Liberal Jokes and Conservative Quotes

Slippery-Slide

2006-04-02T03:35:00.000-04:00

We are often told that the slippery-side argument is just the rant of crazy paranoid ideologues that worry too much. Well, at least with McCain-Feingold, they were right. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 passed both the house and senate conservatives were told not to worry and that this would prevent harsher future regulation under a democrat administration. Well it has only been four years and still with a Republican controlled congress the talk of more regulation has started up again. This time 527’s and the internet, the two last realms for unregulated political speech left, are under attack. With House bill H.R. 513 and Senate S. 1053, nearly all 527 groups would be forced to become political action committees. To make matters worse, bills that would protect free speech like H.R. 1606: Online Freedom of Speech Act, are not even getting a floor vote. Well it seems like the Republican Party has not only become the party of spending but also the party of regulation

They Will Pay!!!!

2005-11-13T22:04:00.000-05:00

The RINOs think that have won but we will see who has the last laugh in 06. The Congressmen of the RINO group known as the Republican mainstream partnership, which is funded by George Soros no less, stopped both ANWR and the budget cut on Thursday. Let me make my self clear: This is a civil war for control of the Republican Party. This is war of ideologies, there is both good and evil and they are evil. They are the enemy within that will slowly tear apart out party unless utterly destroyed. As Rush says:

“They're not "moderates." Don't hit me with that. There's no such thing as a moderate. A moderate is just a liberal disguise, and they are doing everything they can to derail the conservative agenda.”

No longer can conservatives sit on the sidelines watching as they are slapped in the face by the President, Senate and House, they have spent their time and money to form. We must once again rise up, as we did during the 1980, 1994, and 2004 races.

There are two ways we can do that. First we need to beat both liberal republican and democrat incumbents, with strong conservative nominees. The second is a more painful decision, if unable to upset a RINO in the primaries; we must sit at home and not vote. For years we have heard; “Every republican counts”, “We must build our majority.” Well look at were that has gotten us. We can lose 14 house members and 4 senate members and still remain our majority, if all other incumbents win. People what we can afford to get rid of:

Senators:

Mike Dewine of Ohio
Olympia Snowe of Maine
Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island

House

Charles Bass of New Hampshire;
Sherwood Boehlert, New York;
Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire;
Mike Castle, Delaware;
Vernon Ehlers, Michigan;
Mike Ferguson, New Jersey;
Mike Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania;
Rod Frelinghuysen, New Jersey;
Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania;
Wayne Gilcrest, Montana;
Bob Inglis, South Carolina;
Nancy Johnson, Connecticut;
Tim Johnson, Illinois;
Sue Kelly, New York;

Alito's Judicial Imprudence

2005-11-11T10:30:00.000-05:00

Judge Samuel Alito, of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, is by all estimations a brilliant man. He may not be as sharp as Chief Justice John Roberts but is nonetheless highly intelligent. This doesn't translate into ethics though. Perhaps it was an oversight on the part of Judge Alito. It is a serious lapse, though, a lapse of Bernie Kerik proportions. Alito invested heavily in Vanguard mutual funds, something that was brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings back in 1990. He agreed - maybe even signed a document to this effect - to recuse himself from any case in which Vanguard was involved. Some years later, Vanguard was sued and the case went to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Sam Alito heard the case and ruled in favor of Vanguard. Of course, he would have been stupid not to preserve his economic interest in ruling for them, but that he didn't recuse himself is a tad interesting. We shall see where this long and winding road goes. If Bush is handed another major defeat like rejecting the nominee or even another withdrawal he will be completely exposed and have nothing left politically. Already he's in trouble. The Republicans in the House are selling out by the score and senators look to be jumping ship - a ship held together by duct tape and bailing wire.

Democrats' Pre- War Quotes

2005-11-08T02:38:00.000-05:00

Keep in mind that Congress can receive the same intelligence that the president. They have just as high security clearance. They also get briefed by the CIA director just like the President.

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002 "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002 "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”

If I were Saddam Hussein- Rush

2005-11-08T02:27:00.000-05:00

If I were Saddam Hussein, I would demand that my trial be postponed on this basis:

The honorable Senate Democrats in the United States are doing an honorable investigation to find out exactly what happened to cause me to lose my country, and until these honorable Senate Democrats in the United States get every one of their questions answered about the manipulation and the distortion of the intelligence -- and of course all of the lies about my having weapons of mass destruction; all this before my country was invaded -- I can't get a fair trial, until all these questions are answered by the Senate Democrats. And after these Senate Democrats get the answers that we all know are out there, I, Saddam Hussein, would argue that I never had any weapons of mass destruction, and whatever bad intelligence was generated by a cowboy, fratboy president and his indicted staff, who have poisoned world opinion about me and my government, and as such, I can't get a fair trial anywhere -- and I want my country back. I'm going to make this trial about George W. Bush, and I'm going to be calling as witnesses people like Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy. I'm going to call Chuck Schumer.

I, Saddam Hussein, would say that the Senate Democrats are on the way to proving that President Bush has led a false war, permanently screwed up children all over the world as to how you solve problems. My country is Muslim. We are very different from western countries, and that scares stupid, evangelical cowboys like George Bush. Why, Prince Charles even had to go tell Bush, "You misunderstood Islam," the other day. I'd call Prince Charles as a witness! So what does this cowboy Bush do when his oil baron buddies can't have my oil for themselves? Well, they start a war on false pretenses because everybody knows that this war was about nothing but oil and that's why all the intelligence was trumped up, and that's why all of the lies were told and that's why everybody was told and agreed that I had weapons of mass destruction, is because the world wants my oil led by the cowboy Bush, and I thank God -- I thank Allah daily -- for the Senate Democrats, the Democrats of the United States Senate who are leading this courageous effort to prove what a liar and a disaster on the world stage George W. Bush has been. I can't get a fair trial, and until I get a fair trial -- which is not possible -- I demand my country back. All of this that has happened has been based on lies. The world can't sleep at night. If the world can do this to me, a man with nothing but benevolence and love in his heart for his people, what will they do next? Who will they do it to next? The cowboy Bush -- Cheney, Libby, Rove -- they must be stopped, and it's the Senate Democrats in that great institution, the United States Senate, who are leading the way.

