusetts of all places Romney has vetoed legislation related to the morning after pill, embryonic stem cell research, massive minimum wage hikes, state benefits for illegal immigrants, and fought in both his capacity as governor and as a private citizen for traditional marriage.  Add to that his consistent policies on the economy and his creative solutions to the near unresolvable health care crisis and you have a candidate that I'm really looking forward to voting for.

That is, unless you can convince me otherwise.  You have 5 days.

January 22, 2008

Thompson Exit May Define Florida Primary

Word on the street is that after reading here at PEER Review that his candidacy was all but over, Fred Thompson saw the writing on the wall and dropped out of the race for the Presidency today.  This will have some rather strong effects on the race nationally, but particularly in Florida.

Thompson's campaign has, in my opinion, been the defining campaign of the race.  Virtually drafted by Conservative's unhappy with the then standing options, many anticipated that Thompson would bring an energy and boldness that would excited the Republican base.  Unfortunately, that energy never really came.  When Conservatives observed that Thompson was not necessarily going to be a candidate they could get excited about, they began looking elsewhere... enter the Huckabee surge.

At first glance, it may not appear that Thompson's exit will have any huge effect on the race in Florida; he has been polling at about 8% over the last few weeks.  But that 8% could make a huge difference when there is only a combined difference of 4% between Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

The logical landing point for Thompson supporters are with the other two Conservatives in the race, Romney and Huckabee; but there are two caveats.

(1) Since Thompson entered the race long after Romney, Thompson supporters have inherently decided that there was something they didn't like about Romney.  Many will be hesitant to go back to a candidate they weren't happy with in the first place.  As a result, many will likely lean towards Huckabee.  However (2), Huckabee's strong stance on domestic issues such as the economy was a tremendous selling point.  It is here that Huckabee has, as of yet, succeeded in completely winning over Conservatives.  Add to that the fact that Huckabee is far behind the other three top candidates in campaigning in Florida and you have Romney picking up some votes. 

The key here is that Romney needs less votes than Huckabee.  With Huckabee polling at about 16% and Romney at 19.3% a split with less than half of Thompson's support going to Romney keeps Romney in the lead over Huckabee and may hand the Florida primary as a whole to Romney on a silver platter.  Especially with the hint of a Romney surge that we see in the latest Rasmussen Poll showing Romney at 25% in Florida followed by Giuliani at 20%.

All in all, Thompson's exit may (and if I had to guess, will) give Romney the push he needs to win Florida and give him the momentum required to succeed beyond Florida.  Thompson's exit will also be great for Huckabee, but likely won't be enough to solidify Florida, or any other state.

Now, this could all totally change, of course, if Thompson pulls a Sam Brownback and endorses his fellow Senator, John McCain.  I anticipate that a Thompson endorsement of Romney or Huckabee will have the impact as no Thompson endorsement at all, at least in Florida.

November 08, 2007

Sarkozy Loves America, and Mr. G Loves Him Right Back

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and all those who voted him into office are radically changing the way I view the French.  Yesterday, Sarkozy spoke before Congress and summed up the American Spirit better than I've heard it from most of our own political leaders.  It does make me sad, however, to realize that this foreign dignitary understands what makes our nation great better than the liberals and democrats who actually live here.  This is a must read speech.  But here is my favorite part:

"America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who--with their hands, their intelligence and their heart--built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it."

At several points throughout the speech President Sarkozy was met with applause.  It struck me as odd that we had democrats applauding for Sarkozy preaching principles which they adamantly oppose.

Throughout the speech Sarkozy explained his love for America.  I gotta say, I'm impressed with his positions and his boldness, and I'm lovin him right back.

Finally, for 8 years we have heard about how President Bush has totally destroyed American goodwill abroad.  But doesn't it say something the France, of all places, has its president buddying up with Bush and spouting off how much he loves America to Congress?


October 04, 2007

This is why democrats scare me...

On a casual stroll through the Florida blogosphere I found this gem over at the Florida Progressive Coalition:

Earth to Florida:  You Need an Income Tax

Unreal.  Absolutely unreal.

Oh, and if you're making over $100k per year, the author suggests a 9% tax on you.  From there it goes up to 15% if you make $300k per year.  Just tack that extra amount on top of your federal taxes.  And don't fuss at me about it, mister, because having Florida adopt an income tax is "not debatable."

In fairness, the author is suggesting that this replace the property tax system, so you've at least got that going for you.  However, I'd take our defunct property tax set up over an income tax any day.  Oh, the proposed income tax would also "fund high quality socialized early education for all two, three and four year olds, class size reductions and parent training courses for all high school students and all other imminent parents."

I'm speechless...

At least we can be thankful that this guy is not Governor, as he states that, "If I were Governor, I’d go all out to enact an income tax and this week I’d be proposing a budget that increases state spending by a billion dollars, not slashing it one billion."

Where do these people come from?

At first I just wrote this off as one of the many far left moonbats out there peddling half-brained tax hikes and massive government spending increases.  But then I remembered that we're not just hearing proposals like this from the liberal fringes.  In fact, we have a democrat presidential candidates, including the front runner, pushing and promising programs which will result in massive increases in government spending.  How do we pay for it?  Massive tax hikes!

Despite the fact that it has been this way for as long as I can remember, I'm still confounded by the way democrats on all levels consistently demonstrate a complete lack of restraint in taking and spending my money.

September 25, 2007

Free Speech isn't "free"


In this case it costs $30,000 in lost advertising dollars.

One thing that perhaps Rocky Mountain Collegian editor J David McSwane (pictured left) should have been taught is that the free part of free speech does not mean speech without cost or consequence.

[The Coloradoan]

h/t to Truthcaucus

September 23, 2007

F*** the Youth Vote

Every election cycle we are bombarded with the notion that the youth vote - particularly the college age vote - is somehow important.

As the September 21, 2007 editorial staff editorial from the Rocky Mountain Collegian will show, there are clearly an overabundance of idiots wrapped up in that youth vote.

Apparently the UF police tasered that guy on the direct orders of the White House...

I mean... who knew?

[Rocky Mountain Collegian]

h/t to Truthcaucus

September 17, 2007

Alan Keyes for President, Again... The Benefit and the Burden

On Friday Alan Keyes filed papers with the FEC to begin his candidacy for President and made an official announcement the same day.  This will be his third go at the presidency following his 1996 and 2000 campaigns.  As we've seen in his previous campaigns, there is a tangible benefit to his candidacy as seen through the positions he relentlessly advocates.  At the same time, his candidacies, which are inevitably doomed from the beginning, present a burden for Conservatives during the election.  Let's look at both:

The Burden

As I've mentioned on numerous occasions before, I am a HUGE Keyes fan.  There is currently no other candidate I would rather vote for than Alan Keyes.  He is a man of character, conviction and brilliance as well as a tremendous communicator.  That said, I won't vote for Alan Keyes, he won't win the primary (obviously) and I don't see any time in the foreseeable future in which Keyes will be in a position to win the White House.  As in the previous 8 years, he is simply not electable and because Conservatives are already fractured over who to vote for his candidacy creates a burden for Conservatives this cycle. 

Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback are all appealing options and no one has a lock on the Conservative base.  This causes a dire problem as it is and will continue to allow a more left leaning candidate such as Giuliani to win the primary.  I am a believer in the concept that Conservatives win elections with the 2004 election being the shining example of the theory.  This is not because Conservatives necessarily vote in larger masses than others, but because Conservatives energize the Republican party and candidates.  But this cannot happen when Conservatives are divided as they are now.  The Keyes candidacy will further fracture that base.  In all probability the level of support Keyes will gather will be negligible, but with as divided as Conservatives are now that little bit of support drawn away from another candidate will become critical.

But Keyes' candidacy is not all bad...

The Benefit

Keyes campaigns are always used a platform to encourage Conservatives and our nation as a whole to draw closer towards those principles our nation is founded on.  As an incredible mind and communicator Keyes is quickly able to cut to the core of the issues and focus our attentions on what is truly important.

For example, during his announcement Keyes explained that:

"he's "unmoved" by the lack of moral courage shown by the other candidates, among whom he sees no standout who articulates the "key kernel of truth that must, with courage, be presented to our people."

He added, "The one thing I've always been called to do is to raise the standard . . . of our allegiance to God and His authority that has been the foundation stone of our nation's life"--and he decried the lack of "forthright, clear, and clarion declaration" from the other candidates concerning this issue."

He's right on the money.  While so many of the candidates are attempting to tackle the surface of the problems our nation faces, Keyes cuts to the quick an erosion of our nation's allegiance to God and His authority.  But he can articulate these hard-line positions where others cannot or will not because Keyes doesn't have a chance at winning the election.  So expect a number of rousing speeches and articles from the Keyes campaign.  Listen to them.  Read them.  I guarantee they will be inspiring and influential on your views of this election.

So what do we do with all of this?  Does the benefit of Keyes' campaign outweigh the burden?  I'll let you decide, but I implore you to do two things:

1.  Listen to Alan Keyes as he uses his campaign to lay out a vision for the future of our nation because it will be both convicting and inspiring.  Start with an incredible series of articles he has prepared for this election cycle called The Crisis of the Republic.

2.  Don't vote for Alan Keyes.  He will not win the primary, or the election and a vote for him will only serve to further the chances of Giluiani during the primary.

August 31, 2007

Tapping on out the door

Larry_craigIt appears that Idaho Senator Larry Craig's next move may be right out the door.

CNN is reporting that Craig will be announcing on Saturday whether he'll be remaining in office.

It seems a shame that someone who had an otherwise distinguished career would lose it all because of plain and undiluted stupidity (or alleged stupidity, whatever the case may be). I mean, I'm even willing to set the "I have a wide stance" thing aside.

Clearly he did something since he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a bathroom. You'd think someone with that much on the line would at least get a room or something, especially in light of Foley, Allen, and whatever else.

Now all he'll be remembered for is the punchline of a 100 bad jokes...


August 30, 2007

Thompson finally sets a date


Well it took him long enough.

After dabbling in the water for the last little while, Fred Thompson has finally provided us with a firm date on when he will be announcing his candidacy for President.

I wonder if he'll actually turn out to be the morale booster he'd long been anticipated to be.

Guess we'll have to tune in to find out...


July 24, 2007

Fred Thompson picks one of Florida's best

One of Florida's best political strategist Randy Enright is chosen by the Thompson's campaign to manage the campaign. I suspect fund raising has been good as of late.

July 23, 2007

Count on it...

I expect this is just the sort of thing Bloomberg wants to hear. If he could cause the defeat of Rudy anywhere he would be happy to do it, damn the consequences.

The man has a billion dollars he wants to spend and an ego to match. Combine with disgruntled voters and heavy media in an early primary, and moderate voters will be bored and frustrated with just two candidates long before any viable independents jump in the race. Lots of confusions, undecideds and last minute what-the-hell voting for a witless billionaire. It's such a mess it's practically guaranteed Bloomberg will jump in.

June 13, 2007

Fred Under Attack

One dynamic to the Fred Thompson campaign I hadn't thought about until today is the fact that his opposition is already well organized.  As Thompson prepares to declare the other candidates have already developed expansive support networks.  This means that as the Thompson campaign gets rolling, he's an easy target.  The Politico has the story today.  Thompson is being questioned on everything from surveys in 1994 and 1996 in which he indicated support for abortion for any reason through the first trimester and opposition to "criminalizing" abortion.  His extensive lobbying career and work as counsel on Capitol Hill has many questioning whether the portrayal of Thompson as a D.C. outsider is accurate.  Even I was a little surprised to learn that Thompson was a paid lobbyist for deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a man who many consider nothing more than a dictator.

Thompson's campaign will, of course, have a response to all of this.  But it will be interesting to see if any of it is able to cool the blazing popularity Thompson is currently enjoying.

I really just have one question.  Would Thompson today support federal action to end abortion?

June 12, 2007

Lindsay Lohan Viewed More Favorably Than democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid

What do Harry Reid, the ranking democrat leader in the US Senate and Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Nicole Richie have in common?

1.  All of them are on TV far too often.

2.  All of them are viewed favorably by less than 20% of the American public.

In a poll released by Rasmussen this past week we learned that Harry Reid is viewed favorably by only 19% of the American public.  That is half as much as Vice President Dick Cheney's 38% received in the same poll.  Few politicos have as low a favorable opinion rating as Reid.  Well, there is one other with the exact same rating as Reid; Scooter Libby.

Reid does have more company, just not in the political sphere.  A separate Rasmussen poll on favorable opinion ratings showed that Britney Spears came in at 13%,  Paris Hilton at 12%, Nicole Richie at 14% and Courtney love just 3 points shy of Senator Reid at 16%.  At least Reid is not alone in the "under 20% club."

What about rehab princess Lindsay Lohan?  Well, she actually beat Reid with a 20% favorable opinion rating.  This gives Reid something to shoot for, being liked by more people than Lindsey Lohan.

So why, seeing as most people don't care for Reid, should we pay attention to these numbers?  Because it is yet further evidence that the "Mandate" democrats have been claiming they have from the American people to push their agenda is bologna.  These numbers are, of course, easily manipulated.  We could use the "unfavorable opinion percentages" from the polls (Reid's is at 45%) to draw some different conclusions.  However,  what we can see is a trend in how  the average American views democrat leaders.

The current approval ratings for the "most open and honest congress ever" is hovering around 32% (thoughtthe LA Times just put it at a whopping 27%).  This is, on average, lower than President Bush's 33 % approval rating which we are reminded on a daily basis by the main stream media is really low.  The current Congress has approval ratings as low as the previous Republican Congress did just before the democrat victory in 2006.

For all the talk of their "mandate" and all of the talk of disapproval of Republicans by democrats it is nothing but entertaining to watch  as more and more Americans realize that democrats do not have the solutions to the problems our country faces today.  Maybe they should give Lindsay Lohan a shot at Reid's job?  More people like her anyways.

June 11, 2007

Beyond the Hype: The Campaign of Fred Thompson

It has been rather impressive to watch Fred Thomspon surge.  A candidate who hasn't announced, and until a few weeks ago didn't even hint that he would run has somehow managed to gain a loyal following of almost 15 percentage points in the polls; better poll numbers than the candidate who has been one of the most successful as far as fundraising and network building (Romney).  I've found myself in an ever decreasing group of Conservatives who just doesn't see the tremendous appeal that so many others obviously do.  Don't get me wrong, I like Fred, I just don't think he's the best candidate we've got. 

Moreover, I predict that as the campaigns roll on many are going to realize that, perhaps, Fred isn't the incredible communicator they thought he was or that his record isn't as impressive as they thought or that he's not as compelling on the issues as they hoped he would be.  I'm not alone in that opinion; George Will seems to agree in a new article on the same subject.   What Mr. Will hits right on the head is the  observation that Thompson is the Republican Rorschach test and that Republicans are seeing in him what they want to see.  George Will and I just don't see the substance. 

I do understand the appeal.  Thompson comes across as a guy who will be willing to take liberals and democrats on, which is something that Republicans have desperately longed for over the last 8 years.  But I'm not convinced that Thompson will be that either.  Thompson may be played off as the outsider who won't get tangled up in the political game, but remember, Thompson was called in to "guide" Justice Roberts through the nomination process.  Why?  Because Thompson understand the political game and plays it well.  He understand appearances.  He understands the process.

The fact is that Thompson has gotten a ton of hype, but there has not been much discussion on substance and there has not been the opportunity for him to present it.  And when the hype fades and folks are forced to examine the Thompson candidacy for what it really is many are going to have to face the harsh reality that Thompson isn't the super-candidate they dreamed he would be.

Editorial Note and shameless campaign plug:  Mr. G is an unashamed evangelical fan of the Romney campaign who believes that Romney has faced and stood strong in tougher battles for the cause of Conservatism than Thompson could even dream of, so take the above with a grain of salt.

June 06, 2007


In case you're interested- www.I'mwithFred.com - the official Thompson site.

AC has issues.

George P. Bush likes him.

June 05, 2007

Who is the criminal - Libby or Jefferson?

I posted the below and had to make changes to it.  My apologies to anyone that read the original.

Perusing the net yesterday and today I noticed headlines at Fox News about both Libby and Jefferson.  I wondered then if those on the left had made mention of the two and pondered where best to check.  Since I planned to write this blog post covering both, I concentrated on what blog on the left I should check to see if they are "fair and balanced".  Although I rarely go there for obvious reasons, I thought that DailyKos would surely mention both with the readership that the blog enjoys.  Yes, I checked.  Kudos to Kos for airing both.

Libby was indicted on five charges and has been given 30 months for not remembering his conversations.  I know, some of you say there is more to it.  No, there really isn't.  The prosecutor went on a witch hunt hoping to get Cheney or Bush and couldn't because no one had done anything illegal.  The original investigation was about who leaked Plame's name.  They know who did because Richard Armitage admitted to it.  Still, Libby gets accused of lying and gets jail time while Armitage gets nothing.

Now, Jefferson.  Let me quote "A federal grand jury on Monday indicted Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson on 16 charges relating to a long-running investigation into bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering."  He has been videotaped accepting bribes from the FBI and two of his associates have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with officials regarding Jefferson.

Anyone want to place bets on who gets more jail time or on who gets pardoned?

May 23, 2007

Florida Turkey and Federal Pork

The Florida newspapers today are buzzing today about a Florida Tax Watch report on the 507 pet projects included in the budget passed by the Florida Legislature this year.  These pet projects account for$267.3 million in spending and have been labeled "turkeys" by the group.  Many have been quick to point out the significance of the Legislature's demand that counties reduce their budgets, while the Legislature goes on a spending spree.  democrats in particular have gleefully noted the hypocrisy.  Honestly, I don't disagree.  I hope Governor Crist makes full use of his line-item veto power to trim the turkey.  In fact, cut it out altogether.

However, while I agree with my democrat friends on the spending in Tallahassee, I cannot help but wonder why there has not been a similar reaction on the spending in Washington, D.C.  Let us not forget the $21 billion worth of pork that democrats slipped into their initial Iraq spending bill and rammed through Congress.  I hope that my democrat friends here in Florida who are outraged at the spending by Republicans in the Florida Legislature will begin to apply the same standard to their own leadership in the Federal Legislature.  We should demand fiscal responsibility and spending restraint and we should demand it at every level of government, local, state and federal.  We should cut both the Florida turkey and the federal pork.

May 08, 2007

Giuliani Misses, Thompson Misses, Romney Scores

If you checked the Drudge Report today you likely saw a group of three articles concerning some recent discoveries on the past positions on abortion of Rudy Giluliani and Fred Thompson.

Giuliani Financially Supported Planned Parenthood

Some are already hailing this discovery as the beginning of the end for the Giuliani campaign.  I don't think it is going to do that much damage.  The fact of the matter is that if you are a adamant pro-life supporter, Rudy is not your candidate to begin with.  The folks that are siding with Rudy have already made the decision that Giuliani's ability to get elected or position on other issues outweigh his undefined stance on abortion.  Sure, this will cost him a few votes, but I doubt this will be the nail in the coffin of his campaign.

What it will do is strengthen the candidacies of Romney and the other strong pro-life candidates as their supporters will see this as making the primary that much more important.

Fred Thompson Supported First Trimester Abortion

A survey completed during Thompson's 1994 Senate campaign indicated that he supported abortions for any reason during the first trimester.  Unlike the discovery about Giluliani, this one could hurt.  I'm sure there will be an explanation about his change of heart coming soon, however, the big critique of the Conservative front-runner, Romney, is that he flip-flopped on abortion.  Should Thompson declare, he won't be able to draw much of a distinction between himself and Romney on this issue; they both changed positions.

All in all, the news today on these two candidates is bound to have a good effect on support for my man Mitt Romney.

May 07, 2007

Romney Scores, Thompson Misses

Two quick items on the Republican candidate for president front:

Romney beats everyone in New Hampshire primary poll

These poll results are certainly the exception to the rule compared to every other poll out there which has Romney at about 10%.  However, this SurveyUSA poll showing Romney at 32% is New Hampshire may be the first of many polls indicating a jump in Romney's numbers.  Romney has gotten a ton of press from his performance in the first Republican debate and this can only result in good things happening to his poll numbers.

On a side note, I will be curious to see what will happen if Thompson and Gingrich don't jump into the race.  Between the two of them they are carrying about 20% in the polls.  My guess is that much of their base, Conservatives, will shift to Romney which could automatically place Romney over McCain and neck and neck with Guiliani.  That is, of course, assuming Thompson and Gingrich don't jump in.

Thompson Speech a Yawner

Thompson gave a speech in California that I caught on C-SPAN yesterday.  The thought I had was that for all the hype he's generating, Thompson sure can be boring.  I was delighted to see that Robert Novak agrees with me.  In the speech Thompson sure did not appear to be a guy running for president, strengthening my hunch that he is not going to get into the race at all.  Again, this could only mean good things for Romney.

May 04, 2007

What Florida's New Primary Date Means for Newt and Fred

Yesterday the Florida Legislature has passed a bill to move the Florida primary to the last Tuesday in January; this much you probably already know.

What you have not heard, or heard much about, is the huge implications this bill has for two men; Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson.

We know an average of 10% to 15% of of Republicans polled, whatever that means, are holding out waiting for Fred Thompson to jump into the race and about 8%to 9% are waiting for Gingrich.  Should either of them declare, many more supporting other campaigns would likely jump on board.  After last night's Republican debate many are claiming the winner was Fred Thompson as it only proved he needs to get into the race.  It seems like they could enter the race and quickly gather the support needed for a successful campaign.  However, campaigns, especially national campaigns take time to develop, and time just became a bigger issue than before.  I've been one of the few arguing that time is running out for these two, and that if they are going to get into the race, they need to get in now.  My case just got stronger because as soon as Governor Crist signs the bill their time table is getting much shorter. 

Campaigning in Florida is expensive.  While running a nickel and dime campaign operation in Iowa and New Hampshire for the primaries might work, it won't in Florida.  Moving the primary is going to require campaigns to spend much more money up front and have state campaigns in place much sooner than normal, obviously.  But raising money and developing campaign networks take time.  Florida's primary, once the bill is signed, will be nine months away.  Nine months is a lot of time, except for a guy who has, to date, no campaign staff, no campaign structure, raised no money and wants to run a successful primary in one of the most populous states in the Union. 

Many seem to think that Gingrich or Thompson entering the race is inevitable, but unless we have a declaration from them by the end of the month, I would be surprised to see them jump in.  Volunteers, staff and money are already being quickly dedicated to other candidates and Gingrich and Thompson, should they decide to run now have less time to pick up the scraps than they had before.

On a side note, on other individual who may be dramatically impacted by this bill is Governor Crist.  The bill would allow him to run as a VP candidate without leaving office, which makes him a much more plausible option for the front-runners.  Maybe we'll see Charlie in D.C. sooner than we thought?

May 02, 2007

Mr. G on the Candidates

Apologies of the lack of posts as of late.  The contributors have all been incredibly busy as I am sure many of you have been in preparing for the summer months.  But, at least for me, the woods are clearing and I can return to these special moments with you which I cherish oh so much.

As my coming home gift to you I present my recent thoughts on the big candidates for President:


Clinton:  The question is quickly becoming whether anyone on the democrat side, and the Republican side for that matter, can beat Hill-Dog.  Some are even suggesting that the smart move for Conservatives is to start examining how to benefit from a Hilary win.  I say it is madness.  It is impressive to watch scandal and attack roll off her like water off a duck's back.  If there was a hermit in Alaska who even hinted that one of the Republican candidates was guilty of some wrong doing, it would be headline news.  Yet, Clinton, despite allegations by a former donor, who apparently has video tape of federal felonies in action, remains unmoved.  What, you didn't hear about this on on your MSM news station of choice?  What a shocker.  Clinton continues to hold a steady and commanding lead in just about every poll and that is not likely to change anytime soon.

I am of the opinion that Republicans can beat Clinton, but that right now, no one on the democrat side can.  The real question in my mind is how long Clinton, Inc. is going to wait before taking the legs out from under Obama.

Obama:  Despite all the initial buzz, I've heard much criticism that Obama has leveled out too much; that he's not as compelling as he was just a few months ago.  Obama really frightened me at the outset.  Here you had a very charismatic and compelling candidate with so short of a political career that there isn't much to fodder for criticism.  I met a number of Republicans that were drawn to him just because he seemed different.  Fortunately, as Obama has moved, just a little, from all the rhetoric folks, even democrats are realizing that there is no substance.  I hope this is a trend that continues.  One recent poll had Obama at 2 points higher than Clinton giving Obama supporters hope.  But like I said before, it is only a matter of time. 

When I think of the two candidates one image comes to mind, one from the Discovery channel where they show the zebra trying to cross the river with the crocodile in it.  Well, in this match-up Obama is the one wearing the stripes and the crocodile is the one that looks like Hillary Clinton.

Edwards:  Of all the democrat candidates Edwards has surprised me the most.  Despite the fact that he really doesn't have much of a chance, he has consistently stayed in public view and continues to generate a startling amount of support.  Though Edwards won't be the party choice himself, he may very well be the defining voice once he abandons his own campaign and decides to throw his weight behind another candidate.

The other six:  Let's be honest, who really cares?


Giuliani:  It breaks my heart that so many good Republicans, and even Conservatives have resigned themselves to the fact that Giuliani is our last best hope.  A recent article on his solid stance in opposition to Conservatives on social issues sums up pretty well how I feel about the man; he doesn't support us so I'm going to have a really hard time supporting him.  If he is the man the party picks, I'll pick him over Hilary any day of the week, but until that day, I'm holding fast to the opinion that we MUST pick someone stronger on social issues not just because they are important, but because they will be a key to victory.

McCain:  Despite the fact that McCain's campaign has pretty much lamed out, he's come out strong in a few recent polls, though the overall trend shows quick decline.  McCain will carry this on as long as he can, but I don't see him beating Giuliani.

Romney:  In my humble opinion, this is the last great hope for Republicans and Conservatives.  I know, I know, the polling is not what we want it to be, but trust me, the more people who have a chance to hear him speak, the more who are exposed to him, the more support he will have.  There are few candidates I've seen that can strike at the heart of Conservatives and re-ignite the passion of our beliefs like Mitt Romney.  Now, I'm still open to the idea of another candidate winning my heart but right now it looks like Mitt is our man.  On top of that he has demonstrated that he can raise lots of money quickly and doesn't show any sign of slowing.

Gingrich and Thompson: They're polling well, even better than my man Mitt, but they're not in the race, and with each day that passes it seems like their entrance is less and less likely.  Primaries could be starting in about 8 months and there is a lot of support and funding that has already gone to the guys who got in early.  My prediction is that neither of them get into the race, which is fine by me because their entrance would simply do more harm than good for the cause of Conservatism.  We need to begin rallying to one candidate soon  if we are going to beat Giuliani, not splitting the Conservative vote even more.

Brownback and Huckabee:  While I am thrilled that these two are coming to Orlando to speak, the question I want to ask them is when they are going to end their campaigns and hop on board with Romney.  I like these two, but neither of them have the political savvy to beat Giuliani or Clinton.  It is time to move on boys.

The others: Don't care, don't care, don't care.

April 24, 2007

No Doubt

At a campaign appearance in South Carolina last month, Romney, who has absorbed several of Jeb Bush's former aides, said, "Down in Florida, that Jeb Bush. He's quite a guy, isn't he? I love him. If his name weren't Bush, he'd be running for president, I'm convinced. And we'd all have to stand aside because he'd be such a sure-fire winner."

If only. CNN.

I'm starting to think about Jeb as a VP. It's very hard for me to think Jeb could handle being number two, and I'm having a hard time imagining anybody but Jeb beating these yahoos on the left. Jeb is such a strong policy wonk, and considering the "new model" of Vice Presidency that Cheney has developed over the years, much more influential in policy setting and project control, Jeb would really have a lot of direct control over policy setting without all the media attention. In a lot of ways, the VP may actually be a better fit in a world where the GWOT makes the presidency focused on interest not related to education, abortion, medicaid, medicare, social security, welfare, space exploration, Federalism, gun control, growth of government...

any of which I'd wager Jeb could give a lecture on at the drop of a hat.

April 19, 2007

Gonzalez v. Carhart: What Did We Win Anyway?

Most Conservatives will tell you that partial birth abortion is a bad thing.  The name gives us a glimpse of what the procedure is actually like.  However, it doesn't even begin to grasp the terrifying nature of the details of the procedure. 

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in yesterday's decision quotes a section of testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Committee about what the procedure is like.

"Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and un-clasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the pla-centa. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

Of course, the other method of partial birth abortion skips the whole sucking the baby's brains out through a tube part and has the doctor simply crush the baby's head.

This is what we won against yesterday, and what liberals, on and off the Court have been and continue to defend.

Silence On The Court: Why Justices Roberts and Alito Should Worry Conservatives

Score one for the good guys.  The US Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning partial birth abortion.  The opinion is an compelling read for anyone interesting in the subject, on either side of the issue.  The most intriguing part of the decision, however, is in what is not said.  And it is what is not said that could have major ramifications on the abortion debate in the near future.

Hopefully, I've gotten your attention.

Continue reading "Silence On The Court: Why Justices Roberts and Alito Should Worry Conservatives" »

April 16, 2007

I guess it's time to start learning about this Duncan Hunter guy...

When it comes to what I believe the strongest candidate for President in my party just told me to get over it.

Not possible.

So, who's going to step up and take the mantle for the GOP?

Fred Thompson? Duncan Hunter? Somebody who's not fake, tanned, trimmed, polished or liberal. Anybody?

Bueller? Bueller?

April 11, 2007

Another Triumph for Adult Stem Cell Research

Just nine days ago a research team announced it was able to successfully grow a human heart valve using adult stem cells.

Today we find out that another research team has possibly discovered a cure to diabetes using adult stem cells.

Yet another example of the tremendous strides being made in the area of adult stem cell research while embryonic stem cell research time and time again proves to be a hollow promise.  I said it before and I'll say it again:

"If the government is going to fund medical research let's support research that not only avoids the great moral implications that comes with the destruction of human embryos but also has a firm foundation of proven success and potential.  Let's support adult stem cell research and leave embryonic stem cell research in the trash bin of history where it belongs."

To bring things home to Florida, the Florida Legislature has just axed legislative provisions to provide state funding for embryonic stem cell research, but rather focus efforts on the proven potential of adult stem cell research.  Bill sponsor, Anitere Flores of Miami said, "This bill funds scientific results, not promise."  I applaud this action by our representatives.

April 05, 2007

Tommy Thompson to Save the Day

Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin Governor, former Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services announced his campaign for President this week.  I know, you probably missed it, so did I.  In fact, there is a good chance that this post will be the last thing you read about Thompson until he drops out of the campaign.  In the meantime, I'm adding him to the list of candidates we have, though I expect him to have a short stay on that list.

Now my only question is, when is Mr. C going to announce?

April 02, 2007

Just think

...Romney declaring he raised $23 million during the first quarter,...

For a guy who is polling around 3% it's impressive he raised more money than any other candidates, except, there's really only one other serious candidate. But, it's also not surprising. Romney's primary fund raisers are all primarily Jeb's core fund raising team.

Imagine how much money they could have raised for Jeb.

The longer this goes on the more and more it becomes apparent Jeb is the only logical GOP candidate.

powered by performancing firefox

March 15, 2007

Nancy Pelosi, Code Pink and Ghandi

What do they have in common? Let Fred Thompson tell you.

After listening to that, tell me you didn't get a crooked smile just thinking of the fun it would be to have him on stage with any of the Dem candidates...

Your smile is why Fred thinks he can run.

March 14, 2007

General Pace and the Thought Police

I had planned to write a post about General Peter Pace's statement in an interview that he believes homosexuality to be immoral and the reaction to the statement, but Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily has a great article on the subject.

"Had Gen. Pace said he thinks it is time for the military's ban on open homosexual activity to go, that it is immoral to keep it in place, I dare suggest Warner and Pelosi and the rest of the thought police would not have been condemning him for speaking from his own moral convictions. In fact, they would have praised him and used what he had to say as evidence for legislation to do just that."

Make no mistake, the liberal/homosexual agenda on this issue is not to just seek "equality" (read "special rights") for homosexuals, it is to achieve "tolerance" (read "admiration"), it is to silence all opposition.  Their goal is not that homosexuals be free from "oppression" of those of us advancing moral standards.  Their goal is to end any voice against their lifestyle.

Does anyone find it odd that the same liberals who always tout the first amendment as their license to do and say anything they want are the first to condemn any type of expression by those who disagree with them on any issue?

March 13, 2007

The '08 Horserace

The Political Derby '08 Power Rankings (as of March 12). Take 'em for what they're worth.

Anybody ever heard of Ron Paul?

March 12, 2007

Please, PLEASE Don't, Fred

So Fred Thompson is muttering about how he might run.  You know, the guy from Law and Order... no, the other guy... no, not that Law and Order, the other one... yeah, thats the one.  Did you know he used to be a Senator?  Yeah, he was also in Die Hard 2 and Baby's Day Out.

Though I would have entertained the idea 6 months ago, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask that Mr. Thompson just stop considering the idea, and stop talking about it as well.

Despite the fact that Conservatives, on the whole, are not wildly excited about the Conservative candidate field, the last thing we need is another mediocre candidate.  Don't get me wrong, I like Fred, but all his candidacy would do is further divide an already fractured Conservative base.  And he is not a candidate that Conservatives would automatically switch to in mass.  So, please Fred... please stop... just stop.

I honestly can't think of many people that I would consider it a good thing for them to jump into the race at this point.  Except for my old friend J.C. Watts from Oklahoma.  He can jump in at any time.

I'm even of the opinion that Gingrich jumping in would be a bad thing.  Again, I really like Newt.  Alot.  I think he's brilliant, but I don't see him winning the election or doing anything in the primary other than ensuring that no Conservative has a chance.  Sure, he could rally the support that Fred could not, but I doubt he can win.  Fortunately, I also highly doubt that Gingrich will run.

It is time for Conservatives to move past feeling sorry for ourselves that we don't have a perfect candidate and wishing there was someone else.  It is time to start really giving some thought to each of the candidates out there already and asking yourself who would be the better president balanced by who can actually win.

Let me assure you that neither of those questions should be answered with "Fred Thompson."

March 06, 2007

Sound Familiar?