What I'm saying is being said by elected members of the United States Senate. As I listen to the elected senators, Democrats of the United States Senate, as they pursue this honorable investigation of George W. Bush, I say to myself, "This is what I said to the UN. This is what I said to the weapons inspectors." This is what I said to the world when I was confronted with what everybody now knows (thanks to the Senate Democrats) are bogus, fake and trumped-up charges.

Bush is a liar! He lied about the reasons for and the need to invade my country, and I want it back. He hires liars. It is George Bush who should be impeached and convicted in his own country and then tried at The Hague in my place. Not me. I had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet I'm the one paying the price. You may not like me; I am Saddam Hussein. You may not agree with the ways of Muslim leaders in the Middle East, but does that give you the right to invade my country? No! The United States Senate Democrats obviously agree with me. They are honorable people. The world should align behind the Democrats of the United States Senate who are trying to wrong one of the most terrible injustices in the history of the world. It is George W. Bush who must be brought to justice by the brave and honorable members of the Democratic Party in the United States Senate. Because leaders of the world and people of the world, I, Saddam Hussein, say to you that it is the senators, the Democrat senators in the United States Senate are all that stand between peace and bloodthirsty imperialism by the United States. May Allah bless the good and decent truth-tellers in the Senate who will not let George Bush continue his lies to his country and to the world! George Bush hides behind his faith, but he's a liar just like these Senate Democrats are saying.

I, Saddam Hussein, from the bottom of my sizable heart, thank the Democrat senators in the United States and all of the websites that support them, and all of the Hollywood Democrats who are asking the Senate Democrats to continue this investigation. I thank all of the American media, because I think the American media is one of the last bastions of honesty and trustworthiness second only to the Democrats of the United States Senate. So I want to thank the mainstream media of the United States. I want to further point out that if my trial is not postponed -- if I can't get a postponement and if I can't get a dismissal of the charges, and if I don't get my country back -- if there is a trial, I demand that I be brought to the US for trial, in a United States civilian court. I can't get a fair trial in Iraq because it's Bush cronies. I can only get a fair trial in the United States where liberal Democrats run the court system. They're the ones doing the great work, the work of Allah, in order to maintain the lies of Bush and the distortions of the war. I want my country back. The United States does not recognize, the US court system doesn't recognize the Geneva Conventions; they don't recognize the due-process rights of illegal combatants like me or those held at Guantanamo Bay. John McCain and the Democrats wanted them tried under our justice system, and if illegal combatants are to be afforded with such treatment -- if you're going to give real terrorists the opportunity to be tried in your court system -- I, Saddam Hussein, demand to be tried in your court system because I am covered under the Geneva Conventions, and I should receive better treatment. And, by the way, I wish to point out -- and I know many people in the American ACLU will agree with me on this -- I, Saddam Hussein, was not Mirandized by the soldiers who captured me. I was denied a speedy trial as compelled by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The charges ought to be dismissed. They did nothing but point weapons to me in that foxhole. They didn't tell me my rights! They didn't tell me I had to shut up; they didn't tell me anything I said could be used against me. I was lied to not only by Bush but the by the whole US military, by Rumsfeld. I was lied to by Condoleezza Rice. I can't even count on Colin Powell anymore because he was part of the original cowboy cabal that kicked me out of my country.

If I get my trial in the United States of America as I so rightly deserve, I, Saddam Hussein, would like to call Dick Durbin as a witness because he would be able to testify that US troops are like Nazi storm troopers. He would be able to testify that US troops are no different than the murdering thugs of Pol Pot and the gulags of Stalin. I would next call Senator Kennedy who would be able to testify that US troops are no better than Hussein's thugs -- my thugs. I would call Michael Isikoff of Newsweek magazine. He would be able to testify how US troops mistreat prisoners by flushing their Korans down the toilet at G'itmo. I would do my best to get rid of Rush Limbaugh for turning Club G'itmo into Club G'itmo. It's not a joke what's happening there, and it's not a joke what's happening to me. I would also call Ambassador Joe Wilson, of course. He would be my star witness, because Joe Wilson would testify that I was not a bad guy; I was not somebody that posed a danger. I never once sought uranium from anywhere, because I didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, and Joe Wilson knows it and his wife, Valerie Plame, knows it. And so, my friends, I, Saddam Hussein, throw in with the Democrats in the United States Senate. They are my allies, and until they finish their great and glorious work for Allah in uncovering the truth about the lies and the distortions of the cowboy Bush, I demand these trials of me be postponed and the charges dismissed -- and I get my country back.- Rush Limbaugh

Happy But Not Ecstatic

2005-11-02T00:09:00.000-05:00

This is the feeling of most conservatives over the nomination of Alito. Not to sound that the conservative movement in never happy even when we get what we want, but it could have been better. I even said in a post weeks ago that I would support Alito if he was nominated, and I do, but recent stories have lessened my overall support.

The lack of conservative confidence can be seen in the new Townhall.com poll:

Are you happy with President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court?

Yes | (67 %)
No | (33 %)
Total Votes: 4085

Although this is not scientific poll most Townhall.com polls are a good source of the conservative pulse.

One of these stories is that Alito ruled against late-term abortions ban in New Jersey, although he did say he voted that way because of a high court decision. Also many conservative pundits, most notably Charles Krauthammer, said that they Alito will uphold Roe because of precedent.