From the American Spectator, Jeb in 2008? posted on 2/27/07

Somebody with major name ID, with access to large amounts of money and organizational might at a moment's notice, and with a solid reputation across the Republican philosophical spectrum.

Of course, Jeb Bush qualifies on all counts.

BUT WHY WOULD HE RUN when the name Bush is so unpopular these days?

From PEER Review FL, The Case for Jeb Part I, and Part II, both written way back in June 2005.

Governor Jeb Bush is the only Republican with the requisite name ID, governing experience, conservative credentials, political ties and fund raising ability to even compete with the Clintons. He is term limited out of office in 2006 giving him two years without obligation to elected office.

Read both pieces. There are some differences, namely they don't go into as much detail as PEER Review FL, but I'll let you decide where they got the main idea.

March 05, 2007

Big Week for Romney

Last week was a big week for Mitt Romney.  At the American Conservative Union's (ACU) Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in D.C. Romney and just about every other Republican primary candidate (except McCain showed up).  Two big wins for Romney:

1.  Romney won the CPAC Straw Poll.

CPAC is recognized as one of the premier Conservative gatherings in the country.  Ronald Reagan made it a point to attend every year when he was President, and all of the Republican candidates (except McCain) knew that an appearance here was critical to winning Conservative support.  Romney's win of the straw poll at this event says much about whether Conservatives are willing to put their faith in him.

Giuliani came in 2nd. 

Brownback 3rd.

2.  Romney's Speech Made Waves

Romney gave a powerful speech that, as Erick of Redstate put it "It was an excellent speech that should resolve all fears conservatives have about Romney."

For many, Romney is just a name on a page.  People are learning who he is, about his record, about the cause for concern on his past positions on issues.  But as the campaign goes on, and Romney makes more and more appearances and people are able to actually see and hear him, the conclusion is almost unanimous, the guy looks presidential.  More to the point, for Conservatives, when you hear him speak, you want to believe him and you want to vote for him.


The speech has generated a ton of discussion online and seems to be swaying some who didn't think Romney was the best candidate.

Take a look for yourself, here is the conclusion of his speech at CPAC (You can watch the whole speech here or read it here).

February 20, 2007

Survival of Florida Baby Shows Need For Change in Abortion Laws

On October 24, 2006 Amillia Sonja Taylor was born in Miami, Florida.  Born only 21 weeks after conception she was 9.5 inches and 10 ounces.   She is the world's most premature baby to survive outside of the womb.  Today she is going home with her parents.  (articles here and here)

It is a wonderful story and gives reason to celebrate, and also to consider the scope of abortion laws in our country.  It is estimated that 18,000 babies over 21 weeks into the gestational period are aborted (statistics here and here).   The central argument of abortion advocates, and the current status of the law, is that unborn children are not alive, or human, until a certain point at which we can determine that they can survive outside of the womb.

We now have proof that babies at only 21 weeks can survive outside of the womb indefinitely.  They are alive.  They are human.  There is no plausible argument to suggest that the law should not be modified to reflect this fact.  Abortions past 21 weeks gestation should be made illegal.

February 18, 2007

Mr. G on Ric Keller on Iraq Surge

The House passed it's resolution against the surge in Iraq this passed week and 17 House Republicans joined in sliding the knife into the backs of our troops; including our own Ric Keller.  He gave a speech prior to the vote, the text of which can be found here.  His suggestion for the war is essentially that we follow the Iraq Study Group's report and get everyone else to do everything.  If I thought that would work, I would support it, too.

I have to say, this one completely baffles me.  Consider me baffled.  I can understand the frustration with the war.  I can understand that many Republicans oppose the surge, even my friend over at Blog-Stew.  I can understand Keller wanting to send a message to the administration on the issue.  But he could have expressed all of those things outside of the resolution.  His vote almost certainly guarantees that he will have a well supported opponent in the next primary for his seat (Blog-Stew has already brought up Daniel Webster, good choice).

The fact is the surge is happening and the resolution will not change anything.  All Keller's vote has done is given democrats a new talking point, and I hate democrat talking points.

On a side note, the vote has now officially pigeon-holed the democrats on the surge.  Any success that comes from the surge democrats can receive no credit for.  As a result, despite democrat promises not to try to undermine the military effort, expect them to come.  Politically, democrats need the surge to fail and will begin making efforts to ensure that this happens.

I don't doubt Keller's sincerity, but if he had really thought about it, there were much more effective ways to voice his position to the administration without damaging his party, troop morale, and his own political career.  Central Florida needs a Representative that is going to make better decisions than this.  Oh, his vote in favor of the minimum wage increase didn't help my opinion of him either.

Mr. G supports the administration, supports the troops, supports the surge and now, doesn't support Ric Keller.  I'm with Blog-Stew, let's get Webster into the ring.

February 16, 2007

I'm not comfortable with this Romney fellow...

And this is just one reason why.

"Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state's 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton," the Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on Feb. 3, 1994. "He added he had been sure the G.O.P. would renominate George Bush, for whom he voted in the fall election."

Romney's contention that his vote for Tsongas was a vote for the weakest opponent for Bush - a phenomenon that political scientists refer to as "raiding" - surprised Professor William Mayer of Northeastern University in Boston.

"That would have been a strange election to have done that in, in the sense that Paul Tsongas was obviously going to carry his home state" of Massachusetts, said Mayer. Tsongas won the Massachusetts primary with 66 percent of the vote.

I recently wrote a game theory paper trying to project when voters should "Raid" and when they shouldn't. My focus was on Congressional and state level races, primarily b/c my research led me to believe it's not possible to effectively "Raid" in races larger than that. Raiding is first a numbers problem that requires a large enough spread of voters to win a primary and allow "Raiding" to have an effect in an opponents primary. Then it becomes a cooperation problem where voters need to organize and plan strategically before they ever think about defecting. Imagine the difficulty of convincing a truly Independent or conservative voter to consider voting for someone he doesn't believe in, and when you eventually consider that's not possible to do on a large enough scale, then tell me how wise it would be do it anyway, as a single voter. Seriously, I'm not comfortable with this guy.

I have no doubt that Romney was trying to vote strategically, but his strategy was trying to ensure favor and support from his home state liberals for a successful political career; he wanted to look like one of them. I've got to tell you this poor decision making and attempts at revisionist history has me thinking he is one of them.

In any event, he most certainly was not trying to ensure a weaker opponent in the 92 General Election. He's intelligent enough to know Tsongas would win Mass. and then promptly lose everywhere else. "Raiding" in Mass in 92 would have been ludicrous.

Now, my current problem with Romney isn't really that he voted for a Democrat, but that he gives us this cock and bull story about how he was voting for a well known liberal democrat trying to ensure a weaker opponent, when the truth - he was trying to win favor among liberals in a liberal state - is an acceptable explanation for a professional career politician in a very liberal state. He just doesn't want to tell us the truth. Why not? I wonder what else he doesn't want to tell us.

We will find out in due time.

February 12, 2007

2008 Presidential Primary Polls

One of the most interesting political blogs out there is Political Arithmetik by Charles Franklin, a professor of polling data at the University Wisconsin.  At Political Arithmetik he gatherings data from numerous polls and puts them into easy to read graphs and breaks down the data.  How reliable is is?  I don't know, you'll have to ask Mr. C, but for the common folk like me it is at least interesting enough to spend a few minutes pondering.

He's keeping running tabs on the presidential primary polls.  Here's how the top contenders play out:



Again, don't hold me to the accuracy, but I think this probably gives a fair assessment of where everyone stands in the recent polls and also shows how erratic the results from those polls can be.

There are also summaries of the candidate vs. candidate polls.

January 29, 2007

Jeb Bush Rallies Conservatives

That goes without saying. Jeb Bush's second inauguration address contained a line that went something like this,

"There would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we can make these buildings around us empty of workers - silent monuments to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill."

That line encouraged me to make a decision that included moving to Florida. The rest is history.

Yesterday, Jeb was making inspirational speech again, and it doesn't sound like retirement speech...

It's important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn't because conservatives were rejected. But it's because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country."

He added, "If the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they'll regain the majority, then they've got a problem."

If he could be elected Jeb Bush would become, hands down, the defining GOP president. But, we aren't at a place yet when Jeb could enter the race, or even consider running, for President. Besides him saying, repeatedly, that he is not running, solid conservatives like myself wish he were.

Running or not his words will be remembered in the early election season as the field of potential GOP candidates ply their worth in early primary states, one of which is possibly going to be Florida.

Are they solid conservatives? Do they understand what they are saying, or is it just a long string of sound bites? Do they talk the talk? Have they walked the walk? Do they have the "special sauce" needed to find success and popular support in a difficult media environment?

What's a scenario in which Jeb gets the nomination? A complete collapse of the current field and a sufficient surge of support for Hillary that pushes conservatives to find a candidate who can confront the Hillary myth (Rick Lazio need not apply)... or, IHMO a potential McCain-Clinton race which is to say it's not a race - you lose no matter what you do.

Basically, Jeb Bush doesn't need to enter the race when he can be begged into it.

Likely? No. Possible? Yes.

So stay tuned, and watch for more "pork busting" speeches from Jeb in the next year. I I'll be watching for the subtle signs.

January 23, 2007

Cruelty Cloaked In Compassion

I noticed today how many blogs, even blogs in our little Florida circle were involved in the "Blogs for Choice" campaign (I noticed it first over at Pushing Rope).  Mr. Hussey joined many others in blogging about "choice" and/or telling their stories touching on the "compassion" of "choice."  I find it interesting that the pro-death/anti-life movement has been so effective in cloaking what is quintessential cruelty, the invasion of death into the sacred peace of the womb, in "compassion."  The arguments they use, health of the mother, preventing deaths from back alley abortion, preventing the "tragedy" of disabled children, rape, and incest all carry with them the guise of compassion.  But underneath it all lays the harsh truth of death.

George Will takes on one facet of the campaign against life in yet another must read examining the advancement of aborting disabled children in:  Golly, What Did Jon Do?

"What did Jon Will and the more than 350,000 American citizens like him do to tick off the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? It seems to want to help eliminate from America almost all of a category of citizens, a category that includes Jon."

Continue reading "Cruelty Cloaked In Compassion" »

January 22, 2007

Hey Conservatives, Hold Your Horses

Brownback, Obama, Clinton... it has been a busy week and the presidential candidates list continues to grow.  All the candidates are quickly moving to secure all the support they can from other local and national leaders.  In the wake of all of the excitement that the week has brought I received an email from a Conservative leader here in our own state with what is probably the best advice on the 2008 election that I've seen so far; wait.

Continue reading "Hey Conservatives, Hold Your Horses" »

January 18, 2007

Rep. Feeney Leads Charge Against Social Security for Illegal Aliens

Our own Rep. Tom Feeney from Florida's 24th District is leading the charge against the US-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.  The Agreement, which does not require any support from Congress as a treaty, would provide full social security benefits to immigrants currently in the country illegally should they later receive legal status.  The new burdens this places on the already dying social security system will only serve to usher the program to bankruptcy faster than it is already.

Today Human Events released an article by Rep. Feeney addressing the agreement.  It gives you all the details you need to know and the way it can be stopped.

January 15, 2007

Romney Winning GOP Bloggers Poll

Last week Bob posted the GOP Bloggers 2008 Presidential candidate survey here at PEER Review along with his own encouragement to vote for Romney or Brownback.  With over 12,000 votes tallied, GOP Bloggers is reporting that Romney is winning in both the "first choice for nominee" and "acceptable nominee" categories.  McCain and Giuliani are close behind.

The poll, of course, doesn't tell us much, except for the fact that Romney is getting his message and image out and people are liking what they see.

January 12, 2007

democrat Exceptions to the Minimum Wage Bill

I'm starting to wonder if the democrats are going to break every campaign promise they made within the "first hundred hours."  There is a great article in the Washington Times today about the democrat hypocrisy on the minimum wage bill.

The story is this:  democrats campaign on the promise of open and honest government.  democrats pass a minimum wage bill.  Republicans are now finding out that the minimum wage requirement will not apply to a major company in Speaker Pelosi's on district.  How convenient.

The bill will also not apply to American Samoa.  Now, I'm not really wound up about this exception.  What bothers me though is that Republicans, even those who voted in favor of the bill appear to have not been aware of the exceptions.  This is the result of the democrats new closed door drafting and no debate policy on legislation; we have legislators voting on legislation when they don't understand the full extent of that legislation.  Doesn't that make you feel secure about what's going on in D.C.?

It is a disgrace.  It is a disgrace that democrats push this national minimum wage increase and then companies in the democrat Speaker's own district are exempted.  It is a disgrace that democrat leadership is forcing votes on legislation that has not been fully discussed.  It is a disgrace that representatives, both democrat and Republican, are voting on legislation when they don't understand the full application of the bills.  It is a disgrace that Republican leadership is not fighting the new foolish method of governing in the house.  And it is a disgrace that the main stream media isn't picking up on any of this.

UPDATED: Update on the 2008 Republican Candidates

News on the 2008 campaigns.  Here's what you need to know (Romney section updated with comments from Bob):

Senator Brownback announced his opposition to the troop surge yesterday.  He is advocating that Iraq needs a "political" solution.  Brownback has argued that Iraq should be split up into 3 states between the Kurds, Shi'as and Sunnis under the umbrella of a national government.  He's also given his support for much of the Iraq Study Group Report.  These positions are going to give many Conservatives major cause for pause in supporting Brownback.  This issue could actually prevent the Brownback candidacy from ever actually taking off.  Also, I keep noticing that Brownback always looks sleepy.  When I picture him as president I always think about him taking a nap in the oval office.

Governor Romney has Iraq troubles of his own.  He released a statement on Iraq policy, and many Conservatives don't think it has enough substance.  His bigger problem though is this YouTube video with clips from his 1994 debate against Ted Kennedy and his statements about abortion, gay marriage, and other issues.  But the Romney camp is reacting very well with an immediate statement a taped appearance addressing the issues.  Discussions about Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts are also picking up steam.  So are discussions about his underwear.

From Bob:

Mitt Romney was very impressive in person. Not yet Presidential, but very impressive. He comes across as very smart, very Republican, and very likable. He was funny and personable and he did a great job espousing conservative principles and values and incorporating them into his thoughts about terrorism, immigration, education, technology and healthcare. He is doing a great job positioning himself as more conservative than McCain and Guiliani, yet he seems (to me) to maintain the cross-over appeal needed for the general election. He also has done a great job assembling a top-notch team, especially in Florida, a key state for 2008. I think his biggest threat is not the two aforementioned candidates, but others from the far right (Gingrich, Brownback.) Romney's chances will depend on how long those candidates stay in the field. But my bottom line impression is that he would be a great GOP candidate and President.

Despite numerous television appearances and an op-ed in the Washington Post on increasing troop levels I've found it interesting that McCain is not getting more time on the blogs.  Many if not most put him as the front runner, but he is getting no love from Conservatives and it seems everyone is paying attention to the other candidates.  Personally, as I've watched him there has been one thought that keeps coming to mind; McCain is really old.  I mean really, when you look at the guy do you think "presidential material" or do you think "wow... old" and "comb-over"?

Mayor Giluliani got a bit of a press buzz when the press got their hands on a copy of his campaign strategy.  But it is not all bad news, Rudy has a supporter over at RedState, a Conservative to boot who makes a good argument.  Other than that, the general consensus seems to be that he is going to have a really hard time winning the primary with his social views and social life past.

January 11, 2007

VETO ALERT: House Passes Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill

President Bush will have the chance to veto his first bill from the democrat House very soon.  This afternoon the House of Representatives passed HR 3 which directs that the federal government should "conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells" (regardless of the date  in which the cells were derived from a human embryo).    It is discouraging that anyone would support such an abomination that destroys human life at the very earliest of stages.  It is even more troubling that 37 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.  The list is here.  The legislation is here.

Today the president promised to veto the bill when it hits his desk.  This will be the second time he has done so.  A similar bill passed in the House last year and was vetoed by the President.

While the bill could surmount a presidential veto it would require a two-thirds vote in the House, more than 290 votes.  As the bill passed with only 253 votes it is unlikely that such a veto will be overridden. 

Republicans and Minimum Wage

I try not to let myself be surprised by democrats anymore.  But I find myself being shocked by Republicans more and more as of late.  For example, we all heard about the democrat minimum wage increase being passed.  No surprise there.  However, I was floored to learn that 82 House Republicans voted for the measure as well, including a good number from our own state.  See the full list here.

It is going to be a really long two years if we have that many Republicans in the House that are willing to go along with the half-brained economic agenda the democrats are pushing.

January 10, 2007

democrats Refuse Republican Imput, Then Cry About Not Having Influence On Republican Policy

Let's review:

democrats campaign on the idea that they will run the most open, ethical government ever and promise that they wil work with Republicans to achieve a new age of bipartisanship. 


democrats proceed to immediately break those promises.  The first thing they do is lock down the legislative process, draft and pass legislation without any Republican input.

Fine, fine.  I expected as much.  It is not a surprise that they went back on their pledge, or even how fast they took to abandoning it.

But today... I almost blew a gasket.

I watched as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi came out of a meeting with the President this afternoon and proceeded to complain and whine about how they haven't been brought in to consult.  They cried that they were just given notice and don't have any imput.

To begin, where they the only people in the country thatn didn't know this was coming?  Is the troop surge idea really a shock to these two?  And who are they to whine about being locked out of a decision that they have no authority to make?  They close down legislative debate and then fuss about not being able to influence President Bush's decisions.

You know, I try to give the democrat leadership the benefit of the doubt and tell myself that they really are trying to do what they thing is right and that from some other perspective their words and actions might look correct, I really do.  But on days like today I have to wonder if they go back to their closed door meetings and laugh about the fact that people actually buy the balogna they are selling.

January 09, 2007

Pelosi: For The Troop Surge, Then Opposed

Democrats everywhere are screaming about the proposed increase in troops in Iraq.  Pelosi is even barking that House democrats might try to prevent funding of the proposed surge.  I swear, if democrats had a longer memory span they would never listen to these jokers.  In typical democrat style, Pelosi was for the troop increase before she was against it.  From NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, May 30, 2004 (emphasis mine):

MR. RUSSERT:  What would you do in Iraq today right now?

REP. PELOSI:  What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are.  And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there.  It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground.  General...

MR. RUSSERT:  American troops if necessary?

REP. PELOSI:  ...Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you're going to war, you have to know what you need.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you would put more American troops on the ground?

REP. PELOSI:  What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground. I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American, that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO. I agree with Senator Kerry in that respect to come...

MR. RUSSERT:  But if they say no, would you put more American troops on the ground?

REP. PELOSI:  Clear and present danger facing the United States is terrorism. We have to solidify, we have to stabilize the situation in Iraq.  As secretary of state has said, "You break it, you own it."  We have a responsibility now in Iraq there.  And we have to get more troops on the ground.  But when General Shinseki said we need 300,000 troops, Secretary Wolfowitz said "wildly off the mark," because they knew a commitment of 300,000 troops would not be acceptable to the American people.  So they went in with false assumptions about rose petals, not rocket-propelled grenades, and we're in this fix that we're in now.

MR. RUSSERT:  Well, let's assume all that is wrong.  In order to stabilize the situation, NATO has said they have no troops for Iraq, the French, the Germans and Russians saying no.

REP. PELOSI:  We have to send...

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?


Romney Establishes a Dominating Fundraising Lead

2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney held a fundraiser today.  It was called the "National Call Day."  I'd expect a few more of these, from Romney and the other candidates because Romney raised over 6.5 MILLION dollars.  Unbelievable.  Estimates have McCain at 2 million and Giuliani at 1 million.  The "frontrunners" now have much work to do to show that they can keep up.

Continue reading "Romney Establishes a Dominating Fundraising Lead" »

January 06, 2007

The Brave New World of designer people

The Abraham Center of Life, LLC of San Antonio is about to become the first company to make designer embryos commercially available.

According to an article in today's Washington Post, customers can order specific embryos after reviewing, "detailed information about the race, education, appearance, personality and other characteristics of the egg and sperm donors".

No uproar from the left as yet. Just wait until customers can breed out whatever aspects are determined to cause homosexuality.

They might even see that a bigger societal problem than Wal-Mart.

[Washington Post]

January 05, 2007

Republicans Can Win by Losing

What is a Republican minority that will be unable to advance any real reforms against a democrat majority supposed to do for the next 2 years?  Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform says there is only one thing they can do; lose.  But don't fret, because losing is a winning strategy.  From NRO:

For the next two years conservatives will not be able to pass any useful legislation through the House of Representatives. Memorize that sentence. Place it on your PC screensaver. Use it as your message on your answering machine. A discreet but easily accessed tattoo would be helpful.

All temptations to actually pass something lead to a conversation where the hard left of the Democrat party — the old bulls who are the Democrat leadership and committee chairmen — has a veto over anything. You can label the bottle. They will fill it.

Republicans in Congress need to use the first 100 days and the next two years to lose. Propose House rules that keep the present GOP requirement for a 3/5 vote to raise taxes. And lose. Propose House rules that term limit committee chairmen — the old GOP rule only applied to Republicans. And lose. Propose a tax cut. And lose. Heck, get denied an actual vote. Have a procedural vote. And lose. Propose an end to earmarks. And lose. Write welfare reform part three. And lose.

In November 2006 not enough voters saw a Republican congressional leadership they wanted to vote for and too few saw Democrat party leadership that scared them. The next two years is about changing both of those perceptions.

January 04, 2007

Feeney Pays Treasury for Trip and Liberal Sharks Come Out to Feed

Even a the possibility of impropriety by a Republican and the liberal sharks come out to feed; St. Pete Times:  Feeney's Scotland jaunt broke rules; Miami Herald:  Lobbyist's largesse costs congressman.

The short story is that Rep. Tom Feeney has agree to pay $5,643 to the US Treasury for a trip he took to Scotland which Feeney believed was paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research but may have been paid for by Jack Abramoff.  If you read the review at FLA Politics, you'd think Rep. Tom Feeney had gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  But if you take the time to read the statement by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the House you'll notice that there is much more to the story.

Continue reading "Feeney Pays Treasury for Trip and Liberal Sharks Come Out to Feed" »

A Thought on democrat Take Over

Today in  media outlets from the blogosphere to AM radio to television conservatives are mourning the loss of the Congress to the democrats as the new leadership is sworn in.

I submit the following for your consideration.

The day we should mourn is the day that our Republican leadership stepped away from Conservative principles of government, not the day in which we realize the consequences of such action.

January 03, 2007

A Disenfranchised Republican's Reaction to President Bush's Op-Ed Piece

Whenever I express my frustrations with the Bush administration here I almost always get yelled at as a result.  Normally in email form, often in person.

So let me start my tirade with this:  I like President Bush.  I admire many of his accomplishments while in office.  I admire his character.  If I could go back in time knowing what I know now, given all the options available at the time, I still would have voted for him.  However, his time in office has been far less productive than I hoped or expected.  I've been continually aggravated as his has passed opportunity after opportunity to advance the cause of Conservatism, both fiscal and social.

Which is why his article in the Wall Street Journal today just mad me mad.  Here we have a man calling on democrats to adhere to those theories of government which he has been unwilling to stand for himself over the last six years.

Continue reading "A Disenfranchised Republican's Reaction to President Bush's Op-Ed Piece" »

January 02, 2007

Incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Accepts Responsibility" for Ethics Violations

Three years after the initial allegations came forward, Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) has finally "accepted responsibility" for his actions which constituted a violation of House ethics rules.  The most interesting part of the whole story, though, is the fact that this has gotten next to no attention in the MSM.  It is not really surprising, but as always I must point out that if and when a Republican essentially admitted to ethics violations this would be front page news.  If it was the incoming chair of the most powerful committee in the house, we would hear about it for weeks on end and there would be a call for the Representative to resign, to apologize and a demand that the entire administration resign.  But this is a democrat, so it has gone unnoticed.

Now I don't suggest that this should have gotten that much attention or that it should have been met with more scorn from Republicans.  Conyers was accused to requiring his government staff to work on his campaign, babysit his children and run personal errands.  It is an abuse of government resources, and certainly unethical but it doesn't merit massive action.  It probably wasn't pursued more because I'm sure this occurs frequently on both sides of the isle.

But some attention would have been nice.  As democrats get ready to "clear the swamp" in the House with what they claim will be the most ethical Congress ever, it seems to me to be a newsworthy story that one of their leading members who will control the house agenda just "accepted responsibility" for ethics violations.

You can read the House ethics report here.

Did Romney Create Same-Sex Marriage?

A WorldNetDaily article today has drawn attention to a group of Massachusetts activists that have claimed that Massachusetts Governor and 2008 presidential candidate (as of tomorrow), Mitt Romney, actually created same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

The argument is essentially that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which held that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution is, in fact, unconstitutional.  Supporters of this view have taken the Court's recent decision in Doyle v. Secretary of the Commonwealth holding that it does not have the power to force the state legislature to take a constitutionally required vote on the state's marriage amendment confirms this view that the Court cannot impose same-sex marriage on the state.  As a result, they claim, Romney effectuated an unconstitutional order of the court and Romney in fact created same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

I begin by saying that technically, I agree.  But the reality of our current system of jurisprudence prevents the application of such a textualist view and binds those with executive authority to carry out the will of the court.   

Continue reading "Did Romney Create Same-Sex Marriage?" »

December 29, 2006

Does Brownback Have What It Takes to Win the White House?

In the past week the has been a buzz over Senator Sam Brownback's decision to begin his presidential bid by spending a night in a prison in Louisiana to draw attention to the need for prison reform. Over at Red State there is a front page article on the subject where the author concludes that he must support Brownback because of his strong ideals. He ends with the statement that "politics divorced from ideals is just a really expensive game." (Note: I can't give you the link becuase I'm typing this from my phone in the Atlanta airport.)

With Brownback's entrance into the race for president I've seen a rise in this type of talk; that Brownback should be the Conservative candidate of choice becuase of his ideals. I think it is mostly a bunch of bunk.

I hate to break it to you if you feel the same as the Red State writer, but politics is a game. Yes, an expensive game. Those who suceed are the ones who learn how to play the game well. I know many really bright folks who would make great elected officials but will never be elected because they can't or won't play the game; they are not electable.

Don't get me wrong, I almost always vote for the idealist, and there is a good chance I'll vote for Brownback. After all, I was the lone ranger here pushing for Gallagher in the gubernatorial race becuase of his Conservative platform. But all of this idealist talk is a distraction from the fact that Brownback needs a major spike of charisma before he has a shot at the White House.

Brownback supporters are going to rave over his Conservative ideology. That is all well and good, but don't forget the all important electability factor. If ideology is the sole determining factor Alan Keyes would have been the Republican nominee six times by now.

Facts is facts, and Brownback just isn't the most exciting political figure. He can be right all day long, but if he can't inspire people to join his cause, he loses.

We've talked about Romney's flaws and the concerns with him. This is Brownback's biggest short-coming. Fix this and you have a stellar candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Brownback. In fact, on my old blog I used to dream about having him in the White House. It would be fantastic. The problem is getting him there. I'm just not sure it can happen, especially with the characters running on the other side. But we have a long way to go, maybe we can spice him up over the next year.

We know Brownback is Conservative. We know he takes a stand on issues many others never recognize. Now we need to see if he has what it takes to win a national election over some of the toughest democrat competition we've seen in a long time at a point where many Americans are disenfranchised with Republican leadership. Right now, I'm not sure he does.

December 28, 2006

Massachusetts Legislature Continues to Violate Massachusetts Constitution

Here's the background story:

The people of Massachusetts start an initiative for an amendment to their state constitution.  They secure the required number of signatures to submit the amendment, but the amendment never makes it to the ballot.  Why? Because in Massachusetts before the amendment is placed on the ballot it must be approved by the legislature.  But the amendment doesn't make it to the ballot because the legislature voted against the amendment, it fails to proceed because the legislature simply refuses to acknowledge that the amendment even exists.  This is the current status of the Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts where the state legislature, in direct violation of their duties under the state constitution, are refusing to call a vote on whether the amendment should proceed to the ballot.

Frustrated with the legislatures failure to perform their job, a lawsuit was filed by several individuals, including Governor Mitt Romney, requesting that a court order be issued requiring the legislature to take a vote on the matter before the end of session on January 2, as required by the Constitution.

Yesterday the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts released their opinion in Doyle v. Secretary of the Commonwealth addressing this matter.

The opinion, which I agree with, ultimately concludes that the Court has no power to order the legislature to abide by the requirements of the state constitution.  If only we saw such textualist opinions out of Massachusetts courts more often.

However, the Court does note that under the requirements of the state constitution that the legislators should vote, and if they do not, they should be held accountable by the electorate.

"The members of the General Court [the legislature] are the people's elected representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by other procedural vote of similar consequence), ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them."

Does anyone else find it odd that those supporting same-sex marriage, a movement which claims it only seeks to provide equal rights to all, resort to tactics such as this which clearly violate the law and rights of individuals under the Massachusetts Constitution to seek a constitutional amendment through an initiative process?

Romney's Response to Questions on His Past Positions

Last week I observed that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney needed a strong response to the many questions about his past positions on abortion and same-sex marriage or he would already begin to lose Conservative support.  Not that I had anything to do with it, but the Romney camp appears to have crafted just such a response, which is essentially, "Look at my record."

In a Human Events Online interview released today, Romney is questioned on these two issues.  He of course explained his change of heart on abortion, but ultimately said his record speaks for itself.

On abortion:

"As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.

  So talk is cheap, but action is real. And people can now look at my record."

On same-sex marriage:

"...I am adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage.

I’ve been to Washington to testify in favor of traditional marriage. I’ve written a letter to every U.S. senator on the topic. I’ve fought same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in every way I could within the bounds of the law."

It is an effective response and I predict it will be enough to sway many Conservatives who are typically impressed by action rather than talk.  We've learned the hard way that too many supposed Conservatives will give lip service to the issues and then do nothing to advance the cause of Conservatism once in office...  I won't name names.

The interview also addresses Romney's view of Ronald Reagan, his position on the flat tax and Fair Tax, and his thoughts on the possibility of expanding the Massachusetts health care system nation-wide.  What the interview reveals, more than anything, is Romney's sensitivity to the political pulse of the country, and his desire to fully analyze the nations problems before prescribing ill-conceived solutions.  It is this combination of political aptitude and  business-like evaluation of the issues that allowed him to achieve such success as a Conservative Republican in one of the most liberal states in the country.  Those same qualities will provide the basis for his appeal to moderates while standing firm on Conservative principles.

But there remain questions.  The most complete collection of allegations against Romney's Conservatism have been collected by Mass Resistance in The Mitt Romney Deception.  It is enough to keep Conservatives, including myself wary of Romney's past, but when you look at his record, it is tough not to like him as a candidate.


December 27, 2006

Hot Topic: Florida's Ban on Adoption By Homosexuals

The recent announcement of Mary Cheney's (daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney) pregnancy has once again ignited the debate over parenting by same sex couples.  Florida, with our statutory ban on adoption by homosexuals is on the front lines of that debate.  Illustrating that point liberals over at FLA Politics are calling for Governor-elect Charlie Crist to repeal the ban as a demonstration that Crist is committed to his recent pledge to support and expand adoption in our state. 

This is an issue that has been driving liberals bonkers for some time now.  They are further ignited by the fact that while Florida bans adoption by homosexuals, it allows homosexuals to serve as foster parents.  They claim this is a discrepancy that must be resolved, and one that should be resolved in favor of the rights of homosexuals.  The argument fails for the following reasons:

1.  There is no discrepancy.  As the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals explained in a very well reasoned and well written opinion in Lofton v. Secretary of the Dept. of Children and Family Services (via Findlaw), it is reasonable to expect different standards for foster parents and adopting parents because, guess what, foster care and adoption are two different things.  One is meant to be temporary and one is meant to be permanent.  Of course, the proponents of adoption by homosexuals argue that while foster care is meant to be temporary, in some cases it is not.  As in the case of Lofton, the foster parent had custody of foster children for many years.  So what is the solution here?  Ensuring that the foster care system functions as it should and that temporary placements of children are just that, temporary.  Advocates of adoption by homosexuals argue that opening adoption to homosexuals will help achieve that goal.  Certainly, allowing more people to adopt would mean more adoptions.  But this ignores the fact that...

2.  The purpose of adoption is to advance the best interest of children, not the rights of adults.  Florida law requires that adoptions meet the "best interest of the child" standard.  This is why not just anyone can adopt, and as the Court explained in Lofton, why homosexuals cannot adopt.  Like it or not, the foundation our state's adoption program is that there are some family structures which provide for a superior upbringing than others.  Until there is undeniable proof that homosexuals are able to provide the same stable environment with consistency that is offered by the traditional family, the state cannot allow children to be adopted by homosexuals.  Now you can cite all kinds of studies and examples saying just that, but the fact is that there are just as many studies and arguments on the other side, and until it is conclusive that the state's presumption is wrong, the standard must stay.  To allow anything else is tantamount to subjecting Florida's children to a social experiment to determine if  anti-traditional homes cause harm.

3.  As a result, the solution to any alleged discrepancy between the foster care system and the adoption system in Florida is to ban homosexuals from serving as foster parents as well.  The best interest of the child standard must be the centerpiece to this system and because we cannot deviate from that standard the only reasonable way to bring the foster care system and adoption system into uniformity on the issue of homosexual parents is prevent homosexuals from becoming foster parents.

This isn't about your rights.  This isn't about what the government will or won't allow you to do.  This is strictly about what is in the best interest of the child. 

Opponents react that Florida law allows unmarried individuals to adopt, and because of this exception to the target of the traditional family that other exceptions must be allowed.  This is silly, of course.  The Legislature has deemed it necessary to make an exception, one that, granted, is not optimal for the child.  This is where we see the balance of practicality and idealism in the system.  With so many children up for adoption and not enough traditional families adopting other alternatives must be pursued.  However, a line must be drawn.  As the Court in Lofton observed, adoption by a single heterosexual still provides the opportunity for the child to end up in a traditional family setting.  Adoption by homosexuals almost necessarily bars that opportunity.  So the exception is made, and the line is drawn, with a focus on what best serves the interest of the child.

I can do nothing but completely support Governor-elect Crist's new campaign to bring a renewed effort to providing good homes for Florida's many children in need of adoption and his dedication to uphold the current standards in our adoption system.  I hope that you too will stand by our state's commitment to seek out the best interest of every unadopted child and will also consider participating in that system and dedicating yourself to provide not only a good home, but a positive, traditional and moral upbringing for a child in need.  As an individual who's life and family have been touched and forever changed for good by adoption I can attest that there are few more honorable causes in our world today and even fewer with such long-lasting results.

December 22, 2006

Democrats Raise Money For Convicted Felon

Time for a pop-quiz.  It will be self-graded, so you are on the honor system (which works with Conservatives).

1.  If a Republican government official is convicted of a felony, democrats respond by:

A.  Looking the other way.
B.  Gathering their top leadership together to host a fundraiser for his next election campaign.
C.  Stomping, screaming, shouting and demanding that this corrupt official step-down or be removed from office.

Answer:  C

2.  If a democrat government official is convicted of a felony, democrats respond by:

A.  Looking the other way.
B.  Gathering their top leadership together to host a fundraiser for his next election campaign.
C.  Stomping, screaming, shouting and demanding that this corrupt official step-down or be removed from office.

(Hint: Read the post title)

Answer: B

The invitations have been sent out for a fundraiser to help Siplin in his 2008 reelection to the Florida Senate with minority leader Steve Geller as one of the hosts.

Now, I understand that Siplin's conviction is pending appeal, and the Senate is waiting on that ruling before deciding whether to allow him to stay and so he is allowed to stay in the Senate.  But you have to wonder if a Republican would be given the same grace.  If there is any doubt, let me assure you, the answer is no.

With as much as they talk about the "culture of corruption" on the Republican side, it always amazes me that democrats are completely unwilling to hold any of their own accountable for their actions.

December 21, 2006

Romney v. Brownback

All the action in speculating who will be the 2008 Republican candidate for president seems to be swirling around Governor Mitt Romney.  I hope you, the reader, won't interpret the attention I've given him as some sort of endorsement, though I believe he is probably the best hope for Conservatives, and as I've said before, I like him as a candidate.  I like to go where the action is, and the action right now in the 2008 guessing game is on Romney's doorstep.

While the Boston Globe and others in the drive-by media have taken some weak and ineffective shots at Romney, there is a ton of substantive criticism already lining up against Romney in Conservative circles.  Over at Redstate and eyeon08.com there has been much discussion of Romney's past positions on Conservative issues; abortion in particular.  Today eyeon08.com presents that Romney was opposed to the Contract With AmericaHuman Events has an article today on Romney's criticisms of Jesse Helms in 1994.  The conclusion by many is simply that Romney is a liar and will do whatever it takes to get elected.  On top of that, the Human Events guide to the 2008 candidates explains that Romney has appointed liberals to the judiciary in his state.  That scares me.

If Romney wants to be the Conservative candidate of choice, he is going to have to do alot of explaining.  That could simply involve an "I was really wrong, but look at my recent record," but whatever it is, he needs an official statement about these issues, and fast.  These issues wouldn't be so pressing if Brownback hadn't already announced his exploratory committee, but since he has Conservatives are already choosing sides.  And we Conservatives are incredibly loyal.

Romney's past positions are going to haunt him throughout the primary, and candidates like Brownback are going to take full advantage of it.  But Romney has a perfect opportunity to address the quandary with his anticipated January announcement of his exploratory committee.  He has the chance to come out of the gates by confronting those concerns, admitting he was on the wrong side of the issues in the past, and committing himself to the core principles of Conservatives.

On the other side, Brownback needs to demonstrate that he has the energy and the passion to inspire the Republican base.  I really like Brownback, and I'm with him on most issues, but I'm just not sure he has the personality to win even the primary.  Further, put him up against Hillary and/or Obama and you've got a major problem.  His support of campaign finance reform and McCain's immigration bill will also be points of contention.

My guess at this point is that Conservatives are going to have to pick between Brownback and Romney as far as serious, legitimate candidates.  And many Conservatives are likely to make that choice in the next several months and stick to it.

As a side note, to those readers wondering about potential candidates like Tancredo and Huckabee, they have much to prove before they even have a prayer, and I just don't see them as legitimate possibilities.  Gingrich is waiting in the wings, and should he decide to run, he has the potential to give everyone a run for their money.

UPDATE:  Romney has picked up Conservative hot shot George Marx who will be a tremendous asset in selling Romney to Conservatives.

December 20, 2006

Christmas Thoughts on Conservatism

As we prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ in the coming days, it is an excellent time to examine our hearts, what we believe in, what we desire to be and the ways we can carry that out in our daily lives.  In that spirit Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events has compiled 10 Principles of Conservatism for us to ponder.  It is one of the most succinct, yet complete explanation of the core beliefs of a Conservative that I have ever seen.  You can click the link above for th full article or see the list by clicking the continue link below.  Enjoy!

Continue reading "Christmas Thoughts on Conservatism" »

December 19, 2006

More on Mitt

A little under one month ago in my first evaluation of possible Republican candidates for President in 2008 I shared my  thoughts on why Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney might be the best possible option.  It has been intriguing to watch the reaction of both Republicans and the media as the Mitt pre-campaign gains momentum. 

There have been many questions about Romney's apparent change of positions on various issues over the course of his political career.  As you know, for Republicans, being labeled a "flip-flopper" is the kiss of death.  The major newspapers in Boston even seem to have stepped up their normal share of anti-Romney stories, even writing a hit piece on the lawn care company which tended to Romney's home and had illegal immigrants on its staff.  Romney hired the company, the company hired illegals, therefore Romney opposes halting illegal immigration regardless of whether he knew of the illegals or not; this is the conclusion the media has tried to lead you to.  It makes perfect sense in the liberal mind where reason and logic have long been stamped out.  Sidenote: Romney recently met this criticism with a new state program to step up enforcement of immigration laws.

Some Republicans have even jumped on board.  Over on the front page of RedState there is a post calling Romney a clown, despite the fact that the author, Mark Kilmer, claims he's not a "Mitt-Basher."

It is all politics as usual and none of it is really surprising, except for the amount of attention, whether good or bad, that is being drawn to Romney.  McCain and Giuliani definitely started the process with the most name recognition, but Romney has quickly become the leading Conservative candidate, and if you've been listening to talk radio at all lately, you've probably heard him referenced as the candidate to beat.

As we begin to move into the first leg of the campaign of 2008 in January, I think you are going to find more and more conversation about Romney.  And as that conversation takes places, Conservatives are going to be excited about Romney's record on Conservative issues, and moderates impressed with his leadership ability.  Can he win?  It is too early to tell, but barring any campaign disaster it seems that Romney will be the most difficult obstacle for McCain or Giuliani. 

December 15, 2006

Florida Senator Tries to Make Nice With Syria

By this point most of you have probably read or heard about our very own Senator Nelson's trip to Syria to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad.  This is the first of many mixed signals that Syria and Iran will be receiving from our government as a result of the Iraq Study Group Report's insane recommendation that we make nice with the two nations and encourage their influence in Iraq.  The State Departments has essentially refused to engage with Syria until there is a demonstrated effort to cease  attempts to throw the Middle East into chaos through the support and harboring of terrorists.

But Senator Nelson just wants to make nice. 

Continue reading "Florida Senator Tries to Make Nice With Syria" »

November 30, 2006

Lunch with Senator Martinez

Seantor Mel Martinez was back home in Orlando today and I had the opportunity to hear him speak at a luncheon this afternoon.  Everyone I spoke to, regardless of political persuasion, was impressed.  I really think he will serve us well as the RNC General Chair.

It was also a special time as Senator Martinez was honored by Liz Foshee, an attorney in Orlando, for the critical role Senator Martinez played in helping bring her mother, Cuc Foshee, home after she was arrested and imprisoned for 13 months without charges after speaking out against the Vietnamese government.

The Senator reiterated his positions on the war, immigration, judicial nominees and also mentioned his nomination to become the General Chair of the Republican Party.  He said being offer the Chairmanship of the RNC is like being offered the offensive coordinator position with his beloved Florida State Seminoles.  He added "There is nowhere to go but up."  On that note, he shared with us a promise he made upon accepting the nomination, that although he is excited about the chairmanship, Florida will always be first on his list of priorities.

I don't agree with the Senator on all of his political views, immigration in particular, but there is no doubt in my mind that he loves our state and our nation and will work relentlessly to improve both.  I think everyone in attendance today could agree on at least that much.  With his presentation abilities he will be an effective general chair for the Republican Party and with his Conservative values and his heart for the people of this state and this nation he will continue to serve us well in the Senate.

November 25, 2006

States with Marriage Protections Amendments


States that have passed a constitutional amendment protecting marriage:

North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota

States that have rejected a constitutional amendment protecting marriage:


States with Statutes Protecting Marriage


States with Statutes Protecting Marriage

New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia

*In January 2006, a state judge found the Maryland statute unconstitutional but it remains in effect pending appeal.

November 21, 2006

First Thoughts on the 2008 Presidential Election - Updated

This past week on FOX News I caught the end of a brief interview with Representative "Bring Back the Draft" Rangel.  The last question he was asked concerned whether he thought Senator Hillary Clinton is definitely going to run for President in 2008.  He responded how everyone, including Senator Clinton has responded to the question; with some half hearted line about being focused on the present rather than the next presidential election.  This is, of course, disingenuous at best and a bold faced lie at worst.  I don't care which side of the isle you hear it from, if a politician on the national level tells you that he's not thinking about 2008 yet, I'd be willing to bet they are lying.  I refuse to believe that our political leadership is that short-sighted.

With that said, I'm not going to lie to you.  I've been doing some serious thinking about the 2008 presidential election.  I know it is premature, and I know the field of potential candidates could change drastically within the next year.  But I can't help thinking about it, and I'll bet neither can you.  And I can practically guarantee that even though he says he is not, Representative Rangel is as well.

Read on to find out more...

Continue reading "First Thoughts on the 2008 Presidential Election - Updated" »

November 14, 2006

Advice to Conservatives on Mel Martinez RNC Chairmanship: Chill Out

In the wake of the news that Mel Martinez will likely become the general chair of the Republican National Committee the Conservative blogosphere has exploded.  Conservatives are angry that Michael Steele or just about anyone else was not chosen.  I have to admit, that even I was frustrated at first by the choice.  But let's all calm down, take a breath and look at the facts before we make any decisions about abandoning the party, as many Conservative bloggers are threatening to do. 

Read the rest...

Continue reading "Advice to Conservatives on Mel Martinez RNC Chairmanship: Chill Out" »

November 13, 2006

Jeb would be better

As either Chairman or Senator. I'd be happier either way.

Ditto for this job.

powered by performancing firefox

The End of Conservatism?

In the aftermath of the loss of both Houses of Congress, Republicans are busy trying to understand what went wrong.  Most of the conclusions I have read have centered on the idea of Conservatism; that these losses were due to either too much or too little Conservatism.  Many fiscal Republicans have alleged that the losses were due to the failure of a platform based on Conservative principles and have called for the party to move towards the center.  Most of the Republican analysis on the losses, however, has concluded that it was the failure of Republican politicos to live and govern by those principles that caused the loss.  It seems to me that the most plausible explanation is the latter for reasons I've stated numerous times before; Americans are by far a traditional people who support traditional notions of family and government and country and when Republicans advocate for those values they win.  Republicans failed, not Conservatism.  With that in mind I've looked past the fiscal Republican and liberal and drive-by-media claims of the failure of Conservatism.

However, there is a new line of criticism against Conservatism which has many Republicans questioning whether Conservative ideology is what loses elections.  An example is seen in the scathing attack on Conservatism as an ideology that was published today by Joseph Farah of Worldnetdaily.com.  In his article "Conservatism's Death Throes?" Farah argues that Conservatism as an ideology is doomed.  I've heard more and more discussion of this idea in recent days, but allow me to assure you, as long as the heart of the American people continue to defend traditional values Conservatism will continue to hold massive influence over American politics.

Read on...

Continue reading "The End of Conservatism?" »

November 10, 2006

What Liberals and the Media Aren't Telling You About the Arizona Marriage Protection Vote

If you've followed the media's coverage of the state ballot initiatives nation-wide you would think that Conservatives lost on every measure.  We've discussed the spin on the South Dakota abortion ban vote below.  We've also discussed the huge victory for marriage protection amendments but rather than acknowledge this success the media and liberals have focused on the rejection of the ban in Arizona; the first loss by such an amendment.

But you've not been told the full story.

First, there has not been much discussion of the margin.  The current margin stands at 51.4% against and 48.6% in favor; a difference of 32,226 votes.  Thats alot of votes right?

Second, we also have not heard about the fact that the driving force behind the amendment, the Center for Arizona Policy, has not acknowledged the loss.  Why?  Because as the Arizona Secretary of State estimated, there are about 350,000 ballots that have not yet been counted.

The margin will be close, but this could go either way.  It is expected that it will take about 2 weeks to finish counting the ballots.  If about 60% of those ballots are in favor of the amendment, Arizona will be State number 28 to pass a marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  But liberals and the drive-by-media are too busy hailing this as a milestone defeat against the pro-marriage movement to be bothered by the facts.

November 09, 2006

What Liberals Don't Want You To Know About the South Dakota Abortion Ban Vote

(Note:  This post began as a comment to a posting by Mr. Hussey over at Pushing Rope.  As an aside, I think Mr. Hussey is probably the sharpest democrat on the Florida blogosphere.)

If you have been paying attention to the MSM and liberal blogs on the rejection of the South Dakota abortion ban by voters you've probably been left with the impression that this was a huge, shocking defeat for the Pro-Life movement.  After all, if the measure failed in such a staunch Conservative state as South Dakota, a state that any liberal will tell you is the toughest place in the country to get an abortion (they have one abortion clinic), how could they expect the rest of the country to support banning abortion?

As usual, the MSM and liberal gloss over the issue doesn't paint a fair picture of reality.  I submit for your consideration three factors which you likely won't hear many other places:

You know you want to

Continue reading "What Liberals Don't Want You To Know About the South Dakota Abortion Ban Vote" »

November 08, 2006

And so the game begins

As Mr. C stated earlier in the comments to another post here, Election 2008 has begun. The GOP has made the first move in the game.  This is going to be fun.

Republicans Come Running Back to Conservatives

After last night's losses the Republican leadership is doing exactly what they always do in the face of loss; running back to Conservatives.  The big headline on the main GOP site today reads "Recommitting Our Party to Conservative Reform."  Chairman Ken Mehlman making the rounds on the morning news promoted his list of three post-election priorities for the party; "first and foremost" was rededicating the party to Conservative principles.  The other two were finding bipartisan common ground with democrats and clearing the taint of corruption. 

The renewed dedication to Conservatives is not a shocking move, but it is one which will be criticized by pundits of every stripe.  Conservatives have reason to be upset and to question the depth of this revitalized dedication.  "Oh, so now you come crawling back after 6 years of feeding us scraps from the table?"  There has been a renewed discussion recently about how the Republican party simply "uses" Conservatives; Evangelicals in particular.  I expect that conversation will expand even more and the common opinion will be that Republicans again just want to use Conservatives to regain control.  But before my fellow Conservatives begin to scorn this idea I'd like to ask the following question:

So what?

Read on...

Continue reading "Republicans Come Running Back to Conservatives" »

Mr. G's Election Reaction

Congratulations to the democrats on their success in gaining support of the House.  It looks like it will be a few days until we know which way the Senate goes because it will require a Virginia recount.  There ave not been any real surprises other than the fact that Britney Spears and Kevin Federline filed for divorce. Speaking of Marriage:

Get more goodness after the jump...

Continue reading "Mr. G's Election Reaction" »

October 11, 2006

David Zucker Campaign Ad

This morning Drudge is reporting that Hollywoof producer David Zucker has made a campain ad about the democrats and North Korea.  Whether Zucker actually created the ad, I don't know.  Regardless, it is a great ad.

"...making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us."

How true it is.

Straw poll

I'm surprised at who's doing so well, and who isn't.

October 10, 2006

No Surpise on North Korea

North Korea is the big news item this week.  A mad man who imprisons and slaughters his own people now possibly has nuclear weapons.  It is not a very comforting thought, but not really a surprise.  Anyone who has been paying attention to North Korea over the last few years could have seen this coming.  Kim Jong Il is a brutal dictator obsessed with his own power who is constantly attempting to make himself relevant in global politics.

What has been a surprise has been the reaction by democrats and liberals, despite the fact that I told myself that I would never be surprised by democrats or liberals again.  Apparently, they believe it is Bush's fault that North Korea has made these weapons, not Kim Jong Il who directed that the weapons be made.  Democrat leaders have been coming out of the wood-work to condemn the Bush Administration's foreign policy on North Korea.  I've yet to see them pose any reasonable alternative to the diplomatic channels the administration has attempted to use over the last 6 years, (typical of democrats, no substance) but they allege Bush's failed policies allowed North Korea to gain WMD's.  Some, like our own Kenneth Quinnell here in Florida advocate Bush was the impetus for the creation of the weapons as well.  In fact, he advocates that it is 100% Bush's fault that North Korea has WMD's.

Really?  It is all Bush's fault?  It seems to me that Kim Jong Il might need to share some of the blame.  Maybe just a little?

It is amazing, after years of screaming that America cannot "police the world" that is exactly what they now ask for.  Diplomatic relations with North Korea have time after time proven impossible.  But of course, they would have opposed military intervention as well.  What we are left with is the observation that democrats offer no solutions to real world problems and that no matter what happens anywhere in the world, it is President Bush's fault.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that North Korea definitely could have and should have been handled better.  And that could have and should have been accomplished through military intervention into North Korea years ago.  This is, after all, a country that today has thousands of it's own citizens in forced labor camps.  Remember when you learned about the concentration camps of the holocaust in school and asked, "How could we have let that happen?"  Guess what, we're letting it happen again.  The liberation of the persecuted of North Korea from torture and dictatorship is long overdue.

Many liberals are claiming that Bush's policies backed North Korea into a corner and forced them into a nuclear program.  But the fact is that Bush said exactly what needed to be said.  What is going on in North Korea is evil, and the leadership of the country poses a threat to all nations.  And if you believe that absent North Korea's inclusion on Bush's Axis of Evil list that they would not have continued to pursue nuclear weapons you are deceiving yourself.

I understand that the timing of all of this is inconvenient with our armed forces dedicated in Iraq, but that is the way of the world.  North Korea must be dealt with and I would be shocked if anything other than military force, or at least the threat of military force, will get Kim Jong Il to back down.

As Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill said, North Korea "can have a future, or it can have these weapons.  It cannot have both."  I couldn't agree more.

For more information on the atrocities committed within North Korea I recommend anything by or about the journeys of Norbert Vollersten, including his book Inside North Korea.  When I had a chance to spend some time with Vollersten in DC over two years ago he predicted that North Korea would refuse to negotiate with the global community, including refusal to rejoin the 6-party talks hoped that it would not take the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea for the world to do something about the  atrocities being committed there. 

I also highly recommend Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025 by Mark Palmer, former ambassador to Hungary during communist occupation.  The book details a comprehensive plan for the non-violent overthrow of the world's dictators.  Had this plan been implemented years ago when it was first proposed I believe we could have prevented this scenario with North Korea.  Sections of Palmer's recommendations have been implemented in current foreign policy.

October 06, 2006

Illegal Immigration - Still a Problem, and Growing

Most of us have experienced both the nightmare and the reality that is a late night in a jammed emergency room.  But with the growing number of illegal immigrants emergency rooms are becoming more than just a single night’s bad experience.  In a report last year by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) it was estimated that illegal immigrants in the state of Florida are resulting in more than $165 MILLION a year in unpaid hospital care.  As a result of unpaid emergency care bills, many hospitals are creating free clinics in order to lower the cost of providing this GOVERNMENT MANDATED SERVICE. Yes, in case you are unfamiliar, most hospitals are required to provide emergency care regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.  The result is the $25 aspirin that your insurance is charged.  Guess who those costs are passed down to?  That's right, you and me.

It comes down to us through insurance rates and through taxes.  About $910 MILLION in taxes used each year by the state to offset the annual $4.3 BILLION cost of providing education, health care, and incarceration for illegal immigrants in our state.  FAIR estimated that the cost to the average Floridian household per year for providing these services is $315.  That does not include the share passed down by illegal immigration on a national level.

But the problem is growing and will continue to get worse.  What will the solution be for the ever aging population of illegal immigrants as they reach an age of not being able to care for themselves?  With no Social Security/Medicare number they will they have no “safety net?”  Will they simply die in the street without aid?  Of course not.  The government will have to rush in to the rescue once again.  FAIR estimates that the current $4.3 BILLION dollar cost of illegal immigrants will balloon to over $8 BILLION within the next ten years.  Guess gets to pay that tab?

But FAIR’s numbers don’t take into account the cost of other government services.  As illegal’s are hired and employed we have no tax contribution.  That means the roads they use, the government services of fire, police and others all have greater burden but no contribution by these users. Guess who pays?

But we also have to consider the loss by Americans in wages.  We’ve all heard the argument that illegal aliens do the jobs that no one else will do.  So what happens if they are not there to do them?  Will we be left with no one to perform those jobs?  Will no one perform the labor and services currently performed by illegal aliens?  No.  The result will be that employers will simply have to pay more for these jobs to attract workers!  The jobs will still get done and good old US citizens will GET A RAISE!  That means more tax revenue and less whining about unlivable wages. Why aren’t the Democrats and the Unions screaming about this? Cheap scab labor from south of the border is keeping US workers from better wages!

The bottom line…good old Joe middle class gets to pay extra for all the government give away’s and illegal alien employers get a free subsidy from all of us!

Everyone benefits when we do it right. Will the costs for goods and services go up with higher wages? Absolutely, but not near as high as when we instead hire the government workers and health care providers to give BILLIONS of dollars away.  If we do it legally we might even get enough of a tax cut to cover the increase in costs for goods and services. (Forgive my moments of fantasy…government becoming so efficient as to cut taxes …what am I thinking?)

The rallies have died down, the issue isn't the hot topic it was a few months ago, but we must be diligent in demanding that our representatives and leaders:

1.  Close the border.
2.  Create a legal guest worker program.
3.  Require everyone to pay their fair share.

The madness must end and reason must be returned. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of delaying and playing politics rather than quickly moving to solve this problem.  Meanwhile, you and I get to pick up the several billion dollar bill.

October 04, 2006

Ongoing Victory for Traditional Marriage

A quick update on the status of the effort to preserve traditional marriage.

The great overall success in defending marriage has been largely ignored by the MSM, but take heart, this is a winning effort.

At this time there are twenty states which have adopted constitutional amendments defining and defending marriage:

North Dakota

There are six states with amendments on the ballot for the 2006 election:

South Carolina
South Dakota

This means that as of November, there is a good chance that over half of the states will have passed state constitutional amendments.

There are 41 States with statutory law defining or defending marriage.

There are only 6 states with no statutory or constitutional provisions protecting marriage.

See the breakdown here.

As for our own state, the Florida Supreme Court has already approved the language of a constitutional amendment and it is expected to be on the 2008 ballot.  Polling shows a majority of the state will support the amendment.  For information on how to support the amendment in our own state visit Florida 4 Marriage.

I haven't double checked his numbers, but Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council announced stated at the Value Voters Summit in D.C. a few weeks ago that in the states where constitutional amendments have been presented, on average, they are supported by 71% of voters.  The trend so far has been that when people are given the opportunity to vote, they have overwhelmingly stood with traditional marriage.

The harshest opposition to these amendments has been in the courts.  Isn't it odd that those who claim to be the defenders of freedom of choice are the ones fighting the hardest to keep these amendments from being voted on? 

Regardless, even in the courts, we are having great success.  Since this past July, the Alliance Defense Fund has been involved in 8 dealing with state marriage laws.  They have had success in all eight.

Ultimately, the highest goal is the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment which becomes more and more likely with each passing vote demonstrating that America stands by the principles of traditional marriage.

The Scandal Double Standard

Many commentators on the Foley scandal have observed the sharp difference between the impact of personal scandals on Republicans as opposed to democrats.  It has been noted that it seems Republicans often meet the end of their political careers over scandals, while democrats often live to govern another day.  Even the Washington Post noted this difference in the article The Redder They Are, the Harder They Fall.  The story of Representatives Studds from Massachusetts and Crane from Illinois has been the most pertinent example.  As the Post explains:

"The clearest illustration may be in the divergent outcomes of the cases against Crane (R) and Studds (D) in 1983. Both men were censured by the House for having sex with underage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old girl in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old boy in 1973. Crane, of Illinois, apologized for his actions, while Studds, who declared he was gay, refused. Crane lost his reelection bid the next year; Studds, of Massachusetts, kept winning his seat until he retired in 1996."

Here Foley is caught in a similar scandal, though there has been no evidence of any actual sexual acts, and his political career is at an end.

The double standard has been criticized by many Republicans and Conservatives over the last few days, but honestly, I'm not disturbed by it one bit.

Fact is, as Republicans, we center our message on Family Values.  As Conservatives where derive our positions from strong moral convictions.  So when there is a violation of those values and convictions by one of our own leaders we should be the first in line to correct.  I'm not saying there is no room for forgiveness or that we shouldn't allow a leader who has stumbled the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and make amends.  However, we should expect our leaders to be held to a higher standard than the party of moral-relativity holds theirs.

Certainly, democrats and liberals take advantage.  When a Conservative or Republican stumbles they are labeled and hypocrite and democrats demand that they, the leadership above them, the staffers below them, and everyone they have ever encountered should apologize and pay for the mistake.  Of course, we should point out the double standard they apply, but we should not seek to lower our own standards or excuse bad behavior by our leadership simply because they do it, too.  We expect such behavior from their side.  And we should expect our leaders to strive for excellence and a political life that is above reproach. 

When we apply a stricter standard of conduct to our own leadership than the liberals apply to theirs, it tells me we are doing something right.

UPDATE:  As always, fantastic analysis and sarcasm from our beloved Ann.

"The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay."

October 03, 2006

Conservatives in the Foley Aftermath

I the wake of the Foley scandal we've seen just about every possible reaction.  Everyone is trying to determine whether this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for Republicans in the next election and liberals and democrats are trying their hardest to turn the issue into an indictment for the whole Republican Party.

But the harshest criticism, in my opinion, is coming not from liberals, but from Conservatives.  Yesterday, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com released an article titled GOP Unworthy of Governing.   In the article Farah concludes that the handling of Foley by Republican leadership has demonstrated that they are unfit to lead the country.  But even before the Foley story broke, others Conservatives were considering the idea that Republicans losing might not be such a bad idea after all.  Jonah Goldberg wrote an article several weeks back hinting at the idea that maybe, just maybe, Republicans need to lose so that they can get their act together.  Farah and Goldberg are not alone.  Honestly, I've found myself seriously considering their position.


But, let me be clear.  At this point I don't agree with Farah and the liberals screaming that the Republican leadership positively knew what was going on with Foley and were just holding out until after the election.  I haven't seen anything that damning just yet, but I'll be just as upset as everyone else if it comes out that they did actually know.  I think there was definitely break down of communication and probably some staff knew more than they disclosed, but I don't know that this rises to the level of indicting the actual party leadership.

I also predict that this issue is not going to have much effect on a nation-wide scale.  It is going to hurt the chances of Republicans keeping Foley's seat, but keeping the seat is not out of the question depending on how the leadership handles itself over the next few months.

The biggest fall-out, I think is, and will continue to be, with Conservatives.  Conservatives who feel the opportunities our party has had over the last few years has been squandered.  Conservatives who have found themselves consistently questioning and at odds with party leadership.  Conservatives who are tired of seeing our party, and us along with them, dragged through the mud over a string of scandals.  Goldberg thinks change might not be so bad.  Farah thinks they've shown their inability to lead.  I was ready to sign on myself.

But yesterday I caught a portion of the Values Voters Summit on C-SPAN.  The segment I watched was a briefing on the national political scene led by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and my man Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund.  At one point Dr. Dobson talked about the short comings of our party leadership.  About how even though "Value Voters" won the day in 2000 and 2004, the party has failed to adopt a Conservative agenda.  Despite all of the effort put in by Conservatives in the 2004 election, the party hadn't supported our mission.  He explained that because of these failures he didn't think he was going to make supporting Republicans a priority in upcoming elections.

But he then described a 2 week period he recently spent in Washington D.C. meeting with party and government leaders that changed his mind.  After meeting with these leaders he realized that even though our own party is in desperate need of some changes, the alternative to our party is so terrible that we have to fight for Republicans.

And he's right.

I know many of us Conservatives are unhappy with the state of our party, and we should work to improve it and put true Conservatives into positions of influence.  But in the meantime, we must realize that even thought our party has its flaws the alternative that the democrats present is far worse than our party on its worst day.

Don't lose heart.  There are some tough days ahead and it is tempting to just sit back and let the election take its course, but there is a real need, now more than ever, for Conservatives to stand by those who support us, and the party that presents the opportunity for the only opportunity for the defense and spread of Conservative ideals.  It may not be deserved, but the Republican party needs the renewed vigor of a Conservative base and I'll be the first to say that I stand with my party, the GOP.

October 02, 2006

Joe Negron to replace Mark Foley?

I couldn't think of anyone better.

Technorati Tags: ,

powered by performancing firefox

September 10, 2006

Ron Klein is still a lobbyist, and still losing

I was reading up on the Shaw v Klein race over at Real Clear Politics and I found this polling data from the Majority Watch at Constituent Dynamics. It shows, as of two weeks ago, Clay Shaw was leading the lobbyist Ron Klein by 8 (MOE 3.1).

Analytically this looks like a very strong poll (large N and strong sampling methodology).

Strategically this looks to reflect reality; Clay Shaw has won this seat in 13 consecutive elections (26+ years) and is in line to take control of the powerful Ways and Means Committee when he wins. Ron Klein is a lobbyist/lawyer who skirts registration and accountability expectations and is running in a year of low voter turnout, with a guaranteed democrat victory in the US Senate race, a guaranteed democrat loss in the FL Governors race, and an emotional deep seated dissain for lobbyist and lawyers.

Voters are not motivated or needed to affect the outcome of any major race in Florida this year, less so for someone who appears to be made up of questionable ethical positions. Combined with the realization that registered Republicans outnumber Democrats in US 22, and Ron Kleins State Senate Districts overlaps the US 22nd District by roughly 25%, I predict Clay Shaw will hold this seat.

September 08, 2006

For democrats, Image is Everything

Today word got out that ABC is "altering" the upcoming mini-series "The Path to 9/11" due to criticisms of inaccuracy which centered around former Clinton administration officials.

Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation claimed that "The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely."  He also accused ABC of bias and "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Now, people who believe everything they see on TV as true are typically liberals and therefore, already confused and misinformed about the world around them, so I'm not sure how much damage could actually be done here.  However, if ABC is trying to make a series more true to life, rather than simply bending to Lindsey and Madeline Albright's complaints, I say good for them.

But I can't help but wonder, where did this outrage suddenly come from?

For the last few years there have been trumped up allegations by professors and academics at a number of universities  that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush coordinated the or allowed the attack to happen.  There are published books arguing the same.  Where was the outrage then?  If those teaching or publishing historical accounts have a "duty," according to Lindsey, to discuss only that which is absolutely based on fact and misleading in no way, why did liberals and democrats not call for these books to be pulled off the shelves and burned and the universities to fire these professors?  Why was there no fear that these teachers and writings would be misinterpreted by millions of students and readers?

I'll tell you why, because for liberals this is not about maintaining the sanctity of true history, it is about maintaining image.  There have been all kinds of quirky claims based on faulty history in recent years, that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual, that Jefferson had children with his slaves, and on and on.  But there was no great public outcry from liberals that these claims were based on scant, if any, historical evidence.

But a line of dialog in  TV show that makes Clinton administration officials look like they missed the chance to prevent 9/11... well, that has to be untrue and anyone who support such an idea is irresponsible and should be censured by Congress.  Right?  Let the false allegations against Bush fly, but just don't speak ill of Bill and his posse.

Truth be told, if there really was a genuine concern for preserving history by liberals, we would have heard much, much more from them by now.  But, it is no surprise to this observer that democrats are more concerned with image than truth, which is why they will allow inaccurate history to taint our schools.

But let's assume that democrats have suddenly awakened to reason.  If that is the case, I'll join Lindsey in denouncing those who teach inaccurate history as fact.  I'll will stand beside him as he calls for universities to remove professors advocating the fact-less theory that Bush knew of, allowed, or caused 9/11.  I'll support him as he proclaims that evolution, a theory taught consistently in public schools should be removed from curriculum because of the danger that millions of students might misinterpret the theory as absolute fact.  Maybe this is the beginning of a liberal enlightenment I thought would never come.  But I won't hold my breath.


Read Harry Reid's veiled threat to ABC.

Mary Katherine Ham has more examples of the ongoing liberal hypocrisy.

And excellence from Hugh Hewitt:

'I suspect the extreme reaction of the Senate Democrats is based on the sudden recogntion that the fall campaign will be waged on the single issue of which party is serious about national security.  The president's demand for action on key fronts yesterday has clearly thrown the Dems into disarray as they realize that the American electorate will not reward more fecklessness on the part of Democrats. Now arrives a major television event that exposes the specifics of Democrtaic-era "stewardship" of national security, and they are in a frenzy to do whatever it takes to keep that memory down the memory hole.

The trouble for them is that they more they struggle the more attention they call to the very record they wish to have remain obscure and distant."

New anti-immigration plan from the democrats

And, I have to say I think I like it. It involves raising minimum wages in an effort to purposely cut jobs, the very low wage low skilled jobs that illegal immigrants are employed in.

It's probably the only argument that could ever get me to support a minimum wage increase. But, you can bet, if democrats are in charge of implementing this plan it will back fire. The plan requires strict enforcement and we all know that's not something the demo' do best. Spending your money, they can do that. Enforcing laws and fighting terrorism, not so good.

Read about it at Hispanic Pundit and more commentary at Marginal Revolution.

powered by performancing firefox

September 01, 2006

Campaign Reform was a mistake

Remember McCain - Feingold? This must read editorial asserts it was a mistake. I agree.

You should spend the next 60 days thinking about it and wonder about it's implications in 2008. No doubt Republicans will use M-F this year to help stem off a "perceived" D take over (one I am yet to be convinced will materialize), but all bets are off in 2008 when the White House is up for grabs.