Let me make myself clear: I do not want a judicial ideologue. (When I say judicial ideologue I mean judges who look at cases from the top down and base their decision on their ideological opinions) I do not think that ideologues belong on the bench but rather in elected positions. Scalia and Thomas are not ideologues, no matter what Chuck Schumer tells you, they look at a case from the bottom to the top and judges it merits. They then apply their judicial philosophy, originalism and come up with a well thought out and comprehensive decision.

So the question that conservatives need to ask is what judicial philosophy is Alito going to apply to cases.

Catholic Majority

2005-11-01T23:23:00.000-05:00

If Alito is confirmed there will by a 5-4 Catholic majority on the Court. There are also more Catholics in the House and Senate then any other religion. Though whether or not they are real “Catholics” or not is another story altogether. This still shows how far Catholics have come since the days of Nixon. Though Dick Durban, a catholic himself, did question whether John Roberts’s catholic religion would interfere with his independence on the court, most Catholics are not interrogated about their religion as they once were.

Has Reid Gone Mad!

2005-11-01T17:22:00.000-05:00

Well once again the minority party, and the fringe left have taken over the senate. Senator Reid called for a closed door session of congress without notifying Sen. Frist. This is an unprecedented move that is a danger to the American system and will bring a war between the parties that I don’t think Reid is ready for or could win. If he is wants to play this pathetic high school game then two can play at that game. Republicans should stop every liberal bill in the committees; they should rush Alito through the hearings, and then use Constitutional Option when they filibuster. Also the house should investigate the merits of the indictment of Tom Delay. Bush should also threaten to pardon Libby. If they want a war we will give them a war.

It is a little coincidental that this comes after one day of the far left anti-war movement saying if Hillary Clinton does not come out against the war that Cindy Sheehan will challenge her in the primaries. Many big donators have threatened to pull a lot of money because of the lack of “outrage” by the democrat establishment.

Roll Call

2005-11-01T13:40:00.000-05:00

This is our projected roll call of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:

59 to 39- for

Sen. Akaka (D-HI) - against

Sen. Alexander - for

Sen. Allard - for

Sen. Allen - for

Sen. Baucus- against

Sen. Bayh - for

Sen. Bennett- for

Sen. Biden - against

Sen. Bingaman - against

Sen. Bond - for

Sen. Boxer - against

Sen. Brownback - for

Sen. Bunning - for

Sen. Burns - for

Sen. Byrd - against

Sen. Cantwell - against

Sen. Carper -for

Sen. Chafee - for

Sen. Chambliss - for

Sen. Clinton - against

Sen. Coburn - for

Sen. Cochran - for

Sen. Coleman - for

Sen. Collins - against

Sen. Conra - for

Sen. Conrad - against**

Sen. Cornyn - for

Sen. Corzine - against

Sen. Craig - for

Sen. Crapo - for

Sen. Dayton - against

Sen. Demint- for

Sen. Dewine- for

Sen. Dodd- against

Sen. Dole- for

Sen. Domenici - for

Sen. Dorgan - against

Sen. Durbin - against

Sen. Ensign - for

Sen. Enzi - for

Sen. Feingold - against

Sen. Feinstein - against

Sen. Frist - for

Sen. Graham - for

Sen. Grassley - against

Sen. Gregg – for

Sen. Hagel - for

Sen. Hharkin - against

Sen. Hatch - for

Sen. Hutchison - for

Sen. Inhofe - for

Sen. Inouye - against

Sen. Isakson – for

Sen. Jeffords - for

Sen. Johnson - for

Sen. Kennedy - against

Sen. Kerry - against

Sen. Kohl - against

Sen. Kyl - for

Sen. Landrieu - against

Sen. Lautenbeg - against

Sen. Leahy - for

Sen. Levin - against

Sen. Lieberman - against

Sen. Lincoln - against

Sen. Lott - for

Sen. Lugar - for

Sen. Martinez - for

Sen. McCain - for

Sen. McConnell - for

Sen. Mikulski - against

Sen. Murkowski - for

Sen. Murray - against

Sen. Nelson of fl - against

Sen. Nelson of ne - against

Sen. Obama - against

Sen. Pryor - for

Sen. Reed of RI - against

Sen. Reid of NV - against

Sen. Roberts - for

Sen. Rockefeller - against

Sen. Salazar - for

Sen. Santorum - for

Sen. Sarbanes - against

Sen. Schumer - against

Sen. Sessions - for

Sen. Shelby - for

Sen. Smith - or

Sen. Snowe - against

Sen. Specter - for

Sen. Stabenow - against

Sen. Stevens - for

Sen. Sununu - for

Sen. Talent - for

Sen. Thomas - for

Sen. Thune - for

Sen. Vitter - for

Sen. Voinovich - for

Sen. Warner- for

Sen., Wyden- against

Bold= Thomas disagrees with Bryan

Second Term Presidencies

2005-10-30T15:52:00.000-05:00

This morning on Meet the Press three former presidential Chiefs of Staff, historian Michael Beschloss, N.Y. Times columnists David Brooks and Bill Safire, Washington Post columnist and dean of political reporters David Broder, and Judy Woodruff gathered in two separate roundtables to discuss the President's second term and the problems it is encountering.

In a special reminiscence, the late President Richard Nixon made an appearance via archival footage from 1988. The late Mr. Nixon made some very good points, namely that second terms aren't friendly. Nixon's statement was made at the time of the Iran Contra scandal, a time where Reagan could have been impeached and it was clear that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. Bill Clinton's initial indiscretion was less political than other things, but his second term still evolved into a political fight enveloping both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue ultimately culminating in the first impeachment and trial of a President since Andrew Johnson in the years immediately after the Civil War. Nixon's own second term is self-explanatory - he resigned in disgrace. Eisenhower's second term was no treat either according to his Vice President. Truman narrowly defeated Thomas Dewey and had no "mandate" to operate. His second term was the start of the Cold War and American involvement in Korea. As far back as Woodrow Wilson second terms have been unkind. The Versailles Treaty debacle and Wilson's incapacitation led his wife, Edith Galt Wilson, to run the White House. The 20th century has not been one of second term success for Presidents.