It frightens me to think of the amount of information hidden from voters (by law!) in a Clinton v. McCain race. It could be the first time in history two candidates with more negatives than positives vie for the most powerful position in the world.

Mr. C

powered by performancing firefox

August 24, 2006

Bush Goes to Plan B

While watching the democrats wistfully discuss how to spend all my money last night was frustrating, it didn't make me as angry as Bush completely rolling over on Plan B this week. 

For those who are unfamiliar, Plan B is known as the morning after pill which prevents fertilization and implantation of an egg.  Now, we can debate when life begins until the cows come home, and most liberals will instantly write me off if I took the stand that maybe, just to err on the side of caution, we should draw the line before fertilization (after all, we can be 100% sure that before that point, its not a baby).  I would be written off by liberals if I argued that the pill can cause early term abortions.  But, I would expect to be written off by liberals on those points.  What I didn't expect was to be written off by my President who was elected in a wave of traditional moral values fervor.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Plan B for over the counter sales today, and Conservatives should be hopping mad for several reasons.  First, as Jane Chastain points out, there are still many health concerns with the pill, and to make it over the counter as opposed to prescription is just nuts.   But more than that, we should be angry that this move was engineered by Andrew Von Eschenbach, acting head of the FDA, and nominated by our President.

I understand that the President is fiercely loyal; we saw that with Harriet Miers.  I understand that he wants to stand by the guy, from Texas, that he nominated.  But I am really starting to wish that Bush would demonstrate the same loyalty to the Conservatives that elected him.  In a press conference on Monday, Bush was asked about the nominee and his support of making Plan B over the counter.  His response?

"I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe.  And I support Andy's decision."

Mr. President, wasn't expecting you to go on a one-man rampage against Plan B.  But I also wasn't expecting you to just completely roll-over.  You let us down, yet again.  And with elections close at hand, it may be the Republicans who need to start looking towards a "plan b" because disenfranchised Conservatives start rolling over, too.

For more on the FDA's decision, click here.

Mr. G

August 19, 2006

What Took You So Long?

Here's a head scratcher - Al Sharpton, known liar, race baiter and so-called poverty-pimp by former US Congressman J.C. Watts, is now starting to sound like the courageous Bill Cosby in his comments regarding black youths. I must say I am a little shocked to hear him say anything other than that blacks' problems are created by whites, but he makes a strong case for black youths to turn from "gangsterism."

"We have got to get out of this gangster mentality, acting as if gangsterism and blackness are synonymous," Sharpton said Thursday at the annual conference of the National Association of Black Journalists.

"I think we've allowed a whole generation of young people to feel that if they're focused, they're not black enough. If they speak well and act well, they're acting white, and there's nothing more racist than that."

He went on to descrine how youths should long for and seek leadership roles in their lives and neighborhoods. Good messages

I am glad he is saying this publicy, and I applaud him for his statements. Yet I must also ask, "What took you so long, Al? Why haven't you been out there vocally defending Bill Cosby as he's received criticism for saying the same thing over the last few years?"

But it's at least a start I guess.


August 16, 2006

I hear all the time...

About how the GOP is turning Latino voters away with their "anti-immigration policies," (which is a completely inaccurate description of our policies BTW) but I don't remember us actually juxtaposing images of immigrants with Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il like the democrats have done this election cycle. (The ad was here, but it's down now and I don't think it's coming back.)

I'm not surprised really. The dems would have done it to the blacks in America a long time ago, if they had had another strong voting minority to play them against 30 years ago. In fact, that's pretty much what the democrats did to blacks from Reconstruction until Kennedy, the first mildly conservative democrat to get elected. Isn't it funny how conservative candidates help everybody, even the opposition party?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

August 10, 2006

Referendum : No :: Dem Primary in Itty-Bitty Conn. : Yes


Dem Leader Harry Reid is predicting a 5 seat gain in the US Senate by Democrats this November - and all I've got to say is "Not bloody likely!" His primary, no pun intended, reason for believing this is the result of the Democrat Primary in Connecticut - you know, the one where Joe Lieberman lost to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont (never did trust guys named Ned). He and the media keep referring to this little tiny democrat primary in a small itty-bitty state as some bellwether, national referendum election on Bush:

"But the perception was that [Lieberman] was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction," [Reid and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] said [in a joint statement].

Spinning this small tiny democrat primary into some national referendum on the President is the height of mountain out of molehill politics.

And you know what? I'm glad! I want Harry and the Dems to falsely think that the country is going in this "new direction" based on some small state's primary. I want the MoveOns and other anti-war-blame-America-first lefties, who are credited in the media for Lamont's victory, to feel emboldened and force their candidates across the nation to sound like Ned (there's that name again) and run to the far left of the voters.

Politics is local, but Democrats have been desperately trying to make this year a national referendum on Bush, similar to the Republicans successful nationalization of the off-term election in 1994. Well, if they're gonna base their confidence and predictions on a democrat primary in which the victor only won 52-48* (yes it was that close but you wouldn't know from the media's crowing over Lieberman's defeat**) in a small state that has never carried any national significance, then Republicans should sleep well at night this fall.

Hey Harry, here's my prediction - Lieberman retains his seat as an Independent and Republicans gain 2 more.



*This means that 52% of about 33% of all voters in Connecticut voted for Ned - that breaks down to about about 18% of Conn. voters - yeah really something to base a national referendum on. When did straw grasping become a democrat hobby?

** Don't forget, the 4 percent spread is after Lieberman publicly said in the weeks prior to the primary that if he lost he'd run as an independent. This means his supporters came out despite his throwing in the towel on the dem primary.

August 04, 2006

I believe I can fly

I was going to link to this story - Harris predicts Senate victory against the odds - by saying she can predict all she wants, but she isn't going to get it done. But as I read deeper into the study I read this,

People who study political psychology say there could be other reasons.

This is what fascinates me about liberals. They can't accept the world as it is, they can't leave people to their own devices. They can't trust the public, the average voter, the everyday shop owner to make their own decisions about candidates or policies. They must analyze them and define them and destroy them, so as not to take a chance that the voter may choose wrongly.

"If she thinks she's beyond the force of gravity, she'll keep trying to fly," [University of Wisconsin political psychologist Virginia] Sapiro said. "The question is when does it become dysfunctional, where you can't read the tea leaves."

Say what? When does wanting to win and overcome adversity become dysfunctional? Isn't the answer to that question never?

Maybe Stanley Renshon of the City University of New York Graduate Center can help.

...her persistence is unusual, given the circumstances, but explainable.

"She must read the polls and she must know she's a controversial person and she must know that her party is unenthusiastic about her and that the opposition party for the most part despises her," he said "What kind of person plunges ahead despite all that? It's a person who puts their opportunity and ambition in the forefront."

And what's wrong with that? I'm thinking if I have a choice between two candidates to represent me in the halls of Congress and one is milksop and the other never, never, never, ever gives up, then I think the one I want to trust my tax dollars with, the one I want defending my liberty and my freedom, I want that person to be the latter. We may be witnessing just the type of Senator you're likely to get with Katherine Harris, and it has more to do with her personality than her policy.

You know, average people respect those of us who never give up. The market rewards entreprenuers who never give up. And, sometimes, voters do too.

Liberals have a deep need to understand her ethos, and because they don't, they need to psychoanalyze her and say she's sick. That she is mentally unstable and she really needs help. Why aren't they doing the same for/to Cynthia McKinney?

I'm telling you, I can see where this is all going. In October during the run up to the General Election there will be an article somehwere that will say something along the lines of, "Clinical psychologist who have been studying Katherine Harris's statements and actions over the past 6 months agree that she shows signs of mental and emotional fatigue." The implication being she's sick in the head. Don't vote for her.

And the craziest part of all? When it comes to ambition, belief in ones abilities and successes at overcoming great adversities, KH is no different from Hillary Clinton. I mean, Hillary is definitely the front runner for the democratic nomination for 08, but can she win America? No. She never has and she   never will, so why should she even try? In my professional opinion I think Hillary thinks she can fly. I mean, who's Isaac Newton when your last name is Clinton? He's nobody that's who.

Shave off the mustache and the stretch her stubby legs and Hillary could pass for Katherine when it comes to raw political ambition.

Well, KH in drag maybe.

There's a difference between some of us in the blogsphere and political punditry saying KH is crazy for continuing in this race. We can read between the lines, we can see the polls and the targeting and make our own prognostications about the outcome.

It's another thing completely when the MSM starts hiring psychologist to study and analyze her behavior, to diagnose her. It's a little over the top.

August 03, 2006

This should tell you something about the upcoming elections

There is an unreported sentiment brewing jsut under the surface of main stream reporting. You may not read about it in the papers, but 66 Senators, SENATORS!, have been hearing it first hand. Voting 94-3 to fund the construction of a fence along the US-Mexico border it was reported many, "heard from their constituents after they voted to authorize the fence in May and then voted against funding it a couple of weeks ago," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL.

They must have got an ear full when they went home.

Anybody still think the dems are going sweep this fall?

Technorati Tags: , ,

powered by performancing firefox

August 02, 2006

Who's for "Big Oil" now?

In my inbox today was the Evans-Novak Poilitical report. It included this nugget of info -

The vote of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for offshore oil drilling again set her apart from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other Northeastern liberals. She and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N,Y.) were the only Senate Democrats from the Northeast to vote for the bill.

So much for the marriage between big oil and the GOP. Looks like Hillary showed Florida the finger. What do you think that means democrats think of Florida's perceived role in the 2008 presidential election?

UPDATE: I decide to check out Hillary's website looking for background on her positions on Energy Policy and Oil Drilling. Here's what I found. (more after the jump)

Continue reading "Who's for "Big Oil" now?" »

August 01, 2006

It has begun...

The end of Castro? The celebration.

The real Castro socialist?

The battle for US 22 gets louder.

The dirty laundry of the FL GOP.

Too little, too late?

The only man in America with a valid complaint of Crist.

Is it too early to call Jim Davis a Flip-Flopper?

July 21, 2006

Jim Davis wannabe

Look out Jim Davis, another House member is gunning for your next to worst record for attendance and voting - Cynthia McKinney.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

July 13, 2006

Tell me something I don't know...

Harris loses another staffer... what else is new?
Tom Gallaghers new ad focuses on Laura, Charlie and being a "Dad"... snore....zzzzzzzzz.
Democrats will do anything, including trampling over the memories of dead american soldiers, to raise money... ahem, uh, they're democrats!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

July 11, 2006


Question: I read that McCain was supposed to be on Marco Island last night raising money. Anybody know anything about it? Please don't tell me Jeb returned from a family vacation so he could party with Johnny last night.

The Campaign Manager is quickly becoming a daily read here at PEER Review FL, but this post is leaving me feeling sick. The only thing that would ever, EVER, make me vote against Jeb Bush would be if he teamed up with McCain in 2008. There is absolutely no way I will be voting for McCain in a primary. God forbid he wins, I will looking at third party candidate. If they are all looney like before, then... well, I don't know. I'll do what everybody else does and suck it up.

FYI, my preferences as of today - Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Mark Sanford, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo. And for the record, if Jeb teams up with John, then he falls to the end of the list.

Mr. C

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

July 10, 2006

New (to me) Fl Blog

I'm loving this prediction from The Campaign Manager.

July 03, 2006

Creative rationalization

BabycryingIt's always a sign of imminent collapse when people start engaging in all manner of analysis that leads them away from admitting what the real reason is they're losing elections.

Just like in the 80's, liberals are convinced that the only reason the country's trending Republican and conservative is because the majority of Americans are suffering from a deficiency in mental stability or as this short clip shows, an overabundance of...

air conditioning...

June 23, 2006

St. Pete Times Exclusive on Rove, Satan and the GOP

No. No MSM bias here. Nothing to see. Move along.

The Hotline had it first. And I bet you won't read about it on The Buzz either

Update: Apparently this was some sort of elaborate joke by this guy. My question, if it was such a big joke, why did they take it down? I understand this joke maybe wasn't for publication on the SPT site, but what about the other guy? There's nothing embarrasing about a little successful, and intentional, media humor. Unless it was never going to see the light of day to begin with. Just a little joke among friends. You know.

Update: Award winning... almost.

Update: Well, blow me over, The Buzz did report on their own mishaps. Chalk it up to the foibles of a "new" computer systems. Good Job... I guess.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

June 17, 2006

Rudy Giuliani is important in Florida

And his endorsement is second only to Jeb Bush. You could argue in some areas - Boca Raton, Palm Beach, Miami Dade, Ft. Lauderdale - he may have more influence than our own Governor. And voters in Florida are looking to him with an eye o the future. Rudy Giuliani regularly takes top prize for Florida's choice for 08.

7. Who is your first choice for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
                Rudy Giuliani 40%
                John McCain 31%
                George Allen 7%
                Newt Gingrich 4%

People in this state like him, and care what he thinks. Probably because so many people in this state remember what it was like in NY and Times Square before he was elected Mayor.

Well, Rudy is making the rounds and supporting candidates in races all across America. And in Florida Rudy is throwing his support behind Clay Shaw.

PEER Review does too.

Maybe later well talk about how Rudy could actually win the White House. For now lets just say that he's setting up a lot of chits for future use.

Technorati Tags: ,

powered by performancing firefox

June 16, 2006

Time for (Jeb!) Bush

Time Magazine piece on Jeb - Is there a second act?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

June 13, 2006

How's November Looking Now?

The events of the last seven days just go to show you how quickly political winds can change. The GWBush poll numbers have hit their low point and will be coming up slowly but surely over the next few weeks to a point that democrats will finally stop talking about taking over the House or Senate and focus on protecting their weak seats.

So what has transpired to give me such optimism? Well let's start with last Tuesday's election to replace former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham, the poster boy for the democrats campaign assertion that the republicans are the sole party of corruption (despite Rep. Jefferson, democrat from New Orleans, being caught with bribe money to the tune of 90,000 marked FBI dollars in his home's freezer). The democrat running for Cunningham's seat was running against the "culture of corruption" that only Duke Cunningham supposedly represents, and she lost that seat to a republican lobbyist - the supposed dirtiest, filthiest creatures in Washington.

Then later in the week, on Friday, the Iraqi Prime Minister finished forming his government the same time that al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (if you ask a progressive/liberal/socialist Al-Qaeda and Iraq don't belong in the same sentence - they should tell that to the terrorists so they can correct their stationery), was killed by a US military air strike.

Here we are today, a week later, and we've got Bush flying to Iraq for a surprise visit to personally meet with the new Iraqi PM al-Maliki. Oh, and a little news story came out around the same time Bush was flying out there - the democrat target dummy Karl Rove, as anyone with a brain has known since day one of the leak-that-wasn't-a-leak investigation, will not be indicted.

Drudge has a funny story about Homer (D'OH!) Dean:

DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC's 'TODAY': 'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war.'

If Rove's sin was leaking the name of the intel operative during a time of war (that's a phrase democrats use sparingly because they only pull it out when it suits their political purpose - they don't actually use it in relation to national security) as Dean asserts, then Rove would have been indicted for it - not just the perjury that obviously didn't occur. Of course, everyone with a brain also knows that the intel operative was not an operative. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had been riding a desk for about 5 or 6 years in Langley and hadn't been covert during that time, so no law was broken by "revealing" her identity.

But let's allow Dean his little tantrum, along with all his little Deaniancs and progressive socialists. Wouldn't you be angry too if everything politically that you had been working for over the last two years went up in smoke within one week?

I predict that within a month the punditry will begin talking about republicans gaining seats in the US House and maintaining their position in the US Senate, and all this nonsense about Speaker Pelosi and President Reid will finally evaporate into thin air, like the hot air coming out of Homer Dean's trap.


Crist and Harris big winners in recent poll, but...

I have doubts about this SurveyUSA Election Poll.

By in large the spread is so big, so unbelievable, there is no doubt Crist and Harris are leading in their respective primaries,

Crist 52%, Gallagher 21%
Harris 50%, McBride 12%, Collins 7%, Monroe 4%

But crosstab analysis that shows, "Gallagher does relatively best among young voters, liberals, and those who disapprove of President Bush," are the result of either a really poor sampling or a disasterous campaign that was designed to target exactly the opposite group of people. I know Brett Doster is too good at targeting and organization for that to be the case, so I am going to assume the former is true.

Which is exactly why I don't believe in polling registered voters for anything but issue ID.

For the record -

2,500 Florida adults were interviewed 6/9/06 - 6/11/06. Of them, 2,164 were registered to vote. Of them, 825 were Republicans. Of them, 410 were judged to be "likely voters". Crosstabs reflect Likely Republican Primary Voters.

FrontPageFlorida also has a post.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

June 10, 2006

weekend reading

It starts like this,

Our rich people don’t need another tax break. No, they need higher
taxes. And they should be vilified, too. That’s right: America should attack
rich people. In fact, we must abolish wealth, which is a tremendous
drag on our economy. It’s high time that we made the rich poor.

And ends like this,

Once again, capital is the enemy. Rich people are evil. We have to put an end to all this capitalist, supply-side nonsense.

And everything in between is sheer Larry Kudlow genius.

powered by performancing firefox

June 08, 2006

GOP still winning, dem's still losers

Liberals, what say you now? What effect will this have on Florida? Look to the District 22 House race in Boca Raton - Clay Shaw vs. Ron Klein.

If the GOP can defeat the d's in a seat previously held by a man who is currently behind bars for curruption, then how hard do you think it will be to defend a seat, currently held by one of the most stand up honest men in the House, from a lobbyist/lawyer with ties to Jack Abramhoff?

Technorati Tags: , ,

powered by performancing firefox

June 07, 2006

Two better than average polls and race predictions

Two recenlty released polls give clearer pictures on the Florida Governor's race than any to date.

The first was conducted by GOP communications taken from a sample described as (emphasis mine),

The polling model:  We have a computer model of the 2004 electorate in FL that created a pool of 46,990 voters who always vote (each primary and general cycle)... This overall pool was compared to 2000 census #s and 2004 census estimates and broken down into county by county voting results in 11/2004 to give us a core group of 1332 extremely likely voters that is an exact computer model replica of those who voted statewide in 2004.

That's a solid polling sample if I've ever seen one. If I start running polls this will be the ideal set up. The results - Crist 46.1%, Davis 37.7%, 15.5% Undecided and 0.7% Other (+/- 2.85)

The second is the Chamber of Commerce poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates of 800 likely GOP primary voters which showed  Crist leading Gallagher 42-23 (+/- 3.5). Solid sample size, solid results, consistent results.

Your first question may be, why didn't GOP Communications poll on Gallagher or Smith?

It's not cost effective. Take a look at the Chamber poll. It has Crist leading Gallagher by 19 points, and that hasn't changed since December when the Chamber ran the same poll. After six months, a time period that included a legislative session, Gallagher has made zero progress among likley GOP voters. Most polls show the same results, and those that don't are questionable in their design, so it's not unlikely GOP Communications took this well established information into consideration.

Simply put, polling 1332 respondents is expensive. It takes massive amounts of manpower to complete in a decent amount of time and that requires more money than an 800 sample poll. It's not economical to poll 1332 people on cadidates who don't seriously have a shot at winning their respective primaries.

The next question you may ask is, I've heard you disregard polls that poll likely voters before, why is the Chamber poll so great now? (Actually, I disregard polls of registerd voters nearly all the time, as they are the least dependable, but I typically am skeptical of any small sample poll of likely voters too.)

The answer is simple: Sample size. Most polls will poll around 800 total respondents then break the results into GOP and democrat subsets of around 400. At that size your margin of error is tremendous and the likelihood of your "likely voters" being actual voters is even smaller. Trying to disaggregate the returns for multiple candidates further dilutes the likelihood of respondents being actual voters who will have an affect on the actual election.

However, with a sub sample (which is what I consider a poll of just one party) size of 800 or more much of the error can be accounted for, especially when your results show a 19% consistent spread between the candidates.

Suppose for a moment that the results are completely on the edges of the results, Crist is actually 3.5% lower and Gallagher is actually 3.5% higher, or a complete seven point swing. It's highly unlikely to be the case, but if it is Crist still wins by 12 and my confidence in the original numbers is much higher as a result. By any account, 12% is a considerable margin to overcome, but a consistent 19% among GOP primary voters is insurmountable  3 months out.

Lastly, you may be asking if this means I will stop following poll results because it appears Crist has wrapped it up? The answer is no. I will keep bringing you analysis and opinion until it's over.

And BTW, here's my projections at this point -

US Senate - Harris v. Nelson, Nelson wins. It is apparent McBride (Will) is showing some real life, and he will get some boost from his name likeness to another McBride. I think he's one to watch and if he can gain some traction, create some solid positions and establish a strong conservative credential before the primary he may be able to do the unthinkable, defeat Harris. But he won't be able to turn that into a victory over Nelson, unfortunately.

US House District 22 - Shaw wins. I know this is the focus of party elites and supposedly a toss up seat, but when you consider Klein is covering up his lobbying, gambling and lawyer backgrounds; consider that his current district overlaps the House district by less than 20%; consider that Shaw has been reelected 12 times - I think this won't really be as close as people think it will. But here's to keeping up appearances.

Governor - Crist v. Davis, Crist wins. Davis is a joke. A simple backhand from Bush last week put him into a tail spin for several days (apparently he's still trying to recover). What's he going to do when Crist focuses his attention and money on him?

CFO - Lee v. Sink, Sink wins. I'm least sure about this one, namely, who wins the GOP nomination. A lot of rank and file are excited about Johnson (including myself) and Tom Lee has angered plenty of big donors. But ultimatley, I think Sink is strong enough to beat either. If Johnson wins he may not have the experience, or money, he needs to take Sink down during the short General Election time frame.

AG - McCullom wins. I know a lot of people like Joe Negron, and they're called legislators. Outside of Tallahassee he is less well known. I like him, but with down-ballot campaigns Name ID can be everything if you've got it, and McCollum has it. Plus, he's got gobs of money raising potential.

Ag Commish - Bronson wins. Despite Derek Newtons best efforts, this will be a cake walk against Skip Campbell *Eric Copeland despite his personal contact information fishing excercises he's been engaged in lately.

Among the other US House seats I could mention I think Vern Buchanan will likely win the Harris' 13th District seat, three otherwise good democrat candidates are going to eat each other up trying to fill Davis' 11th District seat, and while the d's think Busanky has a good shot at the retireing Mike Bilirakis District 9 seat, I find it hard to imagine they will take it from current State Rep, and Mike's son, Gus Bilirakis.

That's the big ones. Maybe later I'll talk about some local races here in Tallahassee.

*see comments

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

June 06, 2006

"I have not gotten more support ... because they don't believe I can be controlled," Harris said

Memo to Harris campaign:

You've identified the problem, now do something about it. These are your options -

1. Bend over backwards and start being controllable.
2. Keep doing what you're doing, which is running a losing campaign and complaining about option number 1.
3. Quit wasting money on fundraising, hire some professional media firms, put somebody in control of your message and spend the ten million dollars you do have. If you can get the spread to within ten then I think you may get a second look from the "big donors" and the establishment again.

Your message? Talk about Bill Nelson "the liberal," about your experience and leadership, and about immigration and education. I think we all know you are conservative and Christian so lets stick to issues that are going to motivate Floridians on Election Day.

My advice? Move to number 3. If it's not showing significant results by late August then start your farewell tour and personally thank the few hundred people who did donate to your campaign.

Technorati Tags:

powered by performancing firefox

June 05, 2006

The Best Governor in America?

Jeb Bush. I've been saying it all along.

But don't take my word for it. Read here.

Technorati Tags:

powered by performancing firefox

June 02, 2006

democrats and corruption, the (recent) list

I found my new favorite blog for today. Lifelike Pundits.

Since I just posted on the subject of democrat corruption, accept this as a follow up. Who else made the list?

1. Senator John "No Taxes" Corzine

2. Senator "the Torch" Toricelli

3. Senator Charles "Shmuck" Schumer

4. Representative Cynthia "Too Black for You" McKinney

5. Representative Patrick "Ambien" Kennedy

6. Senator Hillary "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" Clinton

7. Representative Alan "Slush Fund" Mollohan

8. Minority Leader Nancy "San Fran Nan" Pelosi

9. Representative William Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana)

10. Representative James "Expelled from Congress" Traficant

11. Representative James "Baghdad Jim" McDermott

12. Representative Nydia Velazquez

13. Representative John "Mock Impeachment" Conyers

14. Former NSA Sandy "Honest Mistake" Burg(l)er

15. Governor James "Truckstops and Videostores" McGreevy

16. Representative Frank "Me and My Son" Ballance
Thanks to Lifelike Pundits for the reminders! (Be sure to read today's post on John Kerry)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 30, 2006

Dems Label GOP as 'Corrupt'

Kettle, it's the pot calling. He says your black.

UPDATE: Exhibit A. B. C.

Technorati Tags: ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 26, 2006

That's all I need to know

From The Buzz,

"President Clinton and Bill Nelson are friends,'' said Nelson campaign manager Chad Clanton. "President Clinton was kind enough to offer his support and we're proud to have it.''

That's all I need to know. I'm voting for Harris.

No word yet on Lobbyist Ron Klein's friendship with Clinton... either of them.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Media trying to taint already meaningless Q-poll findings

Yesterday I asked, Why don't they report these numbers?

Today, they do (here, here and here). But, of course, they try to taint the information. For instance the Miami Herald wrote,

a majority of Floridians -- mostly Republicans -- now back a Bush administration proposal that would allow oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico 100 miles off the state's coastline

As if the Republicans supported it because Bush proposed it. Here's how the question was read to respondents by Q-poll,

The federal government is considering a proposal to allow oil and natural gas drilling in large sections of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 100 miles from the Florida coast that are currently off limits. - Do you support or oppose this proposal?

When asked a question about a nonpartisan Federal government program with nondescript support, 76% of Republicans, 37% of Dems, and 45% of Ind's (61% men, 46 % women) said yes. They affirmed sensible energy alternatives not only for Florida, but the United States at large. Respondents didn't say yes because it was a Bush proposal, or a GOP proposal, or an oil company proposal; they said yes because it makes sense.

Q-poll may not be able to poll actual voters accurately, but they know enough about polls to know if you ask a question about a Bush proposal in Florida - where a Bush is governor and enormously popular - the results would naturally be skewed. Unfortunately, our friends in the media take advantage of the situation knowing that most readers will never look up the poll results, and they immediately try to disqualify the findings by tying it to Bush and the Republicans.

When asked about a Federal Government plan to drill more than 100 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, the majority of respondents said yes.

That being said, there are plenty of reason to doubt the Q-poll findings from recent days. I've mentioned a few already.

Technorati Tags: , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 25, 2006

Flim Flam Flip Floppery

On the fence on the fence.

No, I didn't write that twice. It correctly describes John Kerry's position on the topic. (from GOP and the City)

And some of you guys selected this guy to be your president.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 23, 2006

Presbyterian or Methodist in 2008?

While waiting for the 2044 Republican front runner for President of the USA to be born, I've spent a lot of time on the Internet lately.  I began looking at the personal bios of past Presidents and became interested in the religions that had been represented in the White House.  One thing that I found quite interesting is the fact that JFK is the only Catholic to ever sit in the seat. (The Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses have also had just one - Ike).   A large amount of the population is (was) Catholic.  It got me to wondering, does anyone REALLY care about the religious affiliations of those seeking the most powerful position in the world?

In looking at front runners for 2008, I've tried to take into account several polls, but they vary depending on MANY different factors, so I chose Malkin and Kos for obvious reasons.  These only poll on the respective parties, not against each party.  The results were slightly unexpected.

The GOP prefer Frist and the dems Clark.  I can understand Frist (maybe I'm biased) but Clark?  For the record, Clinton came in FOURTH, behind the aforementioned, as well as Feingold and Edwards.  When the parties face off, votes were 46% for McCain and 37% for Clinton

Does the religion matter?  In the democratic primary, you have Baptist (Clark) and Jewish (Feingold) facing off.  Historically, Feingold wouldn't stand a chance.  There have been four Baptists presidents to none for the Jews.  Before you jump all over the Southern Baptist Association and the Bible Belt, the Baptists come in fourth place overall.  In the Republican primary, you would have Presbyterian (Frist) versus Mormon (Romney).  Romney is in the same boat as Feingold.  There have been 10 and 1 Presidents, respectively.  Following the same logic and think-pattern, the election would come down to Presbyterian vs. Baptist (First vs. Clark).  The result would be Frist by a landslide (10 to 4). 

Of course, we know many events, besides religion, come in to play in determining who the next President will be (or even who will make it past the primaries).  If it did come down to McCain and Clinton, you have Episcopalian against Methodist.  Hillary would lose based on our little game here but it is also interesting to note, Bill ran as a Baptist.  He beat the last Episcopalian to run (H.W. Bush).  I wonder if the Clinton's have ever heard "a house divided cannot stand" or "don't be unequally yoked"?  I know, I butchered both sayings, but you know what I mean.

There are HUGE differences in many religions and I suppose that most people think that a sitting President would not push his (or her) religion on the people hence, maybe, the topic isn't discussed much during elections.  I admit that I believe in prayer (as any good Southern Baptist would) and I like that President Bush admits that he spends time in prayer.  However, would I be comfortable with some less popular religion doing the same in the White House?  I just don't know...would you?

Mr. H

May 22, 2006

The 2006 Election - The Democrat Death Knell

Townhall features a great article today by Dustin Hawkins which wonders what it will mean for democrats when they still lose overall in the 2006 election despite the fact that Republicans are at such a weak and vulnerable point.

The Democrats are acting like it is going to be their version of 1994: Then, Republicans made a 54-seat gain in the House and netted 8-seats in the Senate to take control of Congress. But their confidence is also their error. If the Democrats fail to recapture either chamber, which is the most likely scenario, then what does that say about the future of a party that cannot win when its opponent is at its worst? If Democrats manage to stay in minority status after November it says far more about Democrats than it does about Republicans. If they manage to take control it’s no big deal; after all, they are supposed to win, right?

Hawkins hits it right on the head when he explains that even though Republicans have made a number of critical errors in the last few years democrats offer no real alternatives, so they will continue to lose, and they will lose in the next election.  So what does this mean for democrats?  I'll answer, it means the beginning of the end.  At the end of this year's elections, democrat leadership will be faced with some hard decisions.  In the face of a loss where they had every advantage they could hope for, they will be forced to reexamine the very foundations of their party and the party will either have to divide or die.

The same is true of Florida democrats.  I noticed today at Florida Moonbat Central, FLA Politics, that one reader has added Election day as "Death Blow to Republican Nomination Day" to the site calendar.  But it is almost considered a given that Republicans will win every state wide seat with one possible exception on that day.   We keep hearing from the dems about how horrible the Jeb Bush administration has been, but polls continue to show strong support for Jeb Bush.  I submit that the elections later this year will signal the tolling of the death knell for the democrat party.  If they can't win this year, they just can't win.  And when they lose, it will be time for some major changes that will fundamentally alter the democrat party.

- Mr. G

May 21, 2006

William Jefferson, D- LA, caught taking bribes, PEER saw it coming

PEER saw this coming back in September.

Let's review - A liberal from the most corrupt political town in America is caught improperly diverting Federal resources from rescueing stranded citizens, during a national disaster and monumental environmental crisis, to remove items from his home which were later found to be containing cash from bribes taken to sway government policy.

Seriously, is there anything in that sentence that seams atypical of liberals?

Maybe Kennedy would've gone for the scotch first.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 19, 2006

Switching parties

Sitting on the porch with my laptop, smoking a Zino Platinum shorty, I ran across an interesting little bit on Wikipedia.  Small history lesson here first.

When I was young and impressionable, I ran across this young lady involved in the young democrats.  She asked if I'd be interested in attending and I was.  Several months later, I was the VP of the young dems in Mecklenburg County - EACK, ACK - sorry, still makes me sick to my stomach to admit that.  Anyway, I worked really hard in local elections and spoke very well about slick willy to everyone I met in the hopes to help get him into office.  We had a good year that year and yes, willy made it into the White House.  After he got in, I got out.  It was clinton's behavior in the White House and his utter lack of respect for the office that finally opened my eyes to the fact that I was not a dem, I was (am) a Republican.  It seems I'm not the only person in history to see the light.  Check it out here.

Republicans that used to be dems:  Reagan, Thurmond, Helms, Lott.
dems that used to be Republicans:  Hillary, Dean, Panetta, Heinz-Kerry.

Note a couple of things here.  Wiki says "The majority of party switchers in the modern era have switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party."   The majority switch from dem to GOP.  Also, it looks to me like we sure got the better end of the deal.  You decide.

Mr. H

May 17, 2006

GA Judge Tosses Same-Sex Marriage Amendment

Interesting news from the north.  Yesterday, Judge Constance Russell, a Fulton County Superior Court Judge ruled that a Georgia Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional as it violated the state's single subject rule.  The amendment itself was approved by 76% of voters in November of 2004.  What the  debacle reveals is some major flaws in the amendment process in Georgia.  When an amendment can be repealed for being unconstitutional by a lone Superior Court judge almost 2 years after it is ratified, there is a problem.  And I thought Florida's amendment process was a mess...

The state intends to appeal the ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court, and if that fails, there will likely be a new amendment.  Regardless, it will provide fodder to Conservatives in Georgia to activate the base and turn out voters in their 2006 and possibly 2008 elections.


Thanks to the good folks at the Alliance Defense Fund I can provide the link to the full decision by Judge Russell.  It seems to be a misuse of the single subject rule under GA law, but the GA Supreme Court will decide that issue.  The decision can be read here.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel or, why Jim Davis should be governor

The Florida Masochist reflects on the low rankings the liberal Jim Davis scores when it comes to the things that matter in Washignton - power and influence. Guess where he ranks?

If you guessed the bottom, your right. In fact, on a couple occasions, the very bottom. Does that sound like a guy who should be the next Governor of the most populous swing state in the country?

But considering he never shows up to work anyway, are you really surprised?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 15, 2006

Ron Klein tries to scare Seniors

In Saturday's rebuttal to the President's radio address FL state Senator and Congressional wannabe Ron Klein (lobbyist) told Florida's seniors that Medicare plan D - prescription drug coverage - was not right for them and tried to discourage Seniors from enrolling in the successfull program. He may have to walk uphill both ways if he thinks he's going to drag seniors over to his side of the street on this issue. Here's a few facts that Ron Klein the lobbyist, doesn't want Florida's seniors to know about...

Nearly 90 Percent of Eligible Seniors Now Have Coverage
Of the more than 42 million people eligible for Medicare, 37 million now have Part D - related prescription drug coverage.

84% of Enrolled Seniors Are Satisfied With Medicare Part D
A poll released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month found that a large majority of seniors (84%) enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program are satisfied with their drug coverage and a majority (52%) say they are enjoying a significant cost savings.

61% Say Enrollment in Medicare Part D is Very or Fairly Easy
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, 37% said enrollment in the new Medicare prescription drug program was "very easy," and 24% said it was "fairly easy."

57% More Likely to Vote for Member of Congress Who Supported Medicare Part D
According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released late last month, 57% were more likely to vote for a Member of Congress who supported Medicare Part D, while 29% were more likely to vote against a Member who did not support the plan. 

Costs Are Lower for Seniors and the Federal Government Than Expected
The average premium seniors pay for their prescription drug benefit is just $25 per month instead of $37 per month, and this year the Federal government will spend 20 percent less overall on the Medicare drug benefit than was projected last July.

Even National Democrats Are Urging Seniors to Enroll in the Program
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said last week: "Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th."
(Pelosi Release, 5/9/06)

In sum - nearly full enrollment, very high satisfaction, easy to understand and participate, majority likely to vote for members of Congress who support Plan D, costs lower than expected, and even the liberal Nancy Pelosi is urging seniors to enroll.

In Florida's 22nd District nearly 79,000 seniors have enrolled in the program and Ron Klein is asking for their votes by telling them they don't know what they are doing.

Not smart strategy Ron. Not smart.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 10, 2006

Dems & Special Interest Groups 4 EVER

A few years ago while working in Washington D.C., I had a conversation with a lobbyist about the influence of special interest groups on Capitol Hill. 

"You know how you always hear that special interest groups control the Republicans in D.C.?" he asked.  "We, it is exactly the opposite.  It is the democrats that are always tap-dancing
to the tune of special interest groups."

I was reminded of that conversation today when I ran across list of the Top All-Time Donors from Opensecrets.org (run by the Center for Responsive Politics).

You'll note on the list that of the top 10 donors (including the National Education Association, the Association of  Trial Lawyers of America, the Teamsters and Laborers Unions) that their contributions went decidedly to democrats.  9 out of the top 10 donating organizations gave to democrats overwhelmingly, with the one holdout (the National Association of Realtors) giving evenly to both parties.

Scroll down the list of the top 100 donors comparing red to blue, donkeys to elephants.  The study found that over 60% goes to democrats.

So which party is influenced more by special interest groups?

Ron Klein, still just a lobbyist

Ron Klein doesn't get it,

"One might ask, `What are we doing under this bridge?' " Klein said to a crowd of supporters, including Broward Democratic Party Chairman Mitch Caesar and Caesar's ninth-grade daughter, whom he pulled from school early for the political event.

Klein, of Boca Raton, said when the Clay Shaw Bridge was dedicated to the longtime congressman in 2002, gas was $1.35 a gallon. Now prices are topping $3.

Education, less important than politics - check.
Politicizing monument to wildly popular and historic congressman in the name of liberal hypocricy - check.

The Shaw campaign office gets it,

Shaw's office called Klein's speech hypocritical, pointing out that Klein had benefited personally from America's dependence on oil. Klein's financial disclosure forms from last year show he held stock in oil-gas energy company Kerr McGee Corp. Klein also reported holding stock in World Fuel Services, which describes itself as "the major oil companies' marketer of choice in the aviation and shipping industries.''

Speaking truth to hypocricy - check.

The NRCC gets it,

The National Republican Congressional Committee also issued a news release pointing to Klein's 2004 vote against a gas tax holiday for Florida consumers.

And Shaw spokeswoman Gail Gitcho definitely gets it -

"The only thing Ron Klein has named after him is a lobbying firm,''

I love that quote. I imagine it was bantied around at a morning office meeting and somebody was just waiting for a good opportunity to use it. *Note to Harris camp - this is what good PR and communications looks like.

Also, I wanted to point this out -

Qualifying for the November election began this week in congressional races. Shaw qualified Tuesday to run, submitting over 6,000 signatures -- 4,458 were required -- rather than paying the fee. Klein plans to qualify today by paying the $9,500 fee.

Now that Klein is down $800,000 big ones he may want to think about saving every penny he's got.

I suppose when you decide to challenge a man who has been re-elected 12 times, in a district that overlaps your own by only 20%, then you better have some on-the-ground support before you start talking a big game. I think by not getting the signatures Klein has made it clear that this race may be one of the most talked about nationwide, but voters back home have already decided. Somebody should tell Klein if he really wants to start lobbying somebody for a new job he should start with the voters and not the liberals in DC.

Better yet, just tell Klein to go home.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 06, 2006

politics vs. ideology

There is a place and time for both. But which do you prefer?

You Can't Always Get What You Want, next weeks piece from Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard examines President Bush, the conservative politician.

PRESIDENT BUSH IS A CONSERVATIVE politician, not a conservative ideologue. This explains why Bush sometimes does things that aren't conservative. He does so to survive and, if all goes well, to prosper politically.

His brother, Jeb, is both equally. It's too bad he's not running in 2008.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

May 05, 2006

Without illegal aliens

Found this over at The Neo Con Blogger.

...if illegal aliens all took the day off and were truly invisible for one day, there would be some plusses along with the mild inconveniences.

Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer. According to the sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado, meth is now being brought in by ordinary illegal aliens as well as professional drug dealers.

If the “Day-Without-an-Immigrant Boycott” had been held a year earlier on May 8, 2005, and illegal alien Raul Garcia-Gomez had stayed home and did not work or go to a party that day, Denver police officer Donnie Young would still be alive and Garcia-Gomez would not be sitting in a Denver jail awaiting trial.

If the boycott had been held on July 1, 2004, Justin Goodman of Thornton, Colorado, would still be riding his motorcycle and Roberto Martinez-Ruiz would not be in prison for killing him and then fleeing the scene while driving on a suspended license.

What is the price for illegal immigration on your community?

MORE: Collier County knows the price. I wonder how many of these guys are illegal or MS-13? Click on any of the 14 mugshots to see what scum truly looks like. Amnesty? I don't think so.

Sexual Battery and Kidnapping  10/1  approximately 4:00am
827 Rebecca Drive, Immokalee
Victim: W/F/18
Arrested: Rene Perezgarcia W/M/22    823 Rebecca Dr
Mario Lopez Luis W/M/19    827 Rebecca Dr
Herman Sanchez Salas W/M/28     827 Rebecca Dr
Ovidio Lopez Funez W/M/19   827 Rebecca Dr
Napoleon Perez Lopez W/M/29   827 Rebecca Dr
Edwin Albaladego Rivera W/M/28    827 Rebecca Dr
Ermitanio Lopez Salas W/M/18   827 Rebecca Dr
Isreal Santiago W/M/56   827 Rebecca Dr
Rolando Perez Claudio W/M/23   827 Rebecca Dr
Alvarado Perez Luis W/M/21   827 Rebecca Dr
Augusto Perez Lopez W/M/32   827 Rebecca Dr
Cesar Perez Lopez W/M/29   827 Rebecca Dr
Gabino Garcia Godinez W/M/24   827 Rebecca Dr
Augusto Garcia Velasquez W/M/30   827 Rebecca Dr

At the above date and time, deputies responded to an undisclosed location for a report of a sexual battery with multiple suspects. Through investigation, it was determined that the victim was sleeping when she answered a knock at the door. Several males grabbed her and forcefully brought her to 827 Rebecca Drive. More subjects were inside the residence when the victim arrived. She was choked, battered, and then blacked out. When she regained consciousness, one of the males was plugging her nose and another male was pouring alcohol into her mouth. Her pants were removed. While several men restrained her, she was sexually battered by multiple suspects. She was then pushed out the front door where she went to another location to call the Sheriff’s Office. The victim was transported to the hospital. Arrests made and all subjects were ordered by the judge to be held without bond. The charges for all subjects are sex battery – multiple perpetrators (1st degree felony), and kidnapping – false imprisonment.

May 01, 2006

Ron Klein raising money during session from his favorite group, trial lawyers

I wonder if Senator Ron Klein took this money as a psuedo-lobbyist on behalf of the trial lawyers in Florida?

As the Florida Senate prepared to vote on one of the most heavily lobbied, big-money issues in years, one side with a huge stake in the battle was pouring money into the congressional campaign of state Sen. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton.

A South Florida Sun-Sentinel analysis of Klein's campaign contributions shows a spike in donations from attorneys in March. He took in $50,350 from attorneys that month, 21/2 times his $19,750 monthly average from attorneys since becoming a candidate for Congress last year.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

April 28, 2006

More on Gas Prices

You may have missed my post earlier this week, Gas prices not surprising or engineered. For a follow up, here's more excellent commentary from Iowa Voice.

...gas prices aren't going to come down very much any time soon. We're
beyond simple fixes, and even if Congress does what I have said
(including opening up more areas for drilling), it's going to be a long
process, with prices slowly inching down to more affordable levels.

Congress needs to attack the problem from a variety of angles:
conservation (fuel efficiancy standards), open up areas for drilling,
getting rid of the taxes, allowing more refineries to be built (or at
the very least, allow existing ones to expand), and simplifying the
rules on the various fuel blends. Taxing the oil industry isn't going
to make a difference at at the pump, and we all know that we'll never
see a penny of any "rebate" if this tax goes into effect.

Nope. We'll never see a penny.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

FL Senator Bill Nelson - Warmonger?

Sen Bill Nelson wants to go to war with Cuba. That's the only conclusion I can draw from his proposal to stop Cuba from drilling for oil off the coast of their own country.

Sen. Bill Nelson plans to announce today legislation that he says
could prevent Cuba from drilling in its waters some 50 miles off Key

The Florida Democrat says his bill would block President Bush from
renewing a 1977 international agreement that allows Cuba to conduct
commercial activity in waters off its coast, near the Keys -- unless
the administration secures an agreement to prevent Cuba from putting
oil rigs near Florida.

And if we don't secure that agreement how does Senator Nelson plan to stop a communist country from drilling off it's own coast? The only logical conclusion is he wants to go to war with Cuba over oil.

Where is the liberal outrage? I hope ANSWER is protesting outside his offices today... if they aren't too busy organizing communist rallies for millions of criminals living in our country that is.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 27, 2006

And There You Have It...

Sure they may wave American flags at their demonstrations now instead of Mexican flags, which was a public relations gaffe on their part of unbelievable proportions, but let there be no doubt about the intentions of those who coddle illegal immigrants:

"We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)," [Jorge] Rodriguez [a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it debates the issue] said. "That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1."

Jorge is planning on helping organize demonstrations to number in the millions of marchers in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago in order to "close [them] down."

Interesting that they would pick Mayday for their protest - Mayday being the favored holiday on Communism's calendar. Interesting as it may be, it is not surprising, since Jorge is a union official, and we all know that most unions bow at the feet of Marxism.

I would like to contribute to their cause in the spirit of my fellow "compassionate" immigration "reformers" with a simple suggestion - To the demonstrators, since you will all be walking around outside and, I am sure, enjoying a beautiful spring day, why don't you take advantage of the wonderful highway interstate system we have in the U.S. and just keep walking past the southern border. Just take I-35 South. Mmkay?

I genuinely believe that is the best way for the demonstrators to find "full amnesty, full legalization" - back in Mexico.  Happy Mayday!

2 Sense: maninblack

April 23, 2006

All Eyes on the House

The good folks at Human Events Online make a convincing argument for fighting for a continued Republican majority in the House of Representatives and Robert Bluey outlines the top ten accomplishments of the 109th Congress.

Both are a worth a read during the commercials of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Desperate Housewives, or Grey's Anatomy (pick your poison).

April 21, 2006

Harris ups and downs

Just when it was starting to look like Harris was finally on the right track, she gets knocked back off.

This story is terrible PR -

In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel  this week, Harris R-Longboat Key, said it was "news to me"...

In her interview Wednesday, Harris acknowledged for the first time that Wade had paid for the dinner at Citronelle, reversing a statement from her congressional spokeswoman earlier this year.

But in the interview, Harris also said her campaign had, at some point, "reimbursed" the restaurant.

When asked how she could have reimbursed a business that was owed no money -- Wade paid the bill that evening -- she abruptly ended the interview and walked off.

Her spokesman called back an hour later and asked a reporter not to publish anything Harris had said Wednesday night about the dinner.

On Thursday, Harris' campaign released a two-paragraph statement that differed from her explanation a day earlier. It stated that Harris thought her "campaign would be reimbursing" her share of the meal but later found out that hadn't happened.

To resolve any questions, the statement said, "I have donated to a local Florida charity $100 which will more than adequately compensate for the cost of my beverage and appetizer."

That series of statements doesn't resolve any questions that matter to reporters and liberals. And voters.

And, to compund the misery, this story which looks maverick and cutting edge in this take, is just plain silly in this one. From the first story,

Spokesman Chris Ingram said Thursday that the dollars came from the campaign but he didn't know how many were mailed out or how many were returned with checks.

''Believe it or not, it generates a response,'' Ingram said. ``It's a very common practice in political circles and consumer marketing circles.''

But some political insiders -- including her opponent's staff -- were unfamiliar with the tactic outside of the business world.

''We've never heard of this happening,'' said Nelson spokesman Chad Clanton, who has been working on campaigns for more than a decade. ``Obviously it's another bizarre chapter in the Katherine Harris campaign.''

And from the second story,

Two weeks after Harris said she would put millions of dollars of her own money into the race for the U.S. Senate, $1 bills starting pouring in from all over the nation.

In all, more than 220 donations of $1 each came into the campaign in the final week of March.

The $1 donations were prompted by a mass mailing Harris sent to supporters in which she included a crisp George Washington of her own and asked them to multiply the amount and send it back.

Many of those supporters did. Others simply returned the $1, which the Harris campaign counted as a donation and put on her campaign finance report.

Ok. Let's start with Ingram not knowing how many were mailed out or how many returned. Complete BS. If you are going to try a gimmicky stunt like this to raise money (and it does raise money) then you better be prepared for the inevitable questions that are going to come. If you don't have anwers for the obvious questions that are going to come from "I hate you" liberal reporters, then don't take the questions.

Second, I can't believe Clanton said they've never heard of it happening. He's running a campaign for Senate for goodness sakes. The least you should do is act as if you have heard of it, that KH is not breaking any new ground, and that Nelson is more responible with his donations than to send what was likely $10,000 or more in cash through US Postal Service. That's not a lot to a campaign, and it makes good sense from a direct mail point of view, but to the average voter $10,000 is a lot of money and it looks wasteful and fraught with poor judgement. But Clanton didn't spin it that way, instead he said she was different, cutting edge, willing to try new things. Only the Harris camp can't spin that angle because,

In the second story reporters are pointing out that the Harris people are reporting as actual donations the money they sent to donors and subsequently came back. I don't even know if that's legal, but it surely isn't accurate. And besides, only 220? Now, if they only sent a 1000 mailings and 220 came back, that would be phenomenal. I would be ordering up another round at ten times that amount. With all the press coverage of this fundraising effort you can guarantee donors receiving a letter from the Harris camp would open their next piece of mail. The first hurdle in direct mail is getting the recipient to open the letter. Odds are if they will do that then they will read the letter. If the will read it, then the odds go up they will respond. At 22% response rate on the first mailing it's guaranteed to do as well the next time.

But no, they didn't send 1000, they probably sent 10,000, or 100,000. And at those numbers 220 (or more) is pawltry, silly, and wasteful.

You see how easy it is? Why can't they get it together over there? Why can't they take control of the message? The Nelson camp is only good at staying quite and getting out of the way, and when the Harris camp does the right thing they fall all over themselves answering questions that detract them from their message.

I can't believe they aren't mopping up the Nelson camp.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

April 19, 2006

White House Face Lift

I thought I would switch things up with some national politics today. 

While I was a little broken hearted over the resignation of the immovable mountain called Scott McClellan,  I was very excited to see that Tony Snow, a Fox News Radio host (The Tony Snow Show) is a possible option for replacement.

So it looks like the administration is going for a face lift after all.  But does it matter?  I suggest that it really will not.  While those who follow politics will note the change in faces, I don't think it is a stretch to say that most Americans really won't be that interested in the change up.  Further, I highly doubt that this will have any real effect on the administration's policy positions, and that's what counts.  While this may be the "new, friendlier" White House, it will still be hard on Iran, it will still push the same agenda, with perhaps even more vigor than before.

Replace the entire cabinet, all of the arguments against the previous cabinet will still be there.

April 13, 2006

Pro-Death Movement Again Opposes Common Sense Regulation

I'm about a week behind on this story due to some time spent in Mississippi without access to Sayfie Review, but the implications are important enough to dredge it back up. 

Last week the Florida Supreme Court upheld the core of the "Women's Right to Know Act" which requires "physicians" performing abortions to inform patients of "The nature and risks of undergoing or not undergoing the proposed procedure that a reasonable patient would consider material to making a knowing and willful decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy."  Isn't that crazy?  Requiring that a woman be informed of the health risks of having an abortion before the procedure is done?  Of course not, it is common sense.  But the ilk of the pro-death movement continue to oppose common sense at every turn. 

I won't get into the legalities of the case (discussions of privacy rights and constitutional construction of statutes), but I do want to highlight the continuing trend this case exposes.  The pro-death movement wants, well, death; abortion on demand, no questions asked.  They will fight tooth and nail against any common sense measures which restrict immediate access to abortion or even require a discussion of the possible harms of having an abortion.  They know that someone who is reasonably informed of the dangers and side-effects of abortion will think twice about having the procedure done, so they oppose it.  Despite the fact that in most states abortion recieves less regulation than other medical services, they want less restriction on the ability to destroy life.

With this new light shed on the Women's Right to Know Act and the reaffirmation of its validity, it is time that we begin to require full compliance with it.  We must require abortion clinics to disclose the full range of physical and psychological harms caused by abortion.  We must begin  to require the same common sense regulation for abortion clinics that we require for other medical services.  It is, afterall, simple common sense.

April 06, 2006

Illegal immigration isn't a problem in Mexico

Here's why.

Technorati Tags: ,

April 04, 2006

Rep. Cynthia McKinney - What the Ds Aren’t Saying

*A PEER Review reader submission.*

By now, unless you’ve been traveling abroad or resting comfortably under a rock, you’ve heard about the scuffle with Congressman (can’t bear to say “congresswoman”) Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) and the Capitol Police. If you’ve ever worked in any facility where you have to be clearly identified by some external ornament - e.g. Congressional pin, i.d. badge, pocket protector, what have you - before passing through security measures which are in place to protect you and your colleagues, then you know the basic fact is to WEAR IT. If Rep. McKinney had done this, she would not be in a place having to defend her potentially felonious actions.

What is troubling through this ordeal is not what the Democrats are saying, but rather what they are not saying. Nancy Pelosi (and let’s face it - I rejoiced when she beat out personable, handsome, consensus-building Harold Ford for minority leader because Ford is someone who could be dangerous to the power the Republicans hold) in her own special way has proclaimed to the citizenry of this great nation “I would not make a big deal of this.” Of course you wouldn’t, Nancy, because one of your own was involved. This is the same woman who said of the Bush Administration after Dick Cheney’s hunting incident “They think they are above the law and above accountability to the American people.” I think this is a case of "Hello, Kettle, I'm Pot - we're black."

Pelosi gets closer to opening mouth and inserting foot when she states the whole incident boils down to “a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress.” To her credit, she went on to acknowledge that the officer involved was not to blame. So, correct me if I’m wrong, then, but if the officer is not at fault, and McKinney does not dispute that she took a shot so to speak at the officer, that makes McKinney at fault. You could boil it down to an unfortunate accident, but according to the Ds and their philosophy on Dick Cheney, accidents don’t happen and it is all about fault. You can’t have it both ways, folks.

Charges of racial profiling and politicizing this incident have been lodged. Do we honestly believe that allowing McKinney to assault a police officer is solely based on race? Anyone of color should be railing against this blanket statement. How many members of Congress have graciously waited for security to verify their identities because they, too, forgot their pins (or had makeovers)? Did they suspect race as a motivation, or perhaps did they recognize the enhanced security needs? If there have been instances where Capitol Police have abused their power at the expense of race, then let us punish that as well. It should not be tolerated. A crime is a crime is a crime.

One could argue that if McKinney gets off without punishment, it is because she is a member of Congress, and therefore afforded privileges that “regular” citizens don’t receive. Imagine if this had been a young man who was to meet with his Congressman about a sensitive issue and then a scuffle ensues. Had he behaved in the same manner, there would not be this uproar. Rather, the police would be praised for squelching a potentially dangerous situation.

Note to Cynthia - bringing out your favorite celebrities and leaders to stand beside you because you want to make this a race thing isn’t going to work. From what I’ve read, they’ve got video available showing the intensity of the scuffle, and it will be might difficult to continue with your claim. And certainly, I hope that you learned from the Isaac Hayes incident and didn’t pay for this little assembly with tax dollars.

McKinney “regrets” the incident, but refuses to issue an apology. It all boils down to character. Character is when you know you have erred, you seek forgiveness, and you accept your punishment, whether it be a formal charge leveled against, or the feedback from the court of public opinion.

Note to the Democrats - if you want to bring back legitimacy to your party, you need to take a stand and let your constituencies know that you are not above the law and you do not condone mistreatment of those who are in place to protect you. That is character, and I look forward to looking at your party one day and seeing more than a handful with it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

March 16, 2006

Harris will stay in race for US Senate

I'm out of the office this morning, but as you suspect, have plenty to say on this subject. Good and bad.

come back after lunch.

I apologize for bad spelling/grammar. I'm in a bit of a hurry.

I am heartened to see her still willing to fight. I have long supported her and want her to win. I think she has made an outstanding Representative and will make a tremendous Senator. I am dissappointed in teh lack of support she has received from naitonal Republicans (including from the White House and from the NRSC) but que sera sera. Nothing you can do about that except drop $10 million of your own money to prove them wrong. Good luck Representative Harris. I support you.

First, here's the video of her announcement last night. Was it just me or did it seem as though she wanted to breakdown the whole time. She is really terrible on these shows and she should stop going on them. I think someone is telling her that the national shows create more exposure and more oportunity for fundraising. Normally, I would agree. But in this case, I think Harris would be better served if she would stay off the national shows, stick with Fl news outlets only, and let the rest of the nation use their imagination regarding her. Get her off national tv.

Second, I love that Harris is committing her full financial resources to this race. It is reminiscent of the entreprenurial spirit among business owners in this country. Risk everything, gain everything. I respect that she is not going to allow other people tell her how to liver her life or pursue her ambitions. Those days are behind her.

Third, she may not listen to GOP leadership, but she better start listening to campaign consultants. Get on the campaign trail, leave D.C. and don't come back except for the most important votes. If Sean Hannity wants to campaign for her, then fine, but no more appearances on the Hannity and Colmes show. Find your message (leadership, experience, conservative) and pump it. Label Nelson a liberal and spend at least half your money in direct mail, TV, and radio pushing that message.

Fourth, whoever told you you need 2.5 million a week for TV in Florida is trying to take all your money. What you need is targeting. Knowing who you are going to target with message, who you are going to target for votes, knowing how to, and where to, spend your money is just as important as having the money. Targeting will allow you to be effective, productive, efficient and results oriented with your fathers legacy. It doesn't sound or look like, to me, you have had any targeting. Email me. It's what I do.

After you target them, you need to blanket them with message. From this point forward you should be trying to contact every targeted voter once a week. That would be 30+ contacts per target. In order to do so your average per voter contact can only be around .50 cents. That will require a liberal mix of traditional, progressive and free communication efforts through various media outlets.

Fifth, come up with a good reason for the complete departure of staff from your campaign. I would suggest everybody you brought on for this race needs to go and everybody who helped you win your house seat, plus a few extra, should be brought in. Those people understand you, know how you work, understand your tendencies, and know how best to use them. That, BTW, is also a good reason for recent departures of everybody else.

Lastly, stop allowing the media to frame the issues and put you on the defensive all the time. Nelson hasn't spent a dime on you and he has been the beneficiary of all your negative media. You have to stop giving him a free lunch. The media isn't necessarily out to get you, but you aren't giving them anything else either.

And finally, you don't want this campaign to be about ethics. Make this campaign about your experience, leadership and credentials, and about Nelsons liberalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Technorati Tags: , ,

March 10, 2006

Jim Davis, the bottom 1%

It looks like the candidate who supports schools and teachers (I mean really, who doesn't?) has a bit of a truancy problem. SPT covers the Buzz on Davis missing an important vote, but his opposition is noting this is not unique, rather, it's normal.

"We should be concerned when somebody's politicking and campaigning
gets in the way of doing their job of governing - and it's certainly
not the first time it's happened with Jim Davis," said
[Rod Smith Communications Director David] Kochman, noting
that of 435 U.S. House members, Davis ranked fourth for missed votes in

Fourth out of 435. A full 99% of Representatives have a better attendance record than Davis. That's a lot of votes missed. I don't think the State of Florida can afford a Governor who ranks in the bottom 1%.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

March 08, 2006

Katherine Harris to drop out of the race for Senate?

It would pain my heart, but it would not surprise me. News from Hotline that Harris maybe quitting.

So the question now is - Foley or Bush?

UPDATE: Maybe not. Statement from the Harris camp is apparently coming soon.

UPDATE: Sarasota Herald Tribune - 

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris said she doesn't plan to drop out of the Senate race, a statement she made as rumors swirled Wednesday that she would end the campaign because of ties to a company involved in bribery scandal.

"I am out there. We are running hard. We think we have great momentum," Harris said in a telephone interview.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Light posting

Light posting will be the order of the day.

I'm organizing and learning how to use a new media tracking service I'm Beta testing. Hopefuly everything will work fine and I won't miss any news. It's all just rhetoric for now anyway.

I did find the feeler article on Mark Foley interesting. I expected it a couple months ago, but, who's to say what they were thinking. He has been good about keeping his name in the media without actually doing anything publically. Campaign prep 101. You can find it in chapter 3 of my book.

Plus, he's set himself a very high threshold for entering the race and a very low threshhold for outcome - a good combination for a first time statewide candidate.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

February 25, 2006

Nelson with a 22 point lead over Harris in recent Q poll?

This is not likely. I suspect something is wrong over at the the Q joint.

Notice the poll took five days? That's highly suspect. And since they started on this poll back in August of 2005  the differrence has been in the 20's and his is starting to look a little suspicious. I think this is also the only poll that Nelson has ever polled over 45% on.

I'll be the first to admit that many, many people loathe Harris. She has an uphill battle to win the US Senate race. And even if she was down more than 20 points initially, her support among Republicans has nearly doubled in recent months. This Q poll does not reflect that.

A candidate of her stature and name ID (and built in GOP support structure) regardless of what dem's think of her would never be down by 22-25 points. It's not possible.

Technorati Tags: , ,

February 23, 2006

Harris Finance Director leaves

I won't pretend to know what's going on here but it's either one of two things -

1) Mike Miller is jumping ship.
2) Mike Miller wasn't getting the job done.

Well, you don't sign on to a campaign like Katherine Harris if you don't believe in what you are doing, believe in your candidate, and believe you can win. Especially this candidate, this year.

I don't want to say anything negative here, so, I have my doubts about the first option and I never understood why Harris wasn't raising more money. It never made sense to me.

Considering Mike's stellar past performance it could be a simple difference of opinion. In any event, this change must, must, bring about a large and positive change in fundraising efforts. We'll just have to wait and see.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

February 22, 2006

Strategic Vision poll

I bet you're waiting for my analysis of the SV poll released today. I still have questions about this regular poll (like why do they keep including Tony Jennings and what's with the polling on Condi Rice?) but all that aside, there is really nothing new; Harris is still behind, Crist is still ahead, and half of all democrats wish someone else was representing them in the governors race. So, this is the only question that matters -

42. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Jeb Bush, the Republican?
                Jeb Bush 52%
                Bill Nelson 38%
                Undecided 10%

If you are running against Jeb and his policies (a la Davis and Smith) then you're a loser. Considering the history this guy has and the extraordinary amount of political warfare that has taken place in Florida over the past 8 years it is astounding how high Jeb polls on a regular basis. The majority of people, and more importantly voters, of this state love Jeb Bush. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. Anybody who wants to to win office this year needs to do everything they can to be like Jeb.

Of course, if he submits his name for consideration to the US Senate and Katherine Harris steps aside, then the election is over for every statewide democrat on the ticket in November.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

February 20, 2006

Ron Klein take note, Katherine Harris sets the example

When you promise to give away tainted money to charity, this is how you do it. Actually give the money to somebody and tell the press who. Are you paying attention Ron Klein?

You say you donated the tainted Ambramhoff Sun Cruz gambling money to disaster relief organizations, but who? How much? When? All valid questions somebody should be asking.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

February 16, 2006

Senator Harris?

You know I am a huge fan of Katherine Harris, but let me say I am shocked Mark Foley didn't get into the race. After Harris' pawltry fundraising last quarter I expected some fireworks in this race. And today, I see her campaign has finally decided to start campaigning. What's the strategy? Paint Nelson as the liberal he is, tout your own strong voting record and leadership, and show strong support for the military and the environment. If she keeps this up (coupled with strong voter targeting, GOTV and efficient use of funds) she may just pull it out.

"You can't be to the left of Charles Schumer and say you're a moderate," Harris says. "That's disingenuous."

GOP political activists have picked up the Clinton-Schumer refrain across the Panhandle.

"He (Nelson) tries to sell himself as a conservative, but he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer," said Steve Czonstka, Republican state committeeman for Okaloosa County. "It takes more than defense posturing to win votes here. We're conservative here."

Harris points to Nelson's vote against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as the most recent and glaring example of his liberal bent.


Harris argues that she has been an effective member of Congress and points to the passage of her American Dream Down Payment Act to help low-income people buy their first home.


On the drilling issue, Harris says she was instrumental in working out a deal that would have protected Florida's Gulf shores in some places out to 234 miles from the coast. It also would have given the last word on whether to allow drilling to the Florida Legislature.

The deal, though, was never voted on by a House committee or on the House floor, which Harris says was Nelson's fault because he refused to accept it as part of the Senate's budget reconciliation deal.

Instead, Nelson has "come up with a worse solution that keeps Congress in charge," she says.

Harris is on the right path now.

"We're confident that when folks across Florida know my background and what I've accomplished, and Bill Nelson's background and what he hasn't accomplished, we will prevail," she said, adding "we're always the underdog."

She's right. But she still needs money.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

January 30, 2006

GOP at a Crossroads

The Republican Party is at a crossroads.

As I write this column, Republicans in Congress are in the process of deciding whom they will support to replace Tom Delay as majority leader.

Washington insiders are betting on Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, who has been acting majority leader since Delay stepped down.

Also interested in the job is Education Committee Chairman John Boehner of Ohio, who guided through the No Child Left Behind legislation for the Bush administration.

A late entry in the race is Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, who represents many of the insurgent Class of 1994.

The outcome of the election might be a harbinger of the direction of the Republican Party for years to come. It could determine whether Republicans are willing to hold on to power for power's sake at the expense of the principals that initially brought them to the majority in ‘94.

Reform is the operative word of the day in Washington — the question is "Will Republicans truly embrace a reformer?" Is "big government conservatism" what the party of Reagan wants to stand for?

Since being elected president in 2000, President Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill and — either by design or by default — both Bush and the Republican Congress are to a degree complicit in the record deficits that confront our country.

Are Republicans so addicted to power that they will march in lockstep for any program or earmark that is put in front of them? Do we truly believe that education policy can be dictated to the states by an all-knowing federal nanny?

Is supporting the Prescription Drug Bill good policy for seniors and good politics for the GOP?

Many conservatives in Congress held their noses and voted for the Prescription Drug Bill and other big-government pork-laden legislation that was an anathema to their principals of limited government in part, to help Bush win re-election in 2004. That concern no longer exists. Bush is not running again.

Now might be the time for Republicans to look past the Bush presidency and to their own identity and their party's future.

It may be instructive for Republicans to remember that they did not achieve majority status in Congress after four decades of Democratic control by a presidential victory — but by articulating a clear vision about what the size, scope, and mission of government should be.

In 1994 under the revolutionary leadership of Newt Gingrich, Republicans stood for a bold conservative agenda that included; smaller federal government, returning power to the states, lower taxes, greater individual freedom, and above all, reform.

And, it should be pointed out, that for six years after 1994 Republican majority victories were not followed by a presidential victory.

It is not clear who will succeed Delay. What is clear is that the 2006 mid-term elections are fast approaching. The direction the new Republican leadership team takes will have a significant impact on the party.

The Republican majority is a stake. It is time for conservative leaders to reassert themselves and truly take on the reform mantle that brought them to power. In doing so, they will reinvigorate their base and help define the 2008 presidential race.

Marc Rotterman is a senior fellow of the John Locke Foundation and treasurer of the American Conservative Union.

January 13, 2006

More on Ron Klein

taint - Function: verb

Main Entry: 1taint
Pronunciation: 'tAnt
transitive senses
1 : to contaminate morally : CORRUPT  <scholarship tainted by envy>
2 : to affect with putrefaction : SPOIL
3 : to touch or affect slightly with something bad  <persons tainted with prejudice>
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : to become weak
2 : to become affected with putrefaction : SPOIL

Following up on yesterday, this Jan. 7 piece in the Sun-Sentinel tying corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff to FL Sen. Ron Klein.

In Florida, both his [Abramhoff] SunCruz casino boat operation and two SunCruz partners, Adam Kidan and Ben Waldman, contributed to candidates, including state Sens. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, and Mandy Dawson, D-Fort Lauderdale, both of whom represent Palm Beach and Broward counties.

In 2001, Klein and Dawson each received $500 from SunCruz, $500 from Kidan, and $500 from Waldman. SunCruz gave the state Republican Party $5,000, dwarfing the total contributions to individuals.

Abramoff pleaded guilty this week to federal charges in connection with his 2000 purchase of SunCruz and Kidan pleaded guilty last month.