Leon Panetta (Clinton CoS), appearing on Meet the Press with Hamilton Jordan (Carter CoS) and Ken Duberstein (Reagan CoS), had this to say: "Second-term presidencies are affected by two very important dangers. One is arrogance, where you think you can get away with whatever you want. The second danger is isolation from the American people. You live in a bubble, and everybody in the White House lives in a bubble." I think Mr. Panetta has it right. Reelection to the highest office in the land is certainly an ego boost, one that can last a long while. President Bush believed he had his mandate to do what he wanted. But Iraq, the reaction to Katrina, the events surrounding the Plame affair, and the Miers nomination have brought him down. Energy prices are coming down a little - but heating oil this winter won't be cheap. Ken Duberstein said this:

"But I think he has about three months, between now and the State of the Union address, to start going on the offense, to start laying out some issues that mean something to the American people, to overcome the reaction on Katrina, to overcome the energy prices, the gas prices. I think you're going to start seeing it this week, with a Supreme Court nominee, that can get 65 or 70 votes, not somebody who pleads to the far right, but somebody more than a consensus candidate, somebody who, in fact, will be well-received by the American people and the Senate.

"I think you're going to see Bush go abroad and be the foreign policy big-stroke leader, that, in fact, the-- that America looks for. I think you're going to see him on other issues, whether it's immigration or tax reform, and tax simplification and federal spending, start talking about the big items, the big agenda, as he rolls toward his State of the Union address next January.

"I think this is not a Hail Mary pass. I think this is three yards and a cloud of dust. It's the old Vince Lombardi strategy. As Ronald Reagan did back in the aftermath of Iran Contra. You have to work on it day in and day out, to re-establish that presidential leadership that the whole country looks for."

And I leave you with this final exchange between Nixon, Russert, and David Broder:

MR. RUSSERT: Talking about second term--we had a guest on MEET THE PRESS back in April of 1988 who knows a lot about second terms. His name was Richard Nixon. Let's watch.

(Videotape, April 10, 1988):

FMR. PRES. RICHARD M. NIXON: What I am saying is that second terms are not kind to presidents, particularly in this century. We know, for example, a second term was not kind to even Eisenhower, who was enormously popular. A second term was not kind to Harry Truman. We know it wasn't very kind to me. Under the cir--it wasn't kind to Woodrow Wilson, for example, who had very, very serious problems.

The second term is always very difficult.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That's the master of understatement there. But, David Broder, is it just this systemic problem with second terms? Or is this one particular and unique to George W. Bush?

MR. BRODER: No, I think there is a generic quality to this and, again, it's what Panetta talked about: hubris coming from the re-election victory and a certain degree of fatigue. I have to say that I thought the president had taken sensible steps to try to ward off second-term problems. He was well aware of this history. And he had, particularly in the terms of agenda, laid out a very ambitious second-term agenda that he thought would give a real focus and purpose to it. Turned out that he misjudged what the country was looking for in a second term. And the question that I think now confronts the president is: "Can I really rely as much as I have on my own sort of gut instincts to guide my policies? Can I trust the people whose advice has helped shape those policies? Or do I really have to reconsider the whole way in which I have governed?" If he's capable of raising that question for himself, he certainly has time to recover, Bill. But I don't know whether he has that capacity.

The President has a tough road ahead. Let's see what he can do.

Libby's Levy Has Broken

2005-10-29T23:00:00.000-04:00

I feel for Scooter Libby. He's not the worst of men. He's a good lawyer. He seems like a nice guy. He's a smooth political operator and far more skilled than Rove at keeping his mouth closed. Karl Rove is the bane of Washington. He tells anyone and everyone what he thinks, the President thinks, and what the Christian right thinks. He has James Dobson and Grover Norquist on speed dial. But Karl Rove operates with an incredible amount of freedom. He does what he pleases in the Bush White House and only the President of the United States can bring him in. And he rarely does. However, Scooter Libby is Dick Cheney's entire right side. If Libby thinks about something, it's probably because the Vice President has too. The Office of the Vice President clearly harbored a vendetta against Joe Wilson because he's a political hack. He's a washed up diplomat, one of those guys who still calls himself "Ambassador" when in fact he hasn't been an ambassador since the last Administration. He thinks he's important. And writing that column was probably a misrepresentation of exactly what happened...still to this day no one really knows. Wilson invoked the Vice President's office in his railing against the War in Iraq. Certainly Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and anyone else had reason to be mad - they didn't know what the heck was going on. They were blindsided by this partisan imbecile whose wife worked at the CIA.

The White House than began a calculated campaign against Wilson. Libby and Cheney are extremely able at launching political operations within the back rooms of Washington but a public campaign to discredit Wilson would need to be operated at a higher level. This is where Karl Rove could come into play. (Note: He probably knew what was going on a while before most of the stuff broke, i.e. Valerie Plame's name, that she was at the CIA, etc.) Karl Rove would be the only person in the White House skilled at discreetly eliminating a tumor like Joe Wilson. Wilson's a malignancy, that much is clear. He had an agenda and he forwarded it. He used the CIA to do it - thank you, Mr. Tenet, for letting your spies run the shop and their own agendas. So Rove set out to do his work. In the process there were some strategic leaks. With these operations it's best to leave out the top bosses, i.e. the constitutional officers (President, Vice President), and you probably don't want to ask the White House Counsel's Office to check into laws against leaking the names of CIA employees. Who knows what happened, but I can imagine the conversation between Robert Novak and his source went something like this...