Klein is challenging Congressman Clay Shaw.  However, small this link may appear at first glance, I suspect there may be more to this story.

Kleins campaign manager, Brian Smoot, went on to say,

Smoot said his candidate wouldn't be tarnished. "If anybody would try to link Ron Klein to Jack Abramoff, that's pretty ridiculous."

Still, he said, Klein would use his own money to give the amount of any contributions even remotely related to Abramoff or SunCruz to a Florida hurricane relief charity.

But if Klein and his campaign are also going to say they aren't lobbyist, when they so clearly are, then why should we believe he doesn't know these people, who are also lobbyist, when it is very likely he not only knows them, but probably knows them personally. Klein does represent gambling and casino interests doesn't he? It's not a very large group of people and Tallahassee is a small town.

Also, has Klein made the donations he said he would make? Which charities received the money? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Sadly, more questions, and not many answers. Klein's office has not yet responded to my email. I'll post it when they do.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 11, 2006

What will Judge Alito's Confirmation Mean for Abortion in Florida?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. 

With the confirmation hearings in full swing, everyone is buzzing about whether or not Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Based on his judicial record, my projection would be the same one that almost everyone is coming to; yes. But what does that mean? Conservatives have been quick to point out that overruling Roe doesn’t mean an end to abortion; it just means that the decision on whether to allow abortions is kicked back to the states. 

So what would happen to abortion in Florida?

Before I answer, I would be remiss if I did not make the quick aside that Alito’s confirmation, and even his vote against Roe, does not result in Roe being overturned. Yet. As I discussed in September, Alito’s addition to the Court brings the Roe Justice match up to 5 in favor, 4 against (assuming Roberts, as we have been assured, is a strict constructionalist; I’m not convinced yet). So before the battle over Roe begins, we need one more. 

But let’s suppose we have one more. Suppose my dreams have come true and in the wake of Justice Ginsberg’s celebrated retirement Robert Bork is re-nominated and finally confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Roe is overturned and there is much rejoicing.

But let me assure you, nothing, absolutely nothing changes in Florida. Yet.

The foundation of Roe v. Wade is the imaginary constitutional principle known as the “right to privacy”. You see, six current Supreme Court Justices, just like many six year old girls, have imaginary friends. But instead of friends who visit in flowery hats to drink imaginary tea, a Justice’s imaginary friend is a non-existent Constitutional principle which magically appears whenever they run out of arguments founded in actual law (although Justice Stevens has been reportedly seen wearing a dress and drinking imaginary tea with his friend Privacy). One of the major reasons Roe v. Wade would be struck because of the imaginary nature of this friend; the now strict constructionalist majority of the Court would announce, not necessarily an end to privacy analysis, but that even if it does exist, it does not encompass abortion. Thus, abortion is outside the reach of the Court and the States must decide.

But in Florida, that imaginary friend isn’t imaginary. Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution expressly provides for the right to privacy. Although, that really doesn’t matter because even if it wasn’t there are currently 5 Florida Supreme Court Justices who would just make it up if they felt the needed. Until there is either a Florida Constitutional amendment to provide that abortions are an exception to this section and can be prohibited by the legislature AND a 3 member change on the Florida Supreme Court abortion will remain legal in this state.

Sleep well Florida liberals, though you will not have any state wide elected officials, your “right” to continue slaying the innocent remains secure, for now But know this, no matter how long it takes, years or generations, we will bring the slaughter to an end.

Mr. G

December 20, 2005

Dem Defeatism Falling on Deaf Ears

A new ABC News poll, which shows the President's job approval and personal rating numbers improving over the last month, provides validation for our soldiers' efforts in Iraq. Flying in the face of the incessant negativism coming from the cakeholes of leading Democrats who have declared Iraq a lost cause, the American people have greater optimism for the efforts to build a democracy in Iraq than they ever have.

... belief that the United States is making significant progress toward establishing a democratic government in Iraq has jumped dramatically, by 18 points, to 65 percent. A sense of progress in establishing civil order similarly is up, by 16 points, to 60 percent. Each is its best since these questions first were asked in the spring of 2004.

President Saddam Fan Club Murtha, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, yoo hoo, where are you? Oh right, you're still trying to "figure out" where you stand on Iraq. Despite these Dem leaders' best efforts to erode the morale of our troops, provide comfort to our enemies, and destroy the American people's faith in our troops and the Iraqi democratic efforts with their outlook of hopelessness and failure, the majority of the U.S. is still firmly behind the freedom movement we are seeing in Iraq and across the globe.


December 19, 2005

The "D" is for defeat

Via GOP Bloggers - I really is unbelievable how how far gone the left has become. On Friday, the defeatist in the House - not just one or two or three of them, but 108 - voted to oppose victory in Iraq. These people actually voted that they want the official position of the United States Government to be defeat. They didn't just say it, soundbite it, imply it, "dean it," or leave it to some shady 527 to subvert the media process. No, they actually went on record with it with an official vote.

Do any wayward GOPer's still think we won't be winning again in '06 and '08?

See the full list of defeatist voting against victory and voting for defeat after the jump.

Continue reading "The "D" is for defeat" »

Good Reads

Good reads this morning thus far include Have The Democrats Walked Into a Trap......Again?
over at RCP

Not recognizing the political ground had shifted beneath their feet, Democrats continued to press forward with their offensive against the President. They’ve now foolishly climbed out on a limb that Rove and Bush have the real potential to chop off. One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.

and Dems need to debate in 2006 from Bill Cotterell at Tal. Democrat.

At the Florida Democratic Party Conference Dec. 9-11, candidates for governor and Cabinet offices spoke broadly of how state government needs a rebirth in the post-Bush era. But except for promising to end reliance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test - a staple of Bush's education plan - and preserving the class-size constitutional amendment - which he wants to scrap - the Democrats didn't say much about what they would change.

December 15, 2005

Barret Report

I haven't read all the news yet this morning (and apparently this is from yesterday), but this deserves some attention. (VIA Michelle Malkin)

December 13, 2005

Bush wins, Bush wins

News Sunday that Katherine Harris is raising a paltry $500,000 this quarter and fuels speculation she is going to drop out of the Senate race. Today, a denial from the Harris camp that she will be dropping the race (note, no denial of the fundraising predictions). Rampant speculation (here and here) at the liberal FLA Politics on who could jump in the Senate Race. (Plus more hyperventilating over the Dem convention this weekend in Orlando.)

On The Morning Show with Preston Scott at 1270 WPTF (have you listened through the new listen live link?) discussion on whether Jeb Bush would jump in the Presidential race and whether Hillary could win the dem nomination and the White House.

My take and some observations regarding the highlights from the Dem convention after the jump.

Continue reading "Bush wins, Bush wins" »

December 09, 2005

2 Sense from Maninblack 12/9

Republicans Defend Troop Morale

With a video portraying a soldier watching Democrat calls for retreat from Iraq, the Republican National Committee comes out swinging against liberals and defeatists. The RNC video makes a simple argument that cutting and running is not an option during a time of war and uses the words of prominent national democrats to illustrate the lunacy of their calls for immediate withdrawal.

RNC Video

  • Watch RNC video
  • Nearly 3 Years after Iraq Invasion, Dems Meet to Discuss Where They Stand

    Nick, Jess marry and divorce while Dems still deciding war stance It's been almost three years since we launched M-1 Abrams tanks across the deserts of Iraq to unseat Saddam Hussein and his terror regime. During this time our country has been through economic ups and downs, a couple election cycles, some Oscar seasons, and a few celebrity marriages and divorces. Finally, the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are getting around to determining their stance on the war in Iraq, reports The Hill.

    In their first caucus meeting since Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) called for swift redeployment of troops from Iraq, House Democrats met yesterday to discuss their differing views on how to resolve the conflict.

    A number of members rose one-by-one to discuss their own proposed plans on Iraq. Murtha spoke, as did Reps. Ike Skelton (Mo.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), David Price (N.C.), Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Ellen Tauscher (Calif.).

    So now the press says Murtha called for a swift redeployment, funny, but to me it seemed like he called for an all out retreat with our tail between our legs. But my favorite part of the article is this next excerpt:

    As expected, Democrats did not adopt a caucus position on how to deal with the conflict. Pelosi supports Murtha’s plan to redeploy troops “at the earliest practicable date,” while Hoyer has said “precipitous withdrawal” could lead to disaster in Iraq. But most participants were happy to have the debate, saying the discussion was productive.

    As expected, they came up with nothing useful for the American people except a bunch of hotair.

    Progressives expressed relief that such issues were being debated in the caucus.

    Pelosi checks wind to decide what to have for lunch Well, whoopdie doo, the Democrats and their progressives are debating. Democrats debate and Iraqis die. Dems seem to love debates. Problem is you can't debate a terrorist into giving up his jihad, so Republicans are forced to be the party who have to protect America by putting boots on the ground to crush the neck of the enemy.

    >> To be sure everyone knows, The Hill is not a right leaning publication. I believe this article was written with the intent to make Democrats look good; however, they come out looking like buffoons who don't know their arse from a spider hole in the desert.

    December 06, 2005

    2 Sense from Maninblack 12/6

    Top Democrat Kicks Troops in Balls on Eve of Pearl Harbor Day; Prefers to See Saddam Back in Power

    Dean, not playing for the Home Team Why can't the mainstream media just be honest? This milquetoast headline by ABC News, "Dean Questions Commitment to Iraq Strategy" hides Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's comments behind a veil of "oh, it's just another day in Washington." As the article reports, he in fact is blatantly saying U.S. troops and the Iraqi people will fail.

    Democratic Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," comments that drew immediate fire from Republicans.

    It's debatable that Iraq is anything like Vietnam. With regards to this argument, the lefty die-hard 60's hippies just want a chance to break out their tye-die and drop some acid like the good ole days. Ah, remember when Woodstock wasn't sponsored by Starbucks? Them's the days. Not Vietnam

    But, what cannot be debatable is our resolve and desire to win. Dean says the idea that we are going to win is wrong, that simply means he thinks we are going to lose. That is a direct attack on our troops' morale and is damn near giving aid and comfort to the enemy, also known as treason.

    Why isn't ABC News blasting out loud that Dean says we are going to lose? Because they are willing accomplices in his game to win back the House, Senate, and White House. Sad thing is ABC News and the Democrats think this is all a big game, but it's not. It's about history and the survival of the West and of our way of life, as it has been since well before 9/11 - another day which lives in infamy.

    December 02, 2005

    2 Sense from Maninblack 12/1

    Presidential Candidate Gets 'Straight Talk' from Insulted Troops

    Kingston still gets it right after 12 years The Hill reports that U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) conducted interviews of troops during his second trip to Iraq and had some 'Straight Talk' from them to deliver to Senator and undeclared presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ), conductor of the 2000 'Straight Talk Express'. He said that they feel McCain is misrepresenting their efforts to question terrorist-enemy-detainess by introducing his look-at-me-I'm-running-for-president amendment.

    While visiting Iraq this week, Kingston, the House GOP conference vice chairman, said he talked to the enlisted men who deal with prisoners of war.

    “They feel that the McCain amendment is not an accurate portrayal of anything that is going on and they are really strongly against it and somewhat insulted by it,” Kingston said of his conversations with the troops. [emphasis added]

    “[The prisoners] aren’t people who have committed white collar crime. You do want to get information from them.” He recalled the soldiers saying that those members of the military who broke the laws in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal last year should be appropriately punished.

    McCain was unable to comment because he was traveling abroad.

    McCain was unable to comment because Kingston has a point! Travelling - what he doesn't have a friggin cell phone when he travels?

    Did McCain get idea for amendment from friend Alan Hey McCain, why don't you get off the backs of our troops that are doing things right and focus your efforts on those who are truly trying to hurt Americans. Oh, and check out the Sunday paper - good Christmas deals on cell phones out there, really.

    One other thing, The Hill gets it wrong by calling it the "Abu Ghraib torture scandal." What was done to those enemy detainees might be considered humiliating, but it was not torture. Detainees placed into a cheerleader pyramid by some irresponsible soldiers is not the same as political prisoners of Saddam's being placed into one of his rape rooms or having one of his sons smash their genitals with a sledge hammer. Now that's creative interrogation!

    "If you don't like it, just don't watch!"

    This is what atheists and others on the left tell those of us who object to the rampant sex, violence, and drug use that is increasingly portrayed on network television. To them, we are not allowed to complain about what the networks throw out there under the guise of entertainment and free speech. Fine. I'll just not watch. The Reason for the Season

    Now, the godless peeps must do the same for us. If they don't like that Christmas is about Christ, then they shouldn't participate, shouldn't celebrate. They need to stop complaining when Christ is mentioned in school Christmas plays and choral readings.

    If there was no Christ, then there really is no Christmas. There's just Hanukkah and New Years to comprise the "Winter Holidays." No, the godless can't hijack Hanukkah either like they are trying to hijack Christmas. In America, Hanukkah is celebrated by five million Jewish people, about 2% of the entire population of the U.S., so I doubt retailers would go out of their way to stock up Hanukkah only aisles if Christmas wasn't there to piggy-back on.

    Hanukkah would exist without the retailers because it is not a commerce driven holiday, it is religious. Christmas would exist without the retailers, too - it did for a couple thousand years. But the "Winter Holidays" would not be around if Christmas fell off the calendar.

    So, sure, we can continue to call it Winter Holidays to be "inclusive" but the godless really need to stop complaining about Christmas references to Jesus. If you don't like it - then leave it alone and give it back to those of us who celebrate it for Christ.

    Besides, the godless have their own new holiday - the hilariously named "Festivus" made-up by the Seinfeld show. So, go steal that holiday - give Christmas back to Christ.

    Merry Christ-mas

    Identity Crisis in the Halls of the U.S. Senate

    I coulda been a coach A few weeks ago, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) wanted to become a General in the U.S. Armed Forces by allowing unlimited involvement of politicians in matters of war. Read our post here. Now, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) feels senators should be sports managers and coaches.

    NFL Wide Receiver Terrell Owens was suspended for comments made over the last year which were detrimental to the Eagles quarterback, team, and organization. He is still receiving pay from the Eagles, but the NFL is supporting the Eagles efforts to not allow him to be traded to another team this season.

    Offical NFL Loudmouth Bobblehead AP reports that Specter is upset over the treatment of Owens and is raising the specter of an anti-trust hearing before his Senate Judiciary Committee to consider the approach used by the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles in dealing with the Terrell Owens situation.

    Sen. Arlen Specter accused the National Football League and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly and said he might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.

    Specter said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the all-pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.

    "It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws," Specter said, though some other legal experts disagreed.

    Meddling by the government has never solved anything. The surest way to screw up sports is to allow the Senate to get involved.

    Arbitrator Richard Bloch said last week the team's actions were supported by the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association.

    "The arbitrator's decision is consistent with our collective bargaining agreement, and it simply enforced the terms of the player's contract," Greg Aiello, an NFL spokesman, said Monday.

    "To have an antitrust violation, you have to have a contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade," said Robert McCormick, a law professor at Michigan State University.

    Matthew J. Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, said, "We're in the labor arena, not antitrust."

    So what, says Specter, it's his committee and he'll do anything he wants. He's from the government and only wants to help.

    Senators should be satisfied enough with their job, what with all the power and perks; I wonder why they continually feel the Senate needs to stick its camel nose in tents where it doesn't belong. We don’t need any more generals or sports managers – Hey Specter, stay out of our sports and leave the X's and O's to those who know thier craft!

    November 21, 2005

    The best video political video I'v seen in a long, long time.

    If you think the President lied and misled the United States into war with Iraq then you must see this 60 second ad from the GOP.

    If, after you watch it, you still think he was the only person who thought Iraq was dangerous and lied to the rest of us to go along, you are living a lie.

    November 18, 2005

    2 Sense from Maninblack Quickie 11/18

    "First Time Caller – Long Time Loser"

    Dems wish to send these guys up the Euphrates River without a paddle The Democratic Party’s petulant rants against Operation Iraqi Freedom are unforgivable and border on treason. Their biting words, criticism, and calls for immediate withdrawals serve only to demoralize our troops and embolden the terrorist-insurgency, which could crack and wither at any moment if the war critics would for one moment shut up and unify behind the mission in Iraq.

    Continue reading "2 Sense from Maninblack Quickie 11/18" »

    November 16, 2005

    2 Sense from Maninblack 11/16

    Senator, Will That Be One Star Or Two

    I Can Have As Many Stars As I Want When I'm President Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) wants to commission an additional 100 generals to be based in SenCOM in Washington D.C. The Washington Post reports that Hagel implies politicians from the Senate should have the ability to be more involved in the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His version of “to be -- or not to be” would make Shakespeare cringe.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders.

    Hagel contends to doom the U.S. to repeat some very bad history. He needs to study more, and then come back for a retest.

    Many of those troops in Vietnam died because politicians in Washington were directing the war effort and not the soldiers in the field. Soldiers in Vietnam routinely felt hampered by policies handed down from Washington that were not in sync with what they were seeing on the battlefield.

    President George H.W. Bush acknowledged as much when, before he launched the first Gulf War in 1991, he said the soldiers would not be fighting with one arm tied behind their back. H.W. was alluding to the historical fact that politicians were too involved in the conduct of the Vietnam War.

    The sad thing is H.W. changed his stance during the first Gulf War as U.S. and coalition forces were poised to destroy Saddam Hussein’s elite Republican Guard. He allowed politicians, led by then dove-in-chief General Colin Powell, to convince him to stop the offensive in Iraq too early, which allowed Hussein to withdraw the Republican Guard to safety. As we now know, Hussein rebuilt his armed forces, which the U.S. faced again in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Hagel continues in the Post article, "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices." How can a senator be so wrong so many times in one article? Our soldiers do not need policies, they need missions. And if the missions to protect our borders and people and champion freedom and democracy across the globe are not worthy sacrifices according to Hagel, then I wonder what he thinks is worthy?

    The would-be generals in the Senate want to be in the interrogation room as well. Hagel and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) want W. to sign the defense approps bill with the McCain amendment which would further hamper our soldiers' ability to interrogate terrorists and enemy combatants. I'll Not Stand Idly By As Our Soldiers Protect Americans Through The Use Of Interrogation

    This look-at-me-I-want-to-be-president amendment is so broadly worded it could prevent interrogators from making snide remarks to prisoners. Passing the bill with this amendment would protect the rights of America’s enemies better than the rights of America’s government-groped air passengers.

    What Hagel and McCain are proposing is Senatorial “mission creep.” This is the kind of involvement by politicians that get troops and Americans killed. What these senators need to do is stay out of the way and to allow those fighting the war to fight the war.

    Also, notice Hagel and McCain are Republicans running for President in 2008? Makes ya sick doesn’t it. Isn’t it a little early to be turning their backs on the President, the troops, and the American people?

    Mr. Steele, Got Milk?

    Mr. Steele, not an Oreo The first African-American to win a statewide election in democrat dominated Maryland is a democrat, right? Because they are the party of black issues, black voters, and black politicians, right?

    Wrong. The first black elected to a statewide office in Maryland is republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele who is now running for the U.S. Senate seat soon to be vacated by Senator Paul Sarbanes, a democrat.

    an actual Oreo So, how do liberal black leaders respond when Mr. Steele is pelted with Oreos during a campaign appearance? Well, they don’t condemn the Oreo tossing, which is a reference to a racial epithet accusing Mr. Steele of being "black" on the outside and "white" on the inside, rather they say he deserved it, as the Washington Times reports.

    Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

    Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also [illegally] obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

    But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

    "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

    Oh…thumping Mr. Steele with Oreos is just “pointing out the obvious.” Would throwing blue dresses at former prez Clinton be "pointing out the obvious?" Maybe too obvious in that case.

    None of the black leaders interviewed for the article said the Oreo pelting was racist. Democrat Maryland State Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black democrat, set the bar for racism when she said the only thing that would be racist toward Mr. Steele was if they used the “N” word to describe him.

    But I thought rappers used that word all day long? Oh well, not enough space to get into all the hypocrisy of the modern so-called civil rights leaders.

    Hooray, Mr. Steele, for maintaining your composure. Good luck in the election. I'm gonna go buy a box of Double Stuffs right now!

    Mr. M

    If you don't read it regularly...

    Check out the Real Clear Politics Blog. The most recent piece is on poll numbers for Florida's 2006 elections, but keep reading. There are interesting tidbits on the upcoming Alito confirmation battle, the position of Senator Joe Lieberman on the vote to go to war, the "inevitable" decline of GMAC, metaphorical linking of an essay on the "paranoid style" of the Mccarthy era GOP compared to current liberal idealogues, and what is essentially a molotov cocktail for the GOP election chances in 2006.

    Let's discuss some of these issues later today?

    Mr. C

    November 09, 2005

    2 Sense from Maninblack

    Mary Mapes: The River Queen of De-nial

    What, Me Worry? about journalistic standards? She’s at it again. Where do we start with Mary Mapes? Remember her? She’s the “journalist,” term used very loosely, who produced the discredited “60 Minutes II” report which tried to derail GW’s reelection by casting doubts on his military record and reputation.

    At the heart of the report were documents supposedly created on a 1970 typewriter, which amazingly had fonts that could only be created on a modern word processor with Microsoft Word. After an internal CBS News investigation on the report, Mapes was forced to resign. Her flawed report, a.k.a. political hitpiece, also caused the early retirement of anchor Dan Rather (thank you Mary, did I ever tell you thank you for that?).

    Mapes, the poster-person for everything that is wrong with the “Old Media,” (apologies to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) is claiming that she did not commit any “bad journalism,” according to an ABC News interview.

    She tells [ABC News reporter Brian] Ross that she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report. "I don't think that's the standard," she said.

    Dan's best attempt at doing Robert DeNiro in the 'Fockers' What? Isn’t that Journalism 101 – to verify the veracity of any documents or sources before you go to the public with accusations, especially the type that could bring down a presidency? If this is the journalistic standard held by all news producers, then the American people should not be watching TV news, oh wait, their ratings have been plummeting the last decade, so she must just be confirming what the people already know.

    If every profession was held to her “standard,” again a term used loosely in regards to Mapes, bridges would be crumbling and airplanes would be falling out of the sky.

    “Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. This is your Captain speaking. We will be traveling at an altitude of 35,000 feet today, although, I have no professional obligation to prove the authenticity of my flight plans. I have no duty to ensure this airplane is properly maintained. I also have no responsibility to assure you we will try to avoid any mid-air crashes. I don’t think that’s the standard. So, just sit back and enjoy your flight.”

    Mapes also criticizes other reporters for spending too much time on her story and other flawed journalism.

    She's right, the media should just ignore when stories meant to bring down a presidency are based on flat out lies (eyes rolling). Wow, anyone in need of a news director should look this woman up. Oh, by the way, she wrote a whole book on the subject.

    Mapes says one of her few regrets in handling the story was her phone call to a member of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign staff prior to the broadcast. "I wish to God I hadn't done it, because I think it was so wildly misinterpreted." She says she made the call only as a way to gain favor with the source who provided her with the documents.

    Mapes rejects suggestions she had political motives. "I did not have it in for George Bush," she said.

    She had access to the highest levels of the Kerry campaign and wanted to show-off to the source of the fake documents about it. She then contends she didn’t have “it in” for GW. Mary is from Venus and Mapes is from Mars.

    Mapes says she is continuing to investigate the source of the controversial documents whose authenticity was seriously questioned by the CBS panel.

    How's that investigation going, O.J.?She could wind up conducting her investigation on the same golf courses that O.J. Simpson is continuing his search for his wife’s killers. Maybe she could enlist the help of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald who is conducting the non-crime, non-leak investigation to find out more about her source. Problem is both of these other investigations are proving pointless.

    Better yet, she should just stick to her “standard” and forget about trying to figure out what the rest of America knows: the documents were fakes created to try and knock a president out of office.

    ABC News also posted an excerpt from her book, "Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power." She’s apparently a fan of alliteration.

    They'd Earn a Purple Heart in Kerry's Army

    Although very brave for fighting to maintain freedom in their central asian country, the Christian Science Monitor reports that soldiers in the Afghan National Army are prone to shooting themselves in the foot.

    But the ANA still have a disconcerting habit of shooting themselves with their own weapons. "The problem is muzzle discipline," says 2nd Lieut. Ben Wisnioski, a commander of an ANA unit based in Qalat. In the week before the elections, Lieutenant Wisnioski lost three ANA soldiers to self-inflicted wounds.

    As we learned in the last presidential campaign, one of democrat presidential candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts may have been the result of a self-inflicted wound. If the ANA, or anyone for that matter, had access to the requested-but-never-turned-over Kerry service records then the wounded soldiers could see how to write up their citation for an award.

    Let's check back in a few years to see if any of these soldiers oppose current Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai in their next election.

    Did I Miss Something? Was  Crime Committed Here?

    Everyone who lives here knows about Scooter I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted last week by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as everyone in the solar system knows. (Oh did you know that the Iraq Constitution was approved after ten days of vote counting? Oh yeah, that's not big news I guess to the American mainstream media). Yet, as thoughtful analysis of the Libby indictment actually seeps into the press, the indictment begs a really big question: What crime was committed again?

    The entire investigation began with trying to figure out who leaked the name of Joe Wilson's wife, a CIA-operative-turned-desk-jockey-for-the-last-five-years to columnist Robert Novak (I certainly don't want to mention her name for fear of being indicted for not committing a crime). Yet, the Libby indictment, which doesn't even mention Novak, has absolutely nothing to do with the actual leak, which, did I mention, is what started the investigation in the first place.

    Legal experts are beginning to agree that no crime was committed with the supposed "leak." USA Today reports that people are really beginning to wonder what happened in the leak case.

    Novak's absence from the case, says attorney Steven Reich, supports the assumption that Fitzgerald decided the leak itself wasn't a crime. Reich was a senior associate counsel in the Clinton White House...

    ...No one who leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's name has been charged with a crime for doing so and Fitzgerald has said his investigation is nearly over...

    ...Reich says, "it seems that what happened with Mr. Novak is essentially beside the point," because no crime was likely committed by the person who told Novak about Plame...

    ...But attorneys and former prosecutors draw this conclusion about Novak's "original" source: It almost surely was not Libby....

    ...In the indictment, Fitzgerald details conversations Libby had about Plame with Time's Cooper and with Judith Miller of The New York Times. He mentions no conversations between Libby and Novak...

    ...Other clues...lead to the conclusion that Libby was not a source for Novak on the Plame leak come from outside Fitzgerald's investigation...

    ...A mystery source - who wasn't Libby...

    So, not only is Libby not the Novak source, but no crime was committed by the source.

    It seems, then, Libby is accused of allegedly lying to investigators about his non-role in a non-crime, the non-crime being what started the investigation.

    Okay, I think I got it. And this overshadowed the approval of the Iraq Constitution?

    November 04, 2005

    dems in the news

    I saw Tammy Bruce on the news today.  She's an author with a new book out called "The New American Revolution."  She is a democrat but apparently has had enough of the left wing agenda of attack the right and...wait a minute,  that's presently the only agenda the dems have. Sorry, I'm not writing this post to attack back, I love my fellow Americans.  Back to Tammy.  Alan Colmes asked her "If you're a democrat, when was the last time you voted for a Republican presidential candidate?"  She replied she had voted both times for clinton but that today she feels it was a mistake.  Colmes immediately attacked Bush over the Iraq war.  No idea why he felt the need to jump on Bush's neck but he did.  I loved how she handled it though, she said maybe bill clinton should have spent less time worrying about getting Monica on her knees and more time worrying about getting bin laden on his knees.  Hilarious.

    Also today, I read the following (damn near choked to death on my Cook-Out burger) - Jimmy Carter calls abortion wrong.  How about that dems?!  He's had his face in nearly everything going on during W's time in the White House and the left has been giggling like little girls about it.  I wonder how much press the left, libs, dems will give this bit of info about 'ol James.  My guess, if you want to see anything about this on TV, you'll have to check out FOX.  I'll let you know later if the good old News & Observer here in Raleighwood has anything to say about it. 

    Viva Delay!  Viva Libby!  Viva Rove!  Couldn't help myself.  Hey, lighten up a little, you'll live longer.

    Mr. H

    November 01, 2005

    US: Liberal's first attacks on SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito

    Redstate got a first look yesterday at the liberals first personal attacks on SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito. What they discovered was a clear look at the real intentions of unabashed liberals at their finest. With a little "memogate" style research they discovered who the Democratic National Committee (DNC) wrote this piece of drivel and,

    They never did change the default title that Microsoft Word put on the document, which was probably the first line in the original document or template.

    "how they made their $$, personal  holdings, the whole deal"

    That was the first thing they wanted to get into on any nominee. Personal worth. Finances. As one of the other editors put it, "naw, it's not personal, is it?"


    October 31, 2005

    Vice presidential aspirations for Jeb?

    Barbour/Bush in '08?

    Halloween Treat - Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

    So much for Libby, lets talk SCOTUS. Michelle Malkin will have everything on Alito.

    Also, check out Stop the ACLU for more.


    October 28, 2005

    US: No indictments on original charges of outing Valerie Plame

    And that's what you should be focused on. The original scope of the investigation is being set aside to pursue charges created during the investigation. It is apparently now a crime to forget conversations held more than two years ago. Note to self, never write anything down.

    However, to date, no one is being charged with "outing" Valerie Plame. Maybe that's because Joe Wilson, her husband, actually outed her.

    In any event, as I said, the investigation has now been expanded beyond the orginal scope of the investigation and is "reaching" for indictments. (my words)

    My prediction, Libby will fight this, and win, and Rove will never be indicted.

    John Edwards makes the perfect case for smaller government

    And then promptly comes to the wrong conclusion, from today's Tallahassee Democrat,

    The stark difference between slow government response to Hurricane Katrina and the rush of money and volunteer efforts from average Americans shows the nation is ready for a 1960s-style mass movement against poverty, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards told college students Thursday.

    "The people we've been waiting for are us," Edwards said during a noon rally at Florida A&M University. "Young people have changed society before. We want you to join with young people all over the country to spark a movement."


    Yes, Mr. Edwards, left to their own measures the private sector is much better organized, much more efficient and much better equipped than the Federal Government to handle just about anything, including responding to a natural disaster.

    "The truth is, the government was slow and ineffective in its response - but not the country, not the American people," he said.

    Unfortunately he begins with the right information, and comes to the wrong conclusion, government should be doing more, not less,

    "fighting poverty ought to be the top priority of government and religious organizations."

    Religious organizations? Yes. Government? NO.


    How about maintaining military for safety, security, and defense? How about regulating trade, interstate commerce and printing money? How about regulating immigration and citizenship? How about upholding the constitution and protecting the rule of law, private property and personal freedoms? How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How about if we actually stick to the priorities the constitution outlines? Let's get back to that for a while and leave initiatives best left to private organizations to private organizations.

    UPDATE: More of the same wrong headed thinking from CA.

    UPDATE 2: Don't just take my word for it. Research suggest disaster aid is motivated by politics, not need. Unlike private responses I might add.

    UPDATE 3: Some common sense questions from alachuapolitix about another "handout" proposal at the local level he posted on earlier this week.

    October 27, 2005

    In case you missed it - Miers takes a bow

    Finally. That left a bad taste. Ugh. Enjoy.

    Next up, indictments. Rove? Libby? Somthing tells me no, but we will see.

    October 26, 2005


    I'm sick to death of hearing about Fitzgerald and his indictments.  "Word" on the street is that he's not even looking at whether anyone leaked info about an undercover operative anymore, the world knows she's been a desk jockey for the last several years.  Now, his focus is on whether anyone tried to hinder the investigation or cover up their actions.  Please!  IF Cheney talked to Libby about Plame, it's not illegal SO why would either attempt to cover it up or hinder any investigation?  Also, if there was going to be a cover up, would Libby hand over the very document that would indict him?  Not very likely. 

    For those of you on the left, isn't it at least remotely possible that Libby forgot about the conversation with Cheney that took place TWO YEARS AGO?  In case you forgot, which seems to be allowed if you're a dem, your dear president clinton (lower case intended) basically forgot everything but his name when he was investigated by a grand jury.  Hillary was just as bad.  Look it up, between the two of them, they said some form of "I don't remember" some three hundred times during their term in the White House.  That's not an exaggeration, it's ridiculous.

    My best guess on all this, IF there is an indictment, it will be Libby for forgetting that he spoke to Cheney about a desk jockey two years ago.  What a joke.

    Speaking of jokes, what do those of you on the left think about your boy Franken running for Minnesota senator in 2008?  He's tossing the idea around.  I'd love to see him give it a shot.

    Lastly, nice to have you back Mr. C.  Good day all.

    Mr. H

    October 17, 2005

    My favorite Senators

    Notice anything missing from this list? Like a Senator from NC or FL? Wouldn't you think there should/would be? Does it disturb you, as a conservative, that the person in charge of recruiting, finding and electing new Senators, Elizabeth Dole-NC, is not on this list?

    I'm not disturbed, but I think it's one more example of how base conservatives are out of sink with leadership conservatives.

    Mr. C

    October 14, 2005

    President is so unpopular!

    And he's no different from the last 7 Presidents. This is a good post, from a solid conservative who has been unhappy with the President recently, but doesn't lose sight of the fact that this is not the end times that so many would have you believe. (HT Truth or Death)

    October 05, 2005

    The Moderate Voice on the Miers choice

    The roundup of Miers opinions and views currently circulating the MSM and blogosphere. Check it out. Take your pick on where you stand.

    Good Reading on Miers nomination

    Plenty to choose from over the past couple days, but let's just say Patterico is not happy with the pick. I thought these two posts were to the point.

    October 03, 2005

    FL: Harris, Gallagher and Crist

    This morning President Bush named Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day on the US Supreme Court. She is not a judge. A lawyer, sure. A judge, no. As far as I know her only political experience is Dallas, TX City Council. I tell you, America is truly an amazing place.

    UPDATE: Reaction on the blogs is not good. See Michelle Malkin for a roundup.

    For all of you political strategist and consultants out there, just think of how you consider city councils and county commissions as the minor leagues, single A ball. The candidate you turned down because the race wasn't big enough, could one day be nominated to the Supreme Court. That young, first time candidate who doesn't know yet what he's getting into, you turned him away for not being "serious" enough. It happens all the time.