NOVAK
This is Novak here, what do you have for me?

SOURCE
Bobby, how you doing?

NOVAK
Not too bad. What do you have?

SOURCE
Well, there's this Wilson stuff. We want to get out in front. Hear me out. This guy, he thinks he's still an Ambassador - you know the type - he's bringing Cheney's office into the mess. They don't even know what happened. Well, anyway, he says we sent him to Niger, well, that's all bullshit. The CIA sent him to Niger. And we doubt that it even made it to the top floor over there. Tenet doesn't know what's going on...anyway...you're gonna love this...his wife...Valerie Plame works at Langley in the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control unit - you know WINPAC. Well, supposedly she sent him to Niger. Can you believe that? That's all I've got today.

NOVAK
Thanks.

I doubt that the White House (I use this term loosely, because the players are too numerous to list) even knew they were committing a crime, if - and this is a big if - in fact they committed a crime. But the leak isn't the problem, it's that they lied under oath.

Patrick Fitzgerald is a straight shooter. He wouldn't have indicted without a strong case. He definitely has Libby on something, but he doesn't know what yet. The crime was committed when Libby lied to a Federal grand jury, the FBI, and then obstructed the investigation. There's definitely more to this case, be it details, players, anything, and Scooter Libby is just the tip of the iceberg. It will probably be an indictment of the Bush Doctrine, of the Iraq War, of President Bush himself, of his legacy. This isn't all about the leak. The leak is what precipitated it, but the leak is miniscule compared to what could be found. Fitzgerald doesn't seem to care about that though. If the legacy of George W. Bush is a casualty of his investigation, and his investigation is correct, he will have done his job. There's a lot more to this case and Fitzgerald will figure it out.

Dole’s Problem

2005-10-29T22:56:00.000-04:00

Well the quarter ended and the National Republican Senatorial Committee raised 25 million for 2006 but that is still 3 million behind the Dems. This is seen as a major problem for Sen. Elizabeth Dole, head of the committee, because republicans are well known for their fundraising skills and are not used to being behind. Rachel Maddow of Air America often calls the RNC, a “Fundraising machine” and it usually is. There are many reasons for the slow down of donations including the presidents low approval number and the last 3 hurricanes but the main reason is the NRSC’s support of RINO’s.

This is obvious in their complete refusal to show even the slightest support for Rep. Katherine Harris, who is running for the senate seat in FL. They have spent both time and money trying to find another republican to run against her for the nomination with no luck. They have even asked Gov. Jeb Bush, former congressman Joe Scarborough and retired Gen. Tommy Franks to run but all declined. Dole, undaunted by the refusals, said “Our job is to make sure that we have the best possible candidate to challenge a Democrat. There are still people talking about it". Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was more blunt. "If Katherine Harris is the nominee, we lose," he said. Polls disagree though:

35. If the election for the Republican nomination for United States Senator in 2006 were held today, whom would you support? (Republicans only)
Katherine Harris 53%
Tommy Franks 18%
Toni Jennings 10%
Mark Foley 8%
Undecided 11%

31. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Katherine Harris, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 48%
Katherine Harris 40%
Undecided 12%

This has tremendously hurt her campaign because not many people, including myself, are going to donate unless they are sure that she will get the nomination. This is not the first time the tried to stop her; in 2004 they ask President Bush to personally ask her not to run. Harris, a loyal republican, withdrew after the call.

Also the NRSC’s strong support for Sen. Lincoln Chafee is very unwelcome in conservative circles. It is even waging an attack campaign against his challenger, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey, 11 months in advance of the primary election. It is even spending $150,000 advertising buy accusing Laffey of profiting from oil stocks while he complains about oil companies in his campaign.

This is problem for conservative who want to donate and support their Party but do not want their hard-earned money to go people like Lincoln Chafee. This has even some conservative leaders, like Michael Savage, asking conservatives not to donate to the Party itself but rather to PACs and 527’s like the Club for Growth. I personally was planning to send all my tax returns to the NRSC but have decided against it. Now I am trying to decide where is the best place for conservatives to donate. (If anyone has any suggestions please comment.)

According to Hotline on Call

2005-10-28T19:32:00.000-04:00

A source close to the selection process will make a final decision about a Supreme Court nominee this weekend and plans to introduce nominee on Monday or Tuesday. Names that allies are pushing this a.m: Judge Samuel Alito and Judge Michael McConnell. - By MARC AMBINDER

I can personally say right now that I would support Alito. (According to Wikipedia- His ideological likeness to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has earned him the nickname "Scalito.")

Ann Coulter on Miers' Withdraw

2005-10-28T16:24:00.000-04:00

Since Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court, Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin – i.e. all the people who had absolutely nothing to do with Miers’ withdrawal — have been blanketing the airwaves demanding that Bush now accede to their demands. So it’s good to see Democrats are still working on getting in touch with reality.

The Democrats didn’t utter a note of disagreement with the Miers nomination. But now they say her withdrawal is their victory, which Bush must be forced to acknowledge by nominating a candidate to their liking. I believe that’s what got Bush in trouble in the first place: Listening to Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who recommended Miers for the Supreme Court.

Although the circumstances were unfortunate – we prefer fighting liberals to fighting our president — the Miers withdrawal is an unparalleled victory for conservatives. Liberals were never able to do this to Clinton when he hosed them. It will be a long time before the White House thinks it can use and abuse conservatives again.- Ann Coulter

The Power of the People

2005-10-27T17:32:00.000-04:00

Well Miers have been borked because the America wants a Bork, go figure. If this event tells us anything it is that people are in charge of America. I have never witnessed such a unified response against a presidential decision since Clinton introduced Hillarycare; the people won that battle also. This shows also how powerful the conservative movement is when it stands up for its principles, which is that this debate has been about all along. I hope this gives a chill down every Republican congressman’s spine because no longer will we stand for RINOs. Not that we enjoyed fighting the White House but everyone has their braking point, and we reached ours. As Rush said this was a “Crackdown not a Crackup” of the movement.

The Miers Mire

2005-10-27T16:41:00.000-04:00

Thankfully, the debacle of the Harriet Miers nomination is over. It was a terrible political move, a terrible judicial move, terrible all around. Maybe Bush saw that the possibility of Karl Rove being indicted eliminated his political muscle. Without Rove, the President would have been hard pressed to get the nomination through the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate.

In the Los Angeles Times today:

"White House officials and allies are hoping that intensive news coverage of the Fitzgerald investigation will be short-lived. On Nov. 7, they predicted, attention would shift to the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers.

'Let's say something happens in the next 48 hours,' said one official. 'It will dominate the news cycle until the 7th of November. Then a new cycle begins: Harriet will be the news.' "

Unfortunately for the White House, the Miers withdrawal couldn't have come at a more inopportune time. If Fitzgerald indicts on Friday or names are leaked on Friday, that's a massive news cycle the Administration will ultimately lose. If, however, Rove had been on the top of his game instead of worrying about his indictment problems, he would have convinced Miers to keep her name under consideration and withdraw next week when the hearings start. Then, Miers becomes the story and the President can completely ignore the leak indictments.

The Washington rumor mill is spinning at a level not seen since the Lewinsky scandal. However, the blogs now get information quicker than the mainstream media. Because of this, the chatter has reached a fever pitch. Rumors now have indictments being filed against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby with a possibility with some plea bargaining and more indictments.

Politically, the Bush Administration is in hot water. Frankly, I'd love to see him nominate a hard-right conservative to the Court. It would be good for strong debate. Scalia and Ginsburg - arguably the most fervent ideologues on the Court - are good friends outside of the Court according to a Scalia profile in The New Yorker last year. I'm all for a good debate, but Harriet Miers wasn't going to be anywhere near the league of a Scalia or Ginsburg. She's a .22 caliber mind in a .357 Magnum world.

Finally...for the record...I'm not nearly as liberal as Tom leads you to believe. I don't like Harry Reid or the other Democratic hacks on the Hill. I am a very big fan of Bill Clinton but I think Al Gore is worthless. I think George Allen, Evan Bayh, Mike Huckabee, and Mark Warner would make great Presidents. Condi Rice would too. I'm ambivalent about Hillary. I'm for deficit reduction and spending control. I'm for free trade. I'm no fan of Reagan's second term, but his first term was sheer brilliance. I don't think Carter was a good President, but his non-political post-presidency humanitarian work is deserving of a spot on Rushmore. Jack Kennedy died too young and would have been a great President. LBJ's civil rights work in the Senate was political expediency. His civil rights work in the Oval Office was a sign of incredible courage, but his Vietnam policy was disastrous. I'm no fan of the current President, but I respect him for surrounding himself with experience. I don't agree with many of their views, but you can't dispute their credentials.

When indictments finally come down or Bush nominates a Justice (Gonzales?) I'll be back.

New Blogger

2005-10-27T16:14:00.000-04:00

Ok, well Bryan who was the guest blogger last week, he was to busy to post anything but anyway, is now going to be a full-time contributor. Now let me make myself clear, this is and always will be a far-right blog. I know that he will most likely regurgitate most of the liberal talking points that he gets from the media but consider it an opportunity to pick apart an argument from a real live liberal. There is not many left so this is a good chance for you to view one in its natural habitat, any place here it thinks it can use people. I will be like your tour guide showing one logical fallacy after another and helping discover the flaws for yourself. Have fun!

What Bush Should Tell the Media- Rush

2005-10-27T15:31:00.000-04:00

To the Media: "Okay, you're going to try to get my guys outta here? You obviously think these guys have been making all the decisions, fine. Here. You're going to get what you want. Every decision from now on out is mine, and here's what I'm going to do. irst thing I'm going to do is pull Harriet Miers, and I'm going to give the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court I can, and it's going to be Michael Luttig; it's going to be Janice Rogers Brown. I don't care. It's going to somebody you people are going to hate, and I'm going to fight, and I'm going to get this person confirmed. Next thing I'm going to do is bomb Syria. I'm through messing around with the war on terror. Now we've got the Iranians, and they're sitting there saying Israel needs to be "wiped off the map." Nothing's changed. I'm going to take care of them, too. I'm going to create so many damn news stories for you people in the media that you won't know what cover first, and I'm going to make so many damn much bigger news stories than this stupid CIA story that I'm going to have you people spinning for the last two years of my administration, because the last two years of my administration I'm making the decisions and I'm going to make sure everything I want happens, and I'm going to stop trying to send out this little hand of friendship with you people. I've tried working with you, and I've found out that it can't be done, so barrels are going to be loaded and aimed right at you, and we're going to be pedal-to-the-metal conservative through and through, and this is what I'm going to give you, and if you don't like it then go try to put me in jail next time. " - Rush Limbaugh

To Republican Senators: "Okay, you cowards, we're going to stand together now. They're trying to take us out, and here's what we're going to do. We got two years, and we're going to reshape this country like we've been trying to do for the previous six, and here's how we're going to do it, A, B, C, D and E." "But what about the press?" "Screw the press! I don't care about the press. I care about the people of this country. This is what I'm going to do." Bam! "Get started! I want reports on my desk tomorrow morning. Tell me how you're doing -- and if I'm not satisfied, I'll get somebody else to do it. They don't think I'm making my own decisions? Fine. Every decision from this point on is mine personally."- Rush Limbaugh

The Case for Ideologues

2005-10-26T15:01:00.000-04:00

The controversy over Miers within in the conservative movement has brought up many key issues. One of these is how important conservative are in elections. We keep hearing how important the “moderates” are and how they are the ones who really control the country. Well if you examine that past 10 elections the results beg to differ.