    This segues nicely into some thoughts on local candidates, the race for governor and future elections.

    Continue reading "FL: Harris, Gallagher and Crist" »

    September 30, 2005

    FL, US: Jeb Bush has political courage

    Today in the Washington Post (Via Sayfie Review),

    In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Americans are looking to their leaders for answers to the tragedy and reassurances that the mistakes made in the response will not be repeated in their own communities. Congressional hearings on the successes and failures of the relief effort are underway.

    As the governor of a state that has been hit by seven hurricanes and two tropical storms in the past 13 months, I can say with certainty that federalizing emergency response to catastrophic events would be a disaster as bad as Hurricane Katrina. (emphasis mine)

    The bolded part is called political courage. Sure, his mistrust of government is well known. Yeah, to you and me, not to the readers of the Washington Post.

    Think of how dramatic it is for a Governor of one of the largest states in the union, the fastest growing large state in the country, a Republican his last term, three years out from the presidential election, with his brother currently holding the seat and trying to accomplish what he just said would certainly be a disaster. Is that presidential leadership or what? If I didn't know better I would say he just called his brother out to the front yard for a "discussion," the type that can only be held outside.

    But for this federalist system to work, all must understand, accept and be willing to fulfill their responsibilities. The federal government and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are valuable partners in this coordinated effort. FEMA's role is to provide federal resources and develop expertise on such issues as organizing mass temporary housing. FEMA should not be responsible for manpower or a first response -- federal efforts should serve as a supplement to local and state efforts. (emphasis mine)


    That, my friends, is the GOP message. Why aren't they screaming it instead of telling people, "We have won, there is no more fat to cut from the budget." Why won't this guy run for President?

    Oh, and I love how he signed this piece,

    The writer, a Republican, is governor of Florida.

    Republican first, Governor second.
    Service first, power second. The way it should be.

    September 27, 2005

    Ruffini's Sept. Straw Poll is up

    Go Vote.

    If you use my link and vote I would love to know who you voted for. I will keep it private if you like, or you can post anon too. OR you can email. Since I'm asking, I will go first -

    My first pick, Haley Barbour. He's new to the ballot and until this time I had been voting for Allen. I may again at some point. But this thing is a long way out and its all fun and games, but as of right now, I see Allen and Barbour (and Guiliani) as having real shots at the GOP nomination.

    My fantasy pick, Jeb Bush. I can't write an article saying Jeb would make the best candidate (part I & II) then not pick him right?

    Go vote for your guy. There are lots to choose from. These are last months results if you are interested.

    Mr. C

    September 22, 2005

    Bush down, but not out

    From the American Spectator is this piece. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. esentially argues Bush's numbers may be down, but dem's are to hapless to do anything about it and they stand little chance of mobilizing a credible effort in the near future. Reminds me of this from PEER Review last week.

    He finishes with this,

    The shrieks heard from the Democrats these days puts me in mind of one of my most deeply held beliefs about politics, to wit: Rather than being shaped by principles or by interests, most political issues are shaped by mental illness, namely the need of some citizens to be perpetually angry.

    September 16, 2005

    Two Americas: Opportunists vs. the Free

    Two Americas: Opportunists vs. the Free
    By Richard Wagner

    News item, The News & Observer of Raleigh (Sept. 7, 2005):

    John Edwards says the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina underscores the "two Americas" theme of his presidential campaign last year.

    "We see the poor and working class of New Orleans who don't own a car and couldn't evacuate to hotels or families far from the target of Katrina," Edwards said in e-mail messages to supporters Friday. "We see the suffering of families who lived from paycheck to paycheck and who followed the advice of officials and went to shelters at the Civic Center or the Superdome or stayed home to protect their possessions."

    Edwards added, "We have been too slow to act in the face of the misery of our brothers and sisters. This is an ugly and horrifying wake-up call to America."

    At last, John Edwards and I have found something on which we both agree. There really are two Americas. As Edwards said, Hurricane Katrina made that crystal clear:

    Continue reading "Two Americas: Opportunists vs. the Free" »

    September 15, 2005

    US: Just a thought

    To quote Brian from Fox News in the morning "If you don't have paint to watch dry, check out the Roberts confirmation hearings."  Although it is quite boring to most, it is also quite amusing to watch the dem's try to find something to raise a stink about.  Today is the last chance for the dem's to give him hell, which they've been doing since his name was first mentioned by our good President.  I AM LOVING watching the dem's make idiots of themselves.  Even Biden has told Roberts that he is the best he's ever seen

    You know, I know, the world knows - Roberts will be the next Chief Justice.  Why make fools (read Kennedy) of yourselves?  Do you just enjoy that role?  Apparently so.

    Hey dem's and libs, here's a crazy idea, get on board with helping the country.  You might even win an election or two if you offer some type of positive response to ANYTHING going on.  Just a thought.

    Mr. H

    EJ Dionne has no idea what he is talking about

    And I have never read anything from him that suggested otherwise. Today, this. It starts,

    The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.

    Then there is a lot of BS in between, and ends with this,

    And what of Bush, who has more than three years left in his term? Paradoxically, his best hope lies in recognizing that the Bush Era really is gone. He can decide to help us in the transition to what comes next. Or he can stubbornly cling to his past and thereby doom himself to frustrating irrelevance.

    It's not surprising that a deluded self indulgent reporter with a bloated sense of importance takes it upon himself to enlighten the rest of the world to his way of thinking. But, it is sad that so many in Washington lend credence to his drivel and some policy makers are reading his words today thinking there may be something to it.

    This is a common cycle for Bush, even in these heightened times of security, war and disaster. He builds political capital, his numbers rise, he uses politcal capital, enacts programs, cuts taxes, wins majorities in the House and Senate, then takes a break and his numbers fall. And guess where we are in the current cycle. I think we have seen this happen 4 years in a row now. Why would this year be any different?

    September 14, 2005

    FL: Memo to Democrats - Katherine Harris is still rich

    And she will be for a long time.

    I am starting to see a Democrat talking point on Florida Congresswoman and US Senate Candidate Katherine Harris - She's rich, and you're not.

    Please witness Exhibit A and Exhibit B, three weeks apart. Let's see if more start rolling out.

    By the way, this is a perfect example of how the press will find something to print about you when you aren't saying anything yourself.

    Control the message. Frame the issues. Do it, or somebody else will do it for you.

    September 09, 2005


    That is the sound of democrats, liberals, and the mainstream media backing up trying to cover their tracks when the truth comes out about the mistakes made in NO.

    As has been the case since W took office, the left takes every chance  conceivable (and inconceivable for that matter) to blame, smear, or tarnish President Bush.  As has also been the case, it will end up only causing trouble for them.  How many, within days of the hurricane, blamed Bush for everything from slow response to the actual hurricane itself (uh, that's called being a little crazy in the head).  Now, we are beginning to hear that the good governor herself is AT LEAST a little responsible for the lack of speed with regards to active military troops being called upon (although she still isn't accepting ANY of the blame).

    Here's the facts, mam:
    First response is the responsibility of the local government.
    Next, is the state government.
    Lastly, is the federal government.

    If and when the governor decides that it is too much to handle on the state level, the governor has to ASK the feds for help.  Governor Blanco's response to this?  "Nobody told me that I had to request that."

    Are you kidding me?  The governor admits she didn't know she had to ask for the troops!  If she were Republican she would be getting slammed in the MSM.  Instead, the MSM will be trying to slam the President for not seizing control of the situation.  The Insurrection Act would have allowed Bush to more or less bypass the governor and take action as he deemed necessary.  This was debated by the administration but decided against for obvious reasons.  Can you picture the headlines if Bush had taken control from a female democrat during a crisis like this?  If you're on the left and shaking your head, you're in denial about your TEAM and maybe should consider switching sides. 

    As they say, the proof is in the pudding.  Check for yourself.  Research what the President has accomplished during his time in the office and then see if you can find ONE instance of support from the dems as a whole.  The ONLY one is right after 9/11.  Even now, the same dems who voted in favor of going to war are, well, backing up.

    Mr. H

    September 08, 2005

    Blanco was never the right "man" for the job

    Today's Washington Times on the behind the scenes decision making process of LA Gov Blanco, Mayor Nagin and President Bush. I personally believe this is the beginning of the end for democrats in LA. Only time will tell.

    Mr. [President] Bush met privately first with Mrs. Blanco, then called Mr. Nagin in for a meeting. "He called me in that office," Mr. Nagin said. "And he said, 'Mr. Mayor, I offered two options to the governor.' I was ready to move. The governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision."


    Mr. [President] Bush, at the request of Mrs. Blanco, declared the entire state of Louisiana a disaster area 48 hours before the hurricane made landfall. He also asked Mrs. Blanco to order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans on Aug. 27 -- two days before the hurricane hit -- but she did not make the order until Aug. 28.


    Paul Simpson, a political blogger who lives in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, La., said he and other locals are puzzled by the governor's refusal to let the federal government temporarily command the state's National Guard.

        "I thought it was as standard as sunshine in California that the governor would tell the president, 'You have the Guard.' I thought that was a given," Mr. Simpson said. "She absolutely has no clue."

        Critics have long derided Mrs. Blanco for her tendency to call for studies and special commissions to find solutions for the state's biggest problems.

        In 2003, the Shreveport Times, in endorsing her Republican opponent for governor, Bobby Jindal, called Mrs. Blanco "indecisive" and "unprepared" for the rigors of the job.

    and finally,

    "She would rather be criticized for taking her time in finding the right approach than for shooting from the hip and moving in the wrong direction," Mr. Juneau wrote.

    Are We Wasting Energy?

    By Michael Walden

    The new energy bill contains many provisions to encourage Americans to conserve energy. Some observers say such encouragement can't come too soon. The United States consumes far more energy per person than any other country. Critics say this is proof we waste energy. Additionally, improvements in gas efficiency have ground to a halt as vehicle buyers have shifted to trucks and SUVs. So, supporters of the new conservation enticements say both American businesses and consumers need a nudge—indeed, maybe a strong shove—to get back to rationally using energy.

    There is another view, however, a view that says we have been behaving rationally when it comes to energy use.

    Continue reading "Are We Wasting Energy?" »

    September 07, 2005

    US: Presidential GOP nomination politics beginning to shift?

    I'm still a Jeb! for President man. Until someone else is nominated I believe Jeb is the most qualified and best prepared politician to make the policy arguments and fight the policy fights looming on the political horizon of this country. I also believe stock in Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has risen sharply recently, as I have privately predicted, and will continue to rise through the next couple years.

    That being said, I am starting to see the way a Giuliani for President campaign can begin. I still don't know that I could vote for him. I still don't know that he could win a primary in states like SC, AR, TX, VA, or IA. But, I can see the argument forming. Should there be another terrorist attack before the nominations in 2008 the argument for Giuliani only gets stronger.

    US: Thoughts on a Chief Justice nomination strategy under the circumstances

    Lost in the Hurricane Katrina disaster coverage, the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the Miami winning streak over FSU ending is the nomination battle discussion on John Roberts. Roberts, having been nominated to replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, is now nominated to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Was this the plan all along? Can Bush get it done? Should democrats oppose Roberts? What are democrats to do?

    Let me answer those questions first, and if you want to read more after that you still can.

    Probably not.
    Nothing. Unless you are Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or, hiccup, Edward Kennedy, you support this nomination, ask few questions and vote yes.

    Continue reading "US: Thoughts on a Chief Justice nomination strategy under the circumstances" »

    September 01, 2005

    Oil Reserves

    I remember several members of the Senate "demanding" Bush release oil reserves some time ago because they felt their constituents were paying too much for gas.  The President held his ground and refused to release reserves because he felt they were too low at the time. 

    Say it with me now, "Thank you President Bush." 

    Thanks for standing up and doing what was best for the country.  Where is even a SINGLE media outlet pointing out how important the reserves are, especially now, and what a great move it was by the President to stockpile oil up to this point?

    It's just the beginning of hurricane season and we've already had the disaster in New Orleans.  Even now, if we have another disaster like this, will there be enough reserves to keep the country going?  No one can say because of the uncertainty of the weather, but I bet we're a lot better off than if Bush hadn't stockpiled the reserves.

    There's a reason he won.  He knows what he's doing and the general public has faith in him.  When more people voted for him than for Kerry, isn't it just possible you were wrong in your perception of him?  I think so and, apparently a majority of America agrees.

    Mr. H

    August 30, 2005

    Positive GOP outlook in 2008

    Over at Betsy's Page is a shot synopsis of Michael Barone's political almanac outlook for GOP in 2008. This seems like a good post to start a thread. It will be my first. Please comment on the GOP outlook either in the US or your state. I will respond as requested and try to keep the discussion on topic.

    More from Barone at yesterday's Real Clear Politics.

    Of course I prefer to know who I am talking to, but feel free to post anonymously. An email will be requested but I think it is just for my purposes.

    I'm off to Books a Million to find a book on political communication. Be back in a bit.

    UPDATE: Decided Books a Million was 70% liberal on the shelf and Amazon beats their prices any day. I know a lot of liberals read this blog, please, feel free to comment on the GOP prospects for 2008.

    Mr. C

    August 26, 2005

    US: Democrats deaf and blind, so says George Will

    Interesting article in yesterday's Washington Post written in a way only George Will can write it. (Note to Mike from Fl News, this is exactly the same thing I was talking about in my comments.)

    On Cindy Sheehan,

    Since her first meeting with the president, she has called him a "lying bastard," "filth spewer," "evil maniac," "fuehrer" and the world's "biggest terrorist" who is committing "blatant genocide" and "waging a nuclear war" in Iraq. Even leaving aside her not entirely persuasive contention that someone else concocted the obviously anti-Israel and inferentially anti-Semitic elements of one of her recent e-mails -- elements of a sort nowadays often found woven into ferocious left-wing rhetoric --

    On Michael Moore,

    Do Democrats really want to embrace her variation of the Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" school of political discourse? Evidently, yes, judging by the attendance of 12 Democratic senators at that movie's D.C. premiere in June 2004, and by the lionizing of Moore at the Democratic Convention -- the ovation, the seating of him with Jimmy Carter.

    If liberals think that such flirtations with fanaticism had nothing to do with their 2004 defeat, they probably have nothing to learn...

    On MoveOn.org and Howard Dean,

    MoveOn.org, which claims 3.3 million members and is becoming a tone-setting tail that wags the Democratic Party dog -- a dog that is mostly such tails -- adopted Sheehan during her Crawford demonstration, organizing 1,627 vigils around the country to express solidarity with her. But the Democratic Party, whose democratically elected chairman is Howard ("I Hate the Republicans and Everything They Stand For") Dean, is not ripe for lessons in temperate rhetoric, which may be why the Republican Party has far fewer worries than it deserves.

    On the GOP,

    It is showing signs of becoming an exhausted volcano. Regarding Iraq, it is mistaking truculent asperity and tiresome repetition for Churchillian wartime eloquence. Regarding domestic policy, intellectual anemia has given rise to behavioral patterns not easily distinguished from corruption, as with the energy and transportation bills.

    On Hillary's reaction to said rhetoric and supporters,

    If Hillary Clinton has half the political sense her enthusiasts ascribe to her, she must be deeply anxious lest all her ongoing attempts to adopt moderation as her brand will be nullified by the increasing inclination of her party's base to succumb to siren songs sung by the likes of Sheehan. But, then, a rapidly growing portion of the base is not just succumbing to those songs, it is singing them.

    I will be the first to admit GOP officeholders should be doing more to adhere to their professed conservative positions. The GOP is doing plenty that would, in otherwise normal political cycles, be sufficient to lose some seats in Congress, Senate and possibly the White House. But what does it matter? The democrats are going off the deep end. Professional democrats like Hillary 'evil incarnate' Clinton see the leming parade and are moving in the opposite direction, towards the middle, towards the GOP. And still the vocal segments (Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore), the fund raising segments (MoveOn.org) and the elected leaders of the organization (Howard Dean) are continuing toward the very sharp cliff they have blasted into the political landscape.

    Now for everybody else, millions of moderate and otherwise well intentioned Americans also support the democratic party by supporting the DNC, an organization that is now headed by Howard Dean, and largely supported by MoveOn.org. The Clintons support the DLC. If a split in the democratic party is to occur, would it make sense to you that the crazy people who make up a small part of the DNC will be the motivating force in such a split? Does it seem logical to assume the moderates who do support democrats and the DNC, but don't support Dean, Sheehan and Michael Moore, will go with the DLC and split from the DNC?

    Mike, see the light. Come back. We miss your crazy ideas.

    August 25, 2005

    US: Alarming News on blog straw polls

    In what may be the longest post I have ever seen at Alarming News, and current host of the very first PEER Review Blog Ad, AN systematically deconstructs for the general public the craziness the blogosphere has over candidates without any shot at winning the Presidency in 08. (which seems self defeating because if the general public actually read blogs, and likewise her analysis, the leaders would be totally different - so who is she really talking too?)

    In two recent straw polls, one at liberal Dkos and conservative Patrick Ruffini, the leading candidates are Wesley Clark and Condi Rice. Polls with over 8,000 and 15,000 responses respectively!

    The top vote getters are Condi Rice and Rudy Giuliani on the Right and Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold on the left. This is why the MSM doesn't pay attention to these polls. Not one of those four will be the candidate for either of their parties.

    And for those of you wondering, "but what's wrong with those candidates?" Read her post and then read her post on McCain endorsing teaching ID. Now he's a politician. Idiot, but good politician. The kind that is really running for President.

    Also, see Polipundit for more on House, Senate and Governorships in 2006.

    August 23, 2005

    US: Patrick Ruffini's 2008 Presidential Straw Poll

    The new poll can be sorted by state, candidate or referring blog. Plus, you can pit fantasy candidates against more likely candidates and get a sense of who they take votes from.

    Go vote and get your friends to come to PEER Review and use this link to vote. Maybe we can discuss the results in a day or two.

    Mr. C

    US: democrat party about to split?

    Well, well, well. It looks like my predictions,

    I personally believe when Black support for national Democratic officeholders drops below 80 percent there will be a massive power shift in American politics. Anything below 70 percent and the Democratic Party will have to completely restructure, or dissolve to allow the formation of a new moderate party able to challenge the GOP from the center.

    made just yesterday will be coming soon much sooner than expected. Only, it's not Black voters making the shift, it's the entire left wing (including the money bags) of the democratic party.

    Strolling the blog world this morning I read this quote from the liberal Kosbat posted at Steal the Bandwagon,

    Ultimately, this is the modern DLC -- an aider and abettor of Right-wing smear attacks against Democrats. They make the same arguments, use the same language, and revel in their attacks on those elements of the Democratic Party that seem to cause them no small embarrassment.

    Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.

    No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).

    We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

    Cross Posted at Pirates Cove and more at Ankle Biting Pundits with lots of comments.

    What does this mean for Hillary? For McCain? For MoveOn? Oh, who am I kidding. I don't really care. This will be fun to watch until session returns.

    Any of my liberal readers, and I know there are lots of you, care to leave a comment and enlighten this well informed and astute observer of political strategy on the goings on of the left wing? Hmm?

    Mr. C

    August 22, 2005

    Blacks embrace GOP

    This is obviously good news from a GOP stand point, but even better news for the Black community in America. Competition for votes on the basis of ideas, actions and results should be the foundation of any voters' selection for office, regardless of race.

    Black voters in America have long been the Atlas of the Democratic Party with the single handed responsibility of electing Democratic officeholders. Lets' face it, in most urban areas and national offices very few democrats would be in office today without 85% support from the Black community. That is very hard to maintain over time. Especially when your chosen candidates continue losing.

    I personally believe when Black support for national Democratic officeholders drops below 80 percent there will be a massive power shift in American politics. Anything below 70 percent and the Democratic Party will have to completely restructure, or dissolve to allow the formation of a new moderate party able to challenge the GOP from the center.

    McCain supporters don't get excited too soon, Hillary has to be beat first. And after she loses, the next census (and redistricting) will be looming large. Blacks will have to decide if they want to depend on democrats for another decade, or if they will take their future into their own hands.

    Want some idea of what GOP support of Blacks looks like along the lines of ideas, actions and results? Check out this article from Friday's Washington Times.

    August 19, 2005

    FL: Joe is still a No-Go and so is Crist

    From today's Herald Tribune [via Sayfie Review] is TV host 'not eager' for a fight pretty much saying Joe Scarborough is not going to run for Senate.

    I get to do two things with this post, first, I told you... no. I won't say it. Anything can happen in politics.

    But the second is to once again highlight my uncanny ability to find information in places it shouldn't exist. Example # 27,

    He's [MSNBC host and former Congressman Joe Scarborough] just the latest on a growing list of candidates who have been asked to run instead of Harris. Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, Florida Senate President Tom Lee, Sarasota businessman Vern Buchanan, Florida House Speaker Allan Bense and Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher are among those on the list.

    This is essentially the list (Franks, Lee, Buchanan, Bense, Gallagher) of acceptable GOP candidates who have some shot at winning statewide in FL. Notice any names missing from the list? If you're one of my people you notice immediately the Charlie Crist is not on the list. And you know, well, political insiders know, if the Bushes and/or National Republicans courted Chalrie Crist for a Senate run against Harris and he thought he had even a chance that he could be a Senator, he would be running for the door.

    Mr. C

    August 18, 2005

    Bush Tax Cuts

    They don't get nearly enough credit, or positive press, so here is a link [via Club for Growth] to Heritage Foundation piece A Few More Facts About the Bush Tax Cuts. It may be a little wonkish for some, but here are some quality excerpts,

    If taxes are around their historical levels but the deficit is still higher than many would like, than the real cause for concern is spending, which, as we observed yesterday, kept the [Congressional Budget Office] CBO from reducing its deficit estimate even further. As the [Wall Street] Journal notes, “Federal expenditures continue to grow at about 7% -- and the Republican Congress's highway and energy bills are only the latest indication that spending discipline is about as well enforced as major league baseball's steroids ban.” True, true, true.

    Yes , spending. Big problem. Spending.

    All this unseemly discretionary spending, however, is just a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of entitlement spending, as Stuart Butler explains here and the CBO itself makes clear. As the Journal reports, CBO

    sounds the alarm over longer-term federal spending, which is driven by Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. More than 50 cents of every revenue dollar will be devoured by just these three programs by the year 2030. By 2050 there will be no money left for national defense, the courts, transportation, or anything else.

    What's that? There's something wrong with Social Security? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Fixing this long-term problem is one of the main driving forces behind Social Security reform and efforts to retool Medicare and Medicare. Only in partisan Washington could opponents of these efforts portray themselves as deficit hawks.

    I think it happens in Tallahassee, Raleigh and Columbia too. Just to name a few...


    SC: Strom Thurmond - A book review

    My first post, but not the last, blatantly targeting South Carolina readers is a book review of "STROM, the Complicated Political and Personal Life of Strom Thurmond" from group blog, From Hot Type to Blog.

    FHTTB is a collection of retired and/or well traveled journalist and writers who have obviously learned a great deal during their careers. For anyone looking for great writing, old school style, this is the place to go. They really are good.

    I will go ahead and tell you that most of the time these guys are completely against Bush and apparently don't like conservatives too much, but they are really great writers and sometimes I can't help but read what they have to say. Good writing has that effect on people.

    Mr. C

    August 17, 2005

    FL: That's what I want to hear

    Over at the Buzz is a tidbit about Jeb Bush running for President. Will it happen? Only Jeb knows for sure. You know how I feel. If your new to PEER Review, visit my must reads, the Case for Jeb parts I and II.

    Also, at the Buzz, commentary on the Joe is a No-go situation. I won't tell you I told you so. But, if I was Joe, I'd be looking long and hard look at the offer on the table. He was not the first pick, but he currently is the only pick and is surely in position to charge a king's ransom to run after many other potential suitors have rebuffed the NRSC (and Bush) offers.

    One day, I'm gonna write a book. You'll read it.

    Mr. C

    FL: Don't sell Harris short in '06

    By David Hill in DC publication The Hill, more background on the Harris Senate run. BTW, I believe this is one of the reasons Bense said no, he would not have the support of old Florida. At least, not in a run against Harris.

    Mr. C

    Immigration Taboos and Newt Gingrich

    Thomas Sowell's piece at Townhall and linked at RCP.

    The media and the intelligentsia love to say that most immigrants, from whatever group, are good people. But what "most" people from a given country are like is irrelevant.

    So true. It would be different if we actually tried to assimilate immigrants, but instead we "respect" their culture. Code for "permission to break our laws."

    I support legal immigration. I personally believe it is absolutely necessary to the long term growth and strength of the United States. I do not believe, however, that amnesty is an appropriate option. Instead, I support the plan proposed by Newt,

    Controlling the borders also requires a strong, open green card program with a biometric (probably a thumb print or an iris scan) so guest workers willing to obey the law can enter legally.  The law should be changed so illegal aliens can be deported in 72 hours and their deportation would block them from getting a Green Card for at least three years. Green Card holders who violate the law could also be deported within 72 hours and blocked from reentry for three years. The combination of easy entry for the honest and law abiding with firm penalties for the dishonest and law breaking will create a vastly more manageable border and increase national security.

    Read it.

    August 16, 2005

    Framing the debate

    If at first you don’t succeed… move to the center.  That seems to be the latest motto of the democratic party and they even so much as admit it in a recent Newsweek article I read this week.

    The main topic is abortion (of course).  The “think” tank Third Way is trying to come up with a different way for democrats to present abortion to make their party more attractive to moderate voters.  They want to steer away from using the word “choice” as they feel it comes from a “consumerist vocabulary while life came from a moral one.”

    Then Mr. Aarrghhhh (Chairman Dean) said democrats need to “reframe” their fundamental position on abortion.

    How do you reframe a position of abortion if your position is abortion is 100% okay?  How do you reframe the fact that young girls, in most states, can legally have abortions without their parents ever having any knowledge of it? How do you reframe the position that you strongly support abortions when they provide fetal stem cells for research. Here is a thought – democrats, don’t try to sugar coat your platform.  Don’t try to fool voters about what democrats stand for by changing the words around a little bit.

    Say it plainly, say it loud, say it often - “We support killing unborn children.”

    If you want to know how it‘s done, look to the GOP. During both the 1992 and 1996 campaigns Republicans refused to move away from their core values. In fact, they strengthened those values in spite of their defeats. In 2000 and 2004  President Bush stuck to his guns and he took a beating from the press. In spite of such one sided reporting in the mainstream media HE WAS ELECTED AND RE-ELECTED increasing both total turnout and vote gains from previous elections.

    Voters want candidates and party leaders they can count on, not someone who flip-flops with polls and public opinion surveys.  In the upcoming midterm elections watch the rhetoric coming from the liberals on abortion and keep an eye on Hillary as well.  You’ll see what I mean. There will be so many reframed issues you may think the United Photographers Workers Union is behind the campaigns.

    Mr. H

    August 15, 2005

    You've gotta be kidding

    I couldn't pass up posting on this link I found over at Friday's Truth or Death. Here are the highlights,

    The Honorable Sen. Ford said he sometimes stays with one family and other times he stays with the second. Since he pays nearly all the bills for both families in homes he owns, he wanted to make it clear to the referee in the case that he can't afford to pay any more court ordered support for a third woman, the mother of another 10-year-old girl he fathered.

    The demands on him are even more outrageous, the Honorable Sen. Ford said, because one of his two gal pals is pregnant yet again with another of his future offspring.


    the Honorable Sen. Ford heads the Senate committee that guides Tennessee's child welfare policies, and, for the past year, he has tried to make use of a law he authored that keeps court-ordered support lower when a father is financially responsible for other children.

    And just in case you are wondering,

    neither of these two homes in which the Honorable Sen. Ford lives is in the senatorial district he represents.

    Take 3 MARIA (Minutes And Read It All)


    August 09, 2005

    Party shows signs of uniting behind Harris

    Readers, I apologize for my hiatus from posting but I've been extremely busy the past few weeks.  I look forward to posting  some interesting thoughts in the coming days.

    As Katherine Harris begins her listening tour today, many in the mainstream media have questioned whether the party establishment will support her candidacy.  The State party issued the following press release today:

    For Immediate Release
    August 9, 2005                                     

    Contact:  Camille Anderson
    (850) 222-7920

    Question: Who is Camille Anderson?  Where did she come from?

    Chairman Jordan Issues Statement on Katherine Harris’ Candidacy for United States Senate

    TALLAHASSEE, FL – Republican Party of Florida Chairman Carole Jean Jordan today issues the following statement in response to Rep. Katherine Harris’ candidacy for United States Senate:

    “We are very fortunate that the author of the American Dream Bill, Katherine Harris, will be a candidate for United States Senate in 2006,” said Chairman Carole Jean Jordan. “I have known Katherine for many years
    - and she has served Florida well in many capacities.  Katherine Harris is an accomplished and respected member of the U.S. House and will make a strong U.S. Senator.”


    Paid for by the Republican Party of Florida.
    Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee. www.rpof.org

    This is a sure sign that all possible Harris challengers have informed the party that they have decided against a primary challenge.  Smart decision.  It would have ended their careers.

    More on Harris here.

    I'm excited about this campaign, to say the least.  Watching these operators (here, and here) execute a winning strategy is going to be the show of the cycle. 

    Blogger X


    August 08, 2005

    The John Roberts I Remember

    When President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I felt an overwhelming surge of pride. I spent four years with John in a small college prep school called La Lumiere, a special place that formed the character and drive we would retain for the rest of our lives.

    It was at La Lumiere that John and I grew from boys to men.

    I knew him well.  

    Continue reading "The John Roberts I Remember" »

    August 03, 2005

    (Double) voting was tried, people cried

    Yes, Democrats tried, and failed, to win another election last night. Who knows if there was any shenanigans?

    He throws a ball but it doesn't go in
    Kyle: Hey! That was right on target!
    Booth Man: Sorry kid, try again
    Kyle throws again and it doesn't go in
    Kyle: That does it! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!!!
    Booth Man: What are you doing?
    Kyle: I'm declaring Shenanigans on you. This game is rigged.
    Booth Man: Shenanigans?
    Barbrady comes along
    Barbrady: What's all the hoo-hah?

    What I do know, ACORN liberals (Democrats) tried multiple voting fraud schemes in Florida and

    during the 2004 elections.  Actual documented ones, not trumped up charges. Hat Tip - NC Rumors

    August 02, 2005

    Intelligent Design

    First, I'd like to say many thanks to Mr. C for the invitation to post here. Thanks, Mr. C!

    Today President Bush caused a stir when he told some Texas reporters that he thinks schools ought to teach "Intelligent Design" alongside evolution. At this point, I am unwilling to guess whether this comment will become more controversial than John Robert's ties to the if-we-sound-worried-enough-maybe-the-viewers-will-think-it's-extremist Federalist Society, but we'll see. The president's remark that "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes" sounds sensible enough.

    But if it is so decided that Intelligent Design must not be taught after all, on account of if might run afoul of the "liberals" and their pet misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause, then surely we should also lock out of the classroom Aristotle and his Physics. Did you know that joker actually reasoned that there had to be a "Prime Mover," something unmoveable that set everything else in the universe in motion? (No wonder Cleese & Co. referred to him as a "bugger for the bottle," eh?)

    Quoth he: "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. but this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some first mover."

    Aristotle didn't go far enough to identify this Mover exactly (certainly not enough to settle religious questions), but then, neither do Intelligent Design theorists. They do address, however, a keen deficiency in Darwinistic theory.

    I'll quote from a letter in The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscriber site) by Stephen C. Meyer, Professor of the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Palm Beach Atlantic University and the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute: "If all living systems look as though they were designed for a purpose, as neo-Darwinists have long acknowledged, and if neither neo-Darwinism nor any other materialistic evolutionary theory accounts for the most striking appearances of design in living systems (such as the cellular information-processing system), then perhaps living systems look designed because they really were."

    August 01, 2005

    Highway Bill full of Pork and Bull

    I am glad to see, we can all agree, the Highway Bill, is not free. (Rhyming is fun!)

    In this case I couldn't agree more with my little corner of the world.

    July 29, 2005

    GDP still growing, Democrats still in recession

    Post on recent GDP numbers from Polipundit.

    “You don’t have to be old to be wise.”

    July 27, 2005

    Former Governor, Current Senator George Allen of Virginia - One to keep an eye on in '08

    You may not know who he is, so make this your introduction. It's pointless to go into details about the '08 election this far out, but my take is he will be one of the last three standing in the GOP primary.

    July 26, 2005

    Wilson-Plame, Rove, Totenberg

    Just get over it already. Today's editorial from the Washington Times sums it up - More misinformation on Wilson-Plame.

    Hey Lefties, you tried to get Rove in a media lull and you misfired. Your shooting blanks. Better luck next time, although your track record is not really stellar lately. Who was the last guy you got? Trent Lott? I think he is almost Senate leader again. Isn't he the number three man behind Santorum? Good one Lefties.

    Oh, and in case you are missing it, this (and this) is the latest obstruction to the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. The Dems really screwed the pooch on this when they took Cheney et al to court for not providing priviliged documents. This just looks like more of the same behavior exhibited over the past 5 years. Bad move on the Dem's part. And don't start emailing me the particulars of the case, I am not interested at this point and the public doesn't care either. The fact is the Dems want documents they shouldn't be asking for, the President said no, and the people will side with the President on this fishing expedition.

    July 22, 2005

    Katherine Harris, Citrus Canker, and Pamela Anderson

    After posting yesterday about the snubbing the Harris camp is receiveing I think this story is a reflection of the professionalism of, if not Harris herself, then her team. Staying on message is the absolute first rule of effective campaigns, and they are doing swimmingly.

    Speaking of, a new Strategic Vision Poll has been realesed today. I will have analysis and commentary during the lunch hour. [Tip Florida News]

    I wanted to point out this interesting but flawed read in The Hill on the Dem's chances in '08. For starters he, Mark Mellman, is applying past political wisdom to a current political culture, and electorate, that has changed dramatically from days gone by. Just one other point,

    The economy is another fundamental. In 2004, it was not bad enough to oust an incumbent. In the first half of 2004, real gross domestic product grew by 3.3 percent, putting it just below the middle of the pack for the 15 elections since 1948. In 1980, when Jimmy Carter became the only incumbent to be defeated for a second term since we’ve had such economic statistics, that number was negative 8.1 percent.