1968 Nixon- Nixon was strongly supported by the right wing of the party and helped him defeat his liberal challenger, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Although he also had some competition for the conservative base from George Wallase, Nixon was still cheered as a champion for conservatism. The result Nixon won!

1972 Nixon- Nixon first term was seen as a huge accomplishment for conservatives. They help him defect the liberal anti-war opposition, Pete McCloskey. Even though some conservative supported conservative John Ashbrook because of their dislike for Nixon’s stance on China, they still overwhelmingly supported Nixon. The result Nixon won!

1976 Ford- Ford was not liked by many conservatives, which lead to Reagan’s opposition to him in the primaries. When the liberals and the supposed party “moderates” labeled Reagan as a radical, who could not win an election (Goldwater all over again, they said), anger among conservatives hurt Ford in the elections. Also Ford was rumored to want Nelson Rockefeller as is VP although later reconsidering after Reagan’s growing support. The result ford lost!

1980 Reagan - Reagan, who tired to win the nomination in two past elections, finally had the opportunity to run. He did not have any real opposition except for George Bush, who was seen as weak on economic issues by conservatives. After a humiliating defect in the primary John Bayard Anderson, an ultra-liberal, decided to run in the general election as an Independent. He only got 6.6% in the election. The result Reagan won.

1984 Reagan - After Reagan’s first term he was seen a conservative demi-god. He was literally unopposed in the primary and his support by conservatives was unprecedented. The result Reagan won!

1988 Bush- Although Bush worried many conservatives on economic issues; he was still supported by conservatives. This was mostly because of Reagan’s strong support for him and Bush’s many promises to conservatives, his most famous “Read my lips: No new taxes"! They even looked over his lackluster support for the pro-life agenda. The result Bush lost!

1992 Bush- Conservatives were deeply disappointed by Bush’s first term. He broke many of his economic promises and brought the economy further into a recession by raising taxes. Since Ross Perot entered the general election economics became the key issue, which was Bush’s weak spot with conservatives. Bush isolated so many conservatives that Pat Buchanan decided to challenge him in the primaries. Although Buchanan was unsuccessful he did force Bush move towards the right, forcing him to put many socially conservative planks in the party platform, even though many conservatives still did not see him as a pro-life president. This is shown by is lack of evangelical support, only getting around 40%. Also according to a CNN exit poll 22% of conservatives decided to vote for Perot and only 64% voting for Bush. The result Bush lost!

1996 Dole- As Democrats will later find out in 2004 a party more unified by hate of the opponent then by the issues is far less effective. This happened to republicans in 1996 and was not effective in bring out the vote at all. This is shown by an CNN exit poll that had only 35% of the voters registered republicans. Also only 64% of the self proclaimed religious right voting for Dole.

2000 Bush- Bush was seen by many conservatives as a chance to renew the Regan years. He was conservative in almost every issue and was not afraid to tell you so and conservatives came through. According to a CNN exit poll 81% of conservatives voted for him, along with 80% of self proclaimed religious right voting for him. The result Bush won!

2004 Bush- Bush’s first term was seen almost as a glorious battle between liberalism and conservatives with us coming out on top. Even though many conservatives had problems with the war in Iraq and his Medicare prescription plan, it was simply over looked because of all the other accomplishments. Conservative were out like never before with over 34% of voters calling themselves conservative and 84% of them voting for Bush. Also a unprecedented 23% of voters were evangelical or born-again and 78% voted for Bush. The result Bush won!

Anti- Miers Website

2005-10-24T20:18:00.000-04:00

A coalition of conservative groups have launched an anti-Miers website.

The Advocates

Withdrawal

American Conservative Union
Charles Krauthamer
Citizen Outreach
Conservative HQ
David Frum
Fidelis
George Will
Liberty Counsel
Mark Moller, Cato Supreme Court Review
National Review
Patrick Buchanan
Peggy Noonan
Phyllis Schlafly
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Republican National Coalition For Life
Judge Robert Bork
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
William Kristol
Young Americas Foundation

Deeply Concerned

Americans For Tax Reform
Center for a Just Society
Concerned Women for America
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Family Research Council
Free Congress Foundation/Paul Weyrich
Gary Bauer
Manuel Miranda, Third Branch Conference
New York Times
RightMarch.com
Robert Novak
Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Trent Lott
Senator George Allen
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Jeff Sessions
Senator Tom Coburn
Senator David Vitter
Senator John Ensign
Wall Street Journal

Krauthammer Plan

2005-10-24T15:15:00.000-04:00

Well he did it again, Charles Krauthammer came up with a plan that is far better then anything that has come out of the White House, since Bush’s Tax cuts. This maybe one the President should take seriously if he wants to have any integrity, or legacy when he leaves in 2008. Here almost everyone wins, except liberals, which is always a good thing.

“We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.

Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers' White House tenure.

Finally, light at the end of this tunnel. A way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no previous record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- ``policy documents'' and ``legal analysis'' -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

Which creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers' putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.”

Saving Face
A way out of the Miers mess
Oct 21, 2005
by Charles Krauthammer

The Only True Fiscal Conservative

2005-10-23T23:51:00.000-04:00

25 years after Reagan took office, 10 years since the Contract With America and 5 years since Conservatives showed Gore the door, only 15 Senators voted for the Coburn Amendment, which would have redirected Pork money to fund the Katrina relief.