    Economic forecasts are notoriously inaccurate, but the growth rates predicted for 2008 range between 2.0 percent and 3.3 percent. Thus, no one is forecasting an economy better than it was in ’04 and many predict it will be worse. In the instance when a non-incumbent trying for a third party term was victorious, the growth rate was well above those forecasts — 5.1 percent in 1988. Republicans can’t count on the economy to help them in ’08, and it is more likely to be a drag on their ticket.

    I am not sure if you caught that. In 2004 the economy was not bad enough and he is saying the growth for the economy may not equal the growth of the economy in 2004, and that is not only bad for the GOP, but good for the Dem's. I hope all Dem consultants think like this!

    As long as the economy is growing, which it is, and unemployment is decreasing, which it is, then the state of the US economy is a positive for the incumbent party. This is is prime example of why liberals just don't get it, they are always looking for the negative in otherwise positive news. It's like saying, "Most people will ony be 5% richer in 2008 so don't expect the GOP to win the election." Say what?

    Moving on... It pains me to point this out, but teaching children about Citrus Canker is not the direction we want to go with Citrus Canker. We want to eradicate it! I understand, Commissioner, if the science says we can't do it today, but your curent methods are, and have been, failing for almost ten years. It would be different if Citrus Canker were simply holding on in a few patches here and there, but the reality is Canker is still spreading and we can't contain it. You can "eradicate" all the trees you want from the residents of Miami and still win elections, but when the people of Orlando and along the I-4 corridor, your political back yard, start losing trees the detractors will be much more difficult to eradicate.

    In addition your poll numbers are the lowest of any GOP candidates and your undecideds are tremendous.

    14. Do you approve or disapprove of Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Bronson's job performance?
                    Approve 49%
                    Disapprove 18%
                    Undecided 33%

    If memory serves me correctly every SV poll in recent memory is similar. I am not going to suggest this is soley because of Citrus Canker, but Canker is a very public menace and an easy campaign theme. Unfortunately somebody on the front lines needs to lose their job, and you need a very public "War on Canker" marketing message to at least have the appearance that something is being done to combat Citrus Canker. Get somebody on the job or somebody else will hang this around your neck.

    Moving on... the news this week that LeRoy Collins is considering entering the race to succeed Jim Sebasta in Senate District 16. Even if he doesn't win, this is a great race to build name recognition for future opportunities for a natural politician.

    You may have read not everyone is excited about John Roberts nomination to the SCOTUS.

    And finally, Pamela Anderson is considering remarrying Tommy Lee. Funny, I seem to remember him beating her? Anyway, I thought she was dating Stephen Dorff?

    “Stephen told all his friends he was going to marry Pamela,” says a pal of the actor’s. “Since he found out she was in Hawaii with Tommy—and was staying in the same room with him all last week—he’s been all messed up. He hopes it’s just another one of her flings.”

    If he thought it was a good idea to marry Pamela Anderson, he was messed up long before last week.
    Update: The wedding plans (Tommy & Pamela that is) are canceled.

    July 21, 2005

    Memo to Harris - get off the porch

    If you are Katherine Harris I bet you wonder why the people you help don't want to help you. It must be frustrating. And frankly I am a little surprised the Bushes are so eager to irritate the Griffin clan.

    Fearing that a weak Senate candidate could endanger the Republican Party's gubernatorial contest next year, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mr. Rove and the NRSC [National Republican Senatorial Committee] have been urging Florida House Speaker Alan Bense to get into the race. Mr. Bense, who has been aggressively recruited by Mr. Bush back home and by Mrs. Dole and Mr. Rove at recent meetings in Washington, is said to be looking at the race but has not reached a decision.

    Translation, "you can't run with the big dogs, even if you want to. Get your own gang."

    That is complete BS. Barney Fife could be running for Senate and the GOP would win the Florida Governors race. I suspect Bense, a veteran loser, knows beating Nelson without statewide name ID is next to impossible, not to mention defeating Harris in a Primary is certainly impossible. I have said it before, without one or both Bush's pledging their support publicly, then Bense's chances are slim.

    Bense is probably going to announce his intentions soon, probably next week. I am betting he wants to run, but with Harris still in the race he should know better. My bet, he passes on the Senate and joins either Crist or Gallagher and runs for Lt. Governor. If he decides to run for Senate, then assume a deal has been struck.

    More at Sunblog.

    Ok, John Roberts will replace Oconnor...

    But after thinking about Ann's problems and reading Truth or Death's post last night I came to this conclusion and question -

    The "arrangement" or unspoken agreement was that Bush could, or would, replace Oconnor with a woman, slighlty conservative or moderate, and the Dems wouldn't make a fuss. It is also accepted that when Rehnquist retires Bush should have a free hand to replace him with a real right wing candidate.

    That being said, Roberts doesn't fit into the "arrangement" very well. He will likely be approved, but if the reports are right and he is more conservative than Oconnor then does that allow the Dem's to oppose a right wing nominee when Rehnquist retires? The Democratic argument being that Bush needs to replace Rehnquist with a moderate to fill the Oconnor vacancy he filled with Roberts?

    July 19, 2005

    Justice John G. Roberts Jr.?

    From what I understand Roberts is for overturning Roe V. Wade,

    While serving as a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts co-wrote a brief saying that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided and should be overturned."

    [Zremski, Jerry. Buffalo Native May Be Ideal Supreme Court Nominee, The Buffalo News. July 3, 2005]

    and he was on the short list to replace Rehnquist. (Here are some thoughts from Red State almost two weeks ago.) We know this is going to start a battle royal in Washington and on the blogs, and we know NARAL and NOW are going to go ballistic, and that's good. So for me the big question now is this,

    Who is on the short list to replace Rehnquist now?

    Mr. C

    "different direction"

    After reporting yesterday from her double super secret office in DC that Clement was our girl for Supreme Court, Swamp Pundette is now reporting it is not Clement.

    She supposes the phone call earlier this afternoon went something like this,

    Look, I really liked hanging out with you, but I’m not sure that we’re completely right for each other. I feel like I need to go a different direction.

    Could it be Luttig? Here's what the Republican Operative thinks,

    Michael Luttig is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, having been appointed to a newly created seat by President George H.W. Bush on April 23, 1991, and confirmed by the United States Senate on July 26, 1991. Luttig graduated from Washington and Lee University in 1976 before receiving his Juris Doctorate from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1981. He briefly worked in the White House before serving as a law clerk for Antonin Scalia, then a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1982-1983, and then for Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1983-1984. Luttig remained as a special assistant to the Chief Justice until 1985, when he went into private practice. In 1989, Luttig returned to government service, holding offices in the Department of Justice until his appointment to the Court of Appeals.

    What I think: Luttig would fit the bill as a strict follower of the Constitution. He has criticized other judges for making decisions based on ideological ideas instead of constitutional arguments.

    Who will it be?

    Mr. C

    Bush to name SC nominee today?

    I have more to post but I have a vet appointment at 11. I will post more links and commentary this afternoon. If Bush nominates it will probably be after lunch anyway.

    Here's the link from the Washington Post speculating a female judge about to be named.

    Mr. C

    July 18, 2005

    Did anything happen over the weekend?

    Thumb_penguin_slapNo, not really. So here are a few links to consider. (Click on the penguin picture, sometimes a pat on the back isn't all it's worth!)

    First, FL News made my post on Fl Dems in 06 a "Must-Read Post" and a lively discussion in the comments section ensued. I guess if they aren't going to discuss it on my site at least someone is talking about me somewhere. Wait, the phone is ringing. It might be the GOP HQ so let me go...

    Nope, it wasn't GOP. So, here are some other post from the weekend and today.

    If you read the aformentioned post then this news regarding Citrus Canker will only help drive home my point.

    No difference at this point in the race for governor. [Florida Politics]

    This post draws a link between terrorist suicide bombers and the American gay population by trying an, "analogy between Europe's unassimilated young Sunni Muslims and America's unassimilated young gays." Read it for yourself at A Stitch in Haste.

    More on the debate between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design from TCS.

    And if you are into Hasidic [Jewish] Reggae then this is your guy. This really is amazing. [Caution, video starts up.]

    And finally, some of you may have noticed - or not - the new list of links titled "BlogRoll" along the left sidebar. I decided to experiment with Blogrolling and my first list of links are all New York links. It is one of my secret pastimes. New Yorkers are fascinating and entertaining, enlightened and repressive, people of the world but firmly ensconced and tied down by the city. I simply love to read all the various blogs and websites that the city has to offer. I am thinking of doing a sort of review of all the NY blogs I read, but not today. If you are interested start reading at the top and work your way down. If you find something a little too racy then remember, I left out all the really raunchy sites, it's just not my style. You should get a little bit of everything, and some that you didn't plan on. And Hat Tip to Alarming News who I frequent and is one of the best NY conservative blogs... and who I stole most of my links from, because she already did most of the work.

    July 15, 2005

    Liberal confusion regarding Rove, "We were wrong again!"

    Yesterday I said, wouldn't it be funny? Then last night the NY Times penned this piece, and today the roundup. [Via Michelle Malkin]

    Also, see Red State for lots of discussion threads like this and this.

    July 13, 2005

    The Perfect Supreme Court Nominee?

    Drudge is reporting Rehnquist was just admitted to the hospital with a fever. So, now seems like a perfect time to post the second piece from Blogger X. I gotta say, I love how X goes out on a limb. Get your conspiracy theories ready about who Bush will nominate, the following is humbly submitted for your analysis. I will leave my thoughts in the comments section... if you feel so inclined, you can too.

    Mr. C

    July 11, 2005

    I'm Back and I've got company - Katherine Harris is getting ready for a fight!

    I'm back! No post today due to a meltdown at Comcast and a Helpline that was out of service. I apologize. They have it fixed now so I have an excellent post for you.

    Many of you may remember my classified, ahem, help wanted, ad. This is the first of what I hope to be many post by contributing authors responding. In this particular instance the poster will be posting anonymously so I will sign all entries from this author as Blogger X. If you have opinions leave them in the comments.

    Mr. C

    July 02, 2005

    Yesterday's thoughts on O/conner, Bush and the big picture

    This is huge, the pundits say, because O'conner is the "moderate," the swing voter, the first woman. There is rampant speculation for who is on the short list and I keep hearing how this is Bush's chance to shift the balance to the right. Hooey. If we all quit wetting our pants about this single nomination and think out the long view it becomes a little more interesting, and the stakes much higher. Bush, and whoever comes after him, could shift the entire dynamics of the Supreme Court and jurisprudence for generations to come.

    The Supreme Court has never, I repeat never, gone this long without a replacement. So we know SDO retired today. Rehnquist will probably be next,wether it's this year or next, he will surely go before Bush's term is up. They should theoretically both be replaced by a conservative, but then what? Scalia and Thomas will both be around for some time to come, one of whom could be elevated to the Chief Justice.

    The ages/years-on-court of the remaining Justices?

    Rehnquist - 81/19
    Stevens - 85/30
    Ginsburg - 72/12
    Scalia - 69/19
    Kennedy - 69/17
    Breyer - 67/10
    Souter - 66/15
    Thomas - 57/14

    Everyone believes Rehnquist to be leaving soon so I won't address that again. So who's next? Stevens is gone within the next 6 years which means Bush, or his successor will name a replacement. I think we could also see Ginsburg leave in the next 6-10 years putting her replacement also in the hands of the next president. It's likely Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and/or Breyer could leave within the next 10 years. It could literally be three nominations for Bush and four or FIVE nominations for his successor. My contention is George's successor should be Jeb! in 2008.

    Considering H.W. named Clarence Thomas to the bench, then if Jeb! succeeds George, the entire Supreme Court could be appointees of the Bush family within the next decade, and if appropriately youthful, could direct jurisprudence in the US for decades. I know many of you will balk at the idea but consider the alternative.

    If Bush names two or three justices then Hillary becomes president and names the next four or five jsutices, then we lose. The next president may need to replace Scalia and/or Kennedy and if conservatives want to gain hegemony over the courts then we have to think about the big picture. Who comes next? Not just on the court bench, but in the White House.

    If someone like Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado, wins the nomination and Presidency then he would likely name judges from the western US, giving us more justices like O'conner, moderate and swing. No thank you.

    If someone like Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, or Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney were to follow George they would likely search for judges from the north and midwest, also typically moderate, and socially liberal, swing type judges. Again, no thank you.

    Consider Arknsas Governor Mike Huckabee. Do you think he would be pressured to name Bill Clinton to the bench? What if Bill Clinton was the last of four or five nominations? Seems more likely doesn't it? 

    If Bush is thinking big picture then he should be considering who he can name to the bench that will meet his criteria and grow the GOP electorate. Hispanics, blacks, women. He could replace O'conner with a black or hispanic man or woman, replace Rehnquist with a strict constructionist and replace Stevens with a right wing minority, preferably Asian.

    For now, I wish the pundits would quit talking about how Bush could alter the face of the Supreme court or how he can push it farther right. If he and Rove don't take care of business then it's the next president, possibly Hillary Clinton (with her husband at her side) who will remake the face of the Supreme Court, and it definitely will not be someone we like.


    I want to interject a thought I had today so hopefully everyone will quit hyperventilating about this nomination and think about the big picture. Who's next? And then who? And then who? And then who? Step back and think about the third, fourth and fifth picks.

    July 01, 2005

    US Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor will retire

    Just saw this on Drudge. Kudos to William Kristol who was out front on this a week ago.

    Again, check out the Supreme Court Primer at Real Clear Politics.

    Late term abortion, U of Michigan afirmative action, removal of Ten Commandments - Just a few of the positions she supported.

    First thoughts, it would be great to replace her with a hispanic (Gonzalez, Estrada), or a black woman (Janice Rodgers Brown), and watch the left go crazy trying to defeat them.

    Here is a link to some profiles for possible replacements, including Gonzalez and Brown.

    Will be adding my SCOTUS links today.
    Update: links added.

    June 30, 2005

    The Case for Jeb in 2008 - Part II

    This piece is based on the realities of election strategy, not recent trends or polls. In Part I, I discuss possible GOP Primary candidates and one General Election opponent in particular. In Part II my thoughts on Jeb. Thanks for reading. Leave comments if you have thoughts.

    The Case for Jeb in 2008 - Part II

    Assuming Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President in 2008, then the best Republican strategy for winning in 2008 is simple: have a strategy for winning. If the GOP has to play 27 rounds of poker with eight or more wannabees, then the GOP will lose electoral ground every day to the presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. When the primaries are over and it’s time to craft a general election strategy the eventual winner will be in a situation with little money and little time to build a compelling case for American voters, much like Kerry-Edwards in 2004. 

    With primaries in both the Republican and the Democratic parties the MSM will not be dividing coverage equally. The eventual primary winner will be behind in the polls, lacking name ID and lacking money. The solution to this problem is to define a candidate early, support him vigorously, and go on the offensive swiftly. 

    What does the GOP need to win? Jeb Bush. In my opinion, he is the only logical choice if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and GOP is serious about keeping the White House in 2008. 

    The GOP needs a candidate who can raise $300-400 million. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe every single donor who gave $300+ million to George in 2004 wouldn’t also give that much to Jeb? Or more? If a GOP candidate has to run against Hillary and Bill, what better combination than George and Jeb? In the run up to the 2000 primaries many in the base of the Republican Party (i.e., donors) wanted Jeb, not George. He is the Barry Goldwater of our generation. No other Republican candidate can match Jeb’s credentials, grassroots, network, or fundraising. 

    After four years of the war on terrorism and seemingly uncontrollable government growth, the GOP needs a candidate who is credible when he says he will reduce the size of government. In his second inaugural address Jeb said, “May these [government] buildings one day stand empty, a memorial to a time when government was oversized and not needed.” In the six years Jeb has been governor of Florida he has reduced the size of government and cut taxes nearly every year. In addition, state revenues have increased and jobs opportunities have grown—all this while experiencing a national recession and multiple natural disasters. Today, Florida maintains one of the highest state credit ratings in the fifty states.

    The GOP needs a candidate with strong ties overseas and is credible on foreign policy, especially trade with Latin America and South America. In addition to established Bush family ties (Saudis, Kuwaitis, and now Iraqis) Jeb works daily with many of the United States largest trade partners. He manages a state that represents a third of all American exports. Jeb has negotiated on behalf of the Free Trade of The Americas (FTTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreements (CAFTA). Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, and Guatemala are but a few of the Central and South American countries that the United States must work with in the future on trade, immigration, and security.

    The GOP needs a candidate with strong Hispanic ties. Jeb is married to Columba, a woman of Mexican descent. His high profile son, George P., is the Ricky Martin of Hispanic politics. Jeb manages a state that deals with immigration issues from virtually every Hispanic country in the Western Hemisphere. Additionally, he is quite experienced with policy debate regarding the balance between temporary workers, migrant workers, and border security.

    The GOP needs a candidate strong on faith, but not fanatical or extremist. Jeb is Catholic, a candidate devoted to his faith but not a right wing ideologue that many swing voters fear. 

    The GOP needs a candidate who can reach out to centrist and moderate voters. Jeb’s stands on issues like Terry Schiavo and parental notification for underage abortions affirm his protection of life and a defense of parents. His very public problems with his daughter’s drug addiction make him more human to most middle-America parents. 

    The GOP needs a candidate strong on education. Jeb’s priority as Governor of Florida has always been improving education. He has instituted multiple versions of vouchers and funding mechanisms for alternatives to failing schools. As a result, more schools are improving and children attending failing schools have the opportunity to receive a better education. While, there have been some controversies over vouchers, his policy for education demonstrates a leader willing to take a chance and explore all options. 

    In light of the failures and criticisms of the voucher programs, the average math and reading test scores in Florida have increased and passage rates have increased. All the more remarkable considering those gains were achieved in spite of a growing school-aged population that outpaces that of the a dozen states combined, and a sizable school-age population that doesn’t speak English as a first language.

    The GOP needs a candidate who is strong on domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. In the retirement state that is Florida, Jeb has earned his stripes many times over regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He took the lead on promoting a more sustainable health insurance program and is working to reform Medicare in Florida in his lame duck year. And an added benefit, nobody knows better how to win the vote among the most active and growing voting population in America, senior citizens.

    The GOP needs a candidate whose political and electoral mettle is tested and battle ready. Jeb worked his way through the Florida political system navigating considerable insider networks to build his own coalition of insiders. He has governed through an overzealous right wing legislature and managed the implementation of term limits. No governor in America withstands the slings and arrows of the daily media onslaught that Jeb endures. No governor in America was targeted for attack, or has ever been targeted, such as Jeb was by the DNC in 2002. And no governor in America has defended himself and successfully pushed his priorities such as Jeb.

    Among “political” and media pundits the only substantial reason against Jeb is that he is the President’s brother; it would be unprecedented in American history and the word “dynasty” would corrupt the process. That’s the worst? From a strategic standpoint I want to know my leader. When the campaigning to be President of the United States begins I want all boots on the ground.

    If I am a member of the executive GOP–and I’m not–I don’t want to spend the next four years parachuting in feelers for this or that potential candidate. I don’t want to spend money and time researching the credentials behind the lines of a weak candidate in what is surely an atypical election year. Let’s face it; if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee then the GOP has only one chance to end the mystique of the Clintons and solidify their dominance of American politics for a generation. That chance is now.

    Governor Jeb Bush is the only Republican with the requisite name ID, governing experience, conservative credentials, political ties and fundraising ability to even compete with the Clintons. He is term limited out of office in 2006 giving him two years without obligation to elected office.

    He may not like it, but the solution for the GOP is to draft Jeb Bush now and start the campaign, behind the scenes, and for real. The race for the GOP primary should be over by the summer of 2006 and Jeb Bush should be the GOP candidate for president in 2008.

    Mr. C

    June 29, 2005

    Wolfpack Baller, economy, more harris bashing, new link, Religion, and wrestling

    Challenge Day 4

    Congrats to Wolfpack baller Julius Hodge, 20th pick to the Denver Nuggets in last night's NBA Draft.

    I missed the speech last night, and I am sure you have already read all about, but if you haven't here's a roundup of coverage in the major media provided by Outdside the Beltway.

    US Economy still improving. Thank the Bush Tax Cuts. More would be better.

    Looking for more reasons to doubt Katherine Harris? Then carry your liberal backside over to this post - NEW QUINNIPIAC POLL CONFIRMS NELSON LEAD OVER HARRIS IN HEAD TO HEAD SENATE BATTLE - at I4Jamming

    White Trash Wednesday at Pirates Cove. It's not as bad as it sounds.

    Are testing agencies in it for the buck or for the educational improvement of the children? Go from that to the difference between parents and teachers expectations for children and some historical links to educational expectations of children by the institution.

    Level 4 Morality, Idealism and Individualism at the Partial Observer.

    Presidents and Religion through SOS.

    Staying with religion and seguing to the Supreme Court is this interesting post about the Ten Commandments and the Beatitutdes. I definitely see his point. However, I think the foundations of law and society are based on old school rules. The foundations of morality and relationships, love and forgiveness, are based on new school teachings. Think of it this way,

    • Old school rules are for the group, the impersonal
    • New school rules are for the individual, the personal

    God doesn't care about the group, he cares about you personally. At least I think so anyway.

    SCOTUS and China? Read this opinion on the Kelo decision from Matt Warner of the James Madison Institute in today's Democrat. My favorite part -

    Totalitarian governments with a socialist bent are experts when it comes to trampling on individual rights in the name of benefiting the masses.

    How easy would it be to replace Totalitarian governments with the Democratic Party and nobody would even notice? 

    From SCOTUS Blog, Will there be a resignation?

    And finally, Did you know Hulk Hogan lived in Florida? Did you know he has a TV show?

    June 28, 2005

    Jeb! 2008: Part I

    This piece is based on the realities of election strategy, not recent trends or polls. In Part I, I discuss possible GOP Primary candidates and one General Election opponent in particular. In Part II my thoughts on Jeb. Thanks for reading. Leave comments if you have thoughts on the strength of any candidates mentioned.

    The Case for Jeb in 2008 - Part I

    Florida Governor Jeb Bush has certainly been clear regarding his intentions for President in 2008. “No thank you,” he says. But for Republicans and conservatives everywhere, this may not be acceptable. Here are a few reasons why.

    Many Republicans, pundits and insiders are asking themselves, if not Jeb then who? There are plenty of options: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Former New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani, New York Governor George Pataki, Colorado Governor Bill Owens, and Virginia Senator George Allen among others.

    All of these candidates have positive traits and sizeable support. Together they have shaped the past five years of American and Republican policy. But any political hack could give a list of reasons not to vote for any member this group. Here’s a short glimpse of how it goes.

    Condoleezza Rice is a single woman with zero elective experience. There is nothing wrong with being single, or an unelected official, unless you are running for President. If she went home and replaced Arnold Schwarzenegger as the first black female governor of California, then she could return as a contender for President.

    Bill Frist is a Washington D.C. insider who, in my opinion, has been a lackluster leader in the U.S. Senate. His southern roots are as strong as Al Gore’s in 2000–i.e. given the right set of circumstances and a solid candidate on the left, it’s possible he could lose his own state. To be a viable candidate he must make great strides in the public perception of his leadership and that is going to be difficult with the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle.

    John McCain is a joke to party loyalists. He is a centrist, which may help in the general election, but not the primary. His recent indiscretions include participation with the Gang of 14 and campaign finance reform. This doesn’t play well with the base or the pajama hadin. Should McCain get a serious look at the presidency against a credible Democratic candidate (if that’s even possible), his S&L scandals and rocky history would surely resurface with the MSM. He will be loved by the press during the GOP primary, then the gloves will be off.

    Rick Santorum is an ultraconservative Senator who alienates moderates. He will face a strong reelection challenge, and little is known about him outside his state of Pennsylvania. With the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battles, his in-state challenges, and a growing family, he will have little time to create any positive spin for a presidential campaign.

    Rudy Giuliani is always mentioned as a favorite and a leader in the polls, but his pro-choice and socially liberal positions may get in the way. If he can’t court the right wing in the primary, then who is going to vote for him? On some issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage) there is little difference between him and Clinton Democrats. Lots of “experts” and insiders would say he would run right and avoid these positions in the primary. That’s just pure fantasy and here’s why—without an incumbent candidate (like Vice President Dick Cheney) the primary becomes a free for all, a cage match with no holds barred. Every candidate in the primary will be sure to bring up the former Mayor's pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage positions every time they step in front of a microphone.

    If by some chance Giuliani won the GOP nomination, why would a woman choose him over Hillary? What’s the difference on the salient issues to females? It’s too early for polls to give us an idea of how a race between these two would effect women, but I assure you, political professionals, not pundits, are thinking about this as I write.

    Conservatives were talking hard about George Pataki several months ago, but his star is dimming as of late. If he does jump in the race consider this–as the Republican Governor of New York he actually supported tax increases after campaigning to reform NY politics. That’s more of the same; and it’s not the kind of governing record primary voters look for when selecting a candidate.

    For many of you, Bill Owens will bring the following question: “Bill who?” The current Governor of Colorado is a conservative who does what he says. He has worked to cut taxes, reduce the size of government, and introduce real choice in education. Unfortunately, nobody knows him.

    Virginia Senator George Allen is a solid conservative with tons of name recognition on the east coast and parts of the south, but not nationally. Plus, he’s a Senator and they have not been successful lately.

    Other potential candidates include, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

    With the exception of Rice, Giuliani and McCain (whose additional drawbacks are noted above) they all share one big and expensive problem–name ID in mainstream America. Name ID is absolutely essential to winning swing voters and elections.

    The GOP and motivated consultants must raise and spend extra money to overcome a lack of name recognition before they can effectively attack the opponent. Each of these candidates may try, and some will last longer than others, but one big reason exists why none of these candidates will measure up—Senator Hillary Clinton.

    For Republicans and conservatives alike Senator Clinton represents the perfect storm in a political opponent.

    She is a married mother with governing experience. She is a wife of one of the most popular presidents in American history. She fields enough political ties to pull influence city council races in America’s major liberal cities. She has contributed to several major congressional races and she will expect reciprocity. Senator Clinton has multiple 527’s, and she began her Senate/Presidential bid (unofficially) the day after Senator Kerry conceded. She has money in the bank and can easily raise the $300+ million that may be required to win the presidency in today’s world of politics.

    There is little doubt the extreme left loves Senator Clinton and would trust her to defend liberal policy. She could declare herself a born again conservative on national television and the left wing would believe it to be strategy. In fact, Hillary is appearing to move to the center of American politics with her recent speeches on abortion and her public appearances with Frist, Gingrich, McCain, Lindsey Graham and other GOP notables. Additionally, her Senate voting record shows her moving toward the right on questions of defense.

    On Election Day more women will vote for Clinton than against her; she will probably win the African American vote 8-2 or better; and she can guarantee a huge turnout at the polls. She has a husband who just happens to be a very popular and very recent ex-president who will campaign for her tirelessly. Plus, and this is a big plus, she has name ID that extends beyond American borders—everybody knows Hillary Clinton.

    Jeb, Reagan & Goggles

    Challenge Day 3

    Since this came out yesterday, and apparently there will be more next week, my piece, Jeb 2008! Part 1, will be posted later today.

    History revisionist beware, we know the truth.

    Swimming never looked so cool.

    June 27, 2005

    Happy Birthday!

    You may have noticed no posts this weekend. Two reasons -

    1. I am still waiting for a response from a liberal or democrat regarding my challenge.
    2. Today is my birthday.

    I have a few links planned for last saturday, and you get today. Expect lots more posts this week, but probably not today.

    First, the real problem with Kelo. Forget about owning homes, put your money in the market.
    UPDATE: The Supreme Court has lost it's collective mind.
    UPDATE: Truth or Death gives good history lesson.

    Some right on commentary from RCP regarding the Rove "event" last week.

    I dislike Senator Hillary Clinton as much as the next conservative, but believe me there are plenty of well documented real world stories about the Clintons that we don't have to resort to tabloid style books. I am not alone in my dislike for the idea behind a recent book about her.

    See Florida Politics for more links form the weekend on the Maddox debacle.

    When mad cow hit the US the first time the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was in panic mode for about two days, due in no small part by the ignorance of the media. I wonder how they are handling it this week? Since mad cow has virtually no impact on human consumption, unless cow brains become a delicacy overnight, then I don't care enough to follow this story.

    Ever heard of the "Florida Cracker?" Cattle is an important part of the Florida economy and a large part of it's history. Commissioner Charles Bronson owes much of his family's standing in the state to a long history with cattle. Before citrus, there was cattle. Cattle came with Ponce de Leon, before St. Augustine was founded. Before that, there was nothing of value in Florida.

    That may be an exageration, but if mad cow ever hit Florida, and we still can't get a handle on citrus canker after 7 years (more from sunday, and two weeks ago), then we would be back to nothing quick.

    In a couple weeks I will attend a lunch where Commissioner Bronson will be speaking. Once I hear what is on his mind I will post more about him and citrus canker. But for now let me say if Commissioner Bronson doesn't make some dramatic changes to his citrus canker policies and plans then I think he can expect a challenger. And if the Florida Supreme Court ruling against the state leads to increased compensation for the owners of more than four million trees "eradicated," then you can count on it.

    Happy Birthday!

    Mr. C

    June 21, 2005

    News before it's News

    Not everyone pays attention to news before it's news, so here's a primer on the upcoming Supreme Court battle from RCP.

    OR the election after next, like Patrick Ruffini's 2008 Presidential Wire or, the Future Losers News Wire as like to call it.

    And hardly anybody I know stay's up to date on what's happening in space, the actual outer space, but there is some cool stuff going on appropriately named Deep Impact. I think it's apparent NASA has cleared out the old stuffy heads and replaced them with a more appropriate group. This sounds like a job for Harry and AJ now.

    An excellent speech, "Why limited government?," by Lawrence Reed.

    You thought the FCAT was bad? Well, I didn't but I know I have a lot of liberal readers who do. Check these two links out on testing in North Carolina and New York then tell me which you would prefer, ours or theirs?

    And this on a "different" kind of charter school coming soon to St. Lucie County, Florida. Sounds like fun, or another way for liberal educators to tweek their 10-year-old brainwashing skills.

    Finally, in the "ya think?" file from the Democrat.

    This should get you through lunch, but more later. I will now seek out illuminating liberal commentary to shut the door on. Have a great morning!

    Mr. C

    June 20, 2005

    Biden challenges, Killer Bees & Free Katie

    I just saw this and I missed it over the weekend so I wanted to get a link up for all interested parties. Biden to Seek Presidential Nomination.

    And this graph of Democrat decline in the Senate is more than a week old now, but still delightful.

    Visit Truth or Death, I noticed he posted on the Presb. Church resolution last Thursday, Prop 65 and cancer causing chalupas on Friday (I hit this on Thursday), marriage, the courts, and the failure of the above mentioned Presb. Church resolution this weekend. Today he posted on abortion. Did you see my theory flying out the window?

    Aren't conservatives great?

    As if Hurricanes aren't enough, FL Killer Bees are spreading.

    And, finally, I couldn't help it - Free Katie!

    Have great day.

    Hate Monday?

    Well kids, this seems to be a roundup of hate from the left over the weekend. I guess someone sent the memo to move full steam ahead.

    From RCP, Democrats Sign Up with Anti-Semites. and commentary about Durbin's Gitmo remarks, which are similar to mine (the commentary not Durbins remarks) except for the Democrat as president bit.

    This "article" is a disgusting piece of work deriding Bush (all of them actually) as name renters as the author resorts to name dropping to make his case.

    This insinuation by Florida Politics that AG Charlie Crist (and current GOP Candidate for FL Governor) is in cahoots with Bush on Terri Schiavo because he missed the boat earlier.

          It's tough trying to woo the wingnuts that control the Florida GOP and at the same time pretend you're a moderate. 

    Not really hateful, just underhanded, but then again, that's what liberals do, muddle the facts. Like the fact the AG takes his orders from the Gov. whether he agrees with them or not. It's called chain of command.

    And my own poersonal hate for the weekend - why is this guy still alive? I guess I could comment on the liberal law enforcement and court systems of Washington, Oregon and Calilfornia, but I won't. The short response - I would have "sevened" his ass on the spot.

    More as I come across it....

    Mr. C

    June 16, 2005

    Welcome to Visitors from the Truth Laid Bear

    I guess this is my first big mention by a large blog, even if I suspect it was a passive action. While I was there I learned I was a Flippery Fish? Any idea what that is?

    Have a look around drop back by in the future. I do this almost everyday!

    And if you have no idea what I am talking about, I am recieving several hits from the Truth Laid Bear Immigration topics page tonight because of this post. This is what amazes me about blogs, when you don't really say anything profound, you get picked up. But try to be smart, and nothing. ;-) LOL.

    Mr. C

    June 14, 2005

    McCain May Be Bush's Ticket

    I don't think so - but I do love it when liberal journalist try to paint their dream scenario into a mainstream idea. Link: McCain May Be Bush's Ticket. First noted EARLY this morning at the liberal Florida Politics. The latest piece from "BS" Dionne begins,

    McCain-Bush in 2008?

    That would be John and Jeb, the most logical Republican ticket if the party remains in the polling doldrums. If President Bush and his political maestro, Karl Rove, decide that the only way to create a political legacy is to nod toward the Arizona senator with whom they have battled and feuded, they will go for the guy who can win.

    Let's talk about strategy for a minute...

    Continue reading "McCain May Be Bush's Ticket" »

    June 10, 2005

    Dean's a disgrace:
    The chairman who knows no shame

    I have nothing more to add. Link: The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News - 10-Jun-05 - Dean's a disgrace:
    The chairman who knows no shame

    Mr. C

    June 03, 2005


    From MW Online - ab·surd
    Pronunciation: &b-'s&rd, -'z&rd
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle French absurde, from Latin absurdus, from ab- + surdus deaf, stupid
    1 : ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous
    2 : having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : MEANINGLESS; also : lacking order or value

    EJ Dionne's piece in today's Houston Chronicle Using 'gulag' as a metaphor was outrageous, but .... is absurd. Why am I not surprised the word has French roots?

    What's the expectation that comes with using the word "but"? Everything before it is a lie.

    Continue reading "Absurd" »

    Mr. G Says...

    Out of State Allies

    PRFL Contributors


    • Get this widget from Widgetbox

    Copyright and Disclaimer