The Heroes

YEAs ---15

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN)- one was not even a republican
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Vitter (R-LA)

The Big Disappointments

Brownback (R-KS)

Dole (R-NC)

Frist (R-TN)

Hatch (R-UT)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Santorum (R-PA)

Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)

Thune (R-SD)

Guest Blogger

2005-10-18T22:13:00.000-04:00

I will be going on a 5 day vacation to Florida, so I recruited someone to fill in for me. His name is Bryan and is only a little farther left then Marx. So I hope you forgive me for forcing you to deal with his incoherent babble but I felt in order to truly appreciate liberals’ lunacy you would have to see it first hand.

I love being a conservative.

2005-10-18T20:33:00.000-04:00

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.- Rush Limbaugh

The Passive Right

2005-10-17T20:43:00.000-04:00

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."- President Bush

Well the left is materializing once again and now is the time to strike! For too long conservatives have been dormant, while liberals penetrate the Republican Party. Not since the Contract with America has the Conservative Movement put its full weight on the Party. The result is a Party that Reagan would not even recognize.

Budget:

Real Annualized Growth Rates

Bush (43) - 5.6%

Johnson- 5.7%

It is said by many scholars that the “New Right” is a direct response to the “Great Society” of Johnson. Well now the New Right has almost outspent the very thing it sought to destroy.

RINOS

Sen. R. Michael DeWine of Ohio

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City

Sen. John S. McCain III of Arizona

Gov. Arnold A. Schwarzenegger of California

Gov. George Pataki of New York

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio,

Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia,

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine,

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine,

Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska

Former New Jersey governor and EPA head Christine Todd Whitman

Former Rep. Amory Houghton of New York

Rep. James A. Leach of Iowa

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas,

Rep. Joe Schwarz of Michigan

Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut

Secretary of State Colin Powell

Former Governor of California Pete Wilson

Former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani

That is 21 RINOs we have let penetrate Republican ranks. When comparing them to the 8 DINOs, it shows how much more control liberals have of their Party compared to conservatives.

Immigration:

This has been a major issue for conservative for many years and we have yet to hear any response. Even with heavy media coverage of the issue and some Democrat support, a real plan has not been released from the White House.

Taxes:

While this is one area that Bush came through for conservatives, he still has not done enough. The Death Tax is still in place and no real effort for Tax Reform has been shown.

Leadership:

The main reason for all the other problems is the lack of leadership in the Republican Party. Who in the Republican Party makes you want to go out there and start heavy grassroots action? There is currently no one person in the senate or house leadership that has any the conservative can look toward. Where did the Reagans go? There is also no foreseeable hope in the future as well.

More Unsure Senators!

2005-10-15T14:09:00.000-04:00

By TimChapman

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum does not sound thrilled with the Miers nomination.

When asked about his feelings regarding the nomination, Santorum responded:

"I don't know yet," Santorum said. "But I am concerned President Bush nominated someone who is a blank slate. I'm disappointed he wanted to nominate someone like that instead of someone with a record."

Santorum faces a tough reelection bid in 2006 and is often mentioned as a potential 2008 presidential contender, although 2008 is likely not on the forefront of his mind right now.

The White House has their work cut out for them to convince Santorum to be a vigorous Miers supporter. Conceivably (this is my opinion only), Santorum could oppose Miers and be embraced by many disenchanted conservatives -- grassroots and conservative punditry alike.

A move like this could solidify Sanotrum's principled conservative credentials with his base in Pennsylvania that remains somewhat shaky after the Toomey-Specter kerfuffle in 2004. Furthermore, he would become the darling of conservative punditry who have blown a gasket in the wake of the Miers nomination.

Additionally, if Santorum opposed Miers, it would demonstrate independence from the President, who is not exceedingly popular in blue-state Pennsylvania.

Punditry, and disaffected grassroots conservatives are looking for a Senator to be their champion on this matter...could it be Santorum?

Less likely, than likely...

New Fox Poll on Miers

2005-10-14T03:01:00.000-04:00

A 37 percent plurality of Americans says they would vote to confirm Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 32 percent say they would vote against her and 31 percent are unsure. For comparison, in polling conducted the week after Roberts' nomination, 51 percent said they would vote for him and 19 percent against (30 percent unsure).

Among Republicans, 57 percent say they would vote for Miers, down 17 percentage points from the 74 percent that said they would vote for Roberts (July 26-27). Support for Miers among Democrats is 12 points less than it was for Roberts. It should be noted there is no gender gap on support for Miers as both men and women are equally likely to say they would confirm her.

Overall, 37 percent say they think Miers is qualified — significantly below the 65 percent that Roberts received in July. Partisanship plays a role here, as 56 percent of Republicans think she is qualified, while only 20 percent of Democrats agree.

"It is fairly clear from the high 'undecideds' on many questions that most people have little knowledge about Miers or the Supreme Court," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. "They’re taking their cues from the political and media elites and it is the immediate skepticism of many of those elites that has damaged support for Miers. Furthermore, the fact that some of those skeptics have been Republican and conservative has hurt Miers even more. With the polarized politics we have today a Democrat criticizing a Republican or vice versa has relatively little impact, but a Republican criticizing a Republican is unexpected and credible to many people."

By a 55 percent to 18 percent margin, people think it is more important for the president to select a nominee he trusts rather than a nominee who will please his supporters.

Just over half of Americans (51 percent) think most people are jumping to conclusions about the Miers nomination and about one in five think she is receiving fair consideration (19 percent).

Miers' lack of judicial experience is a problem with many Americans. A 55-percent majority thinks all Supreme Court justices should have prior judicial experience, compared to about a third (35 percent) that think it is a good idea for some justices not to have previous experience as a judge.

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say prior judicial experience matters. Over two-thirds of Democrats (69 percent) think all Supreme Court justices should have prior experience as a judge, while 44 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents think so. Slim pluralities of Republicans (47 percent) and independents (45 percent) think it is a "good idea" if some justices on the high court do not have prior judicial experience.

Even so, few (13 percent) say they have heard anything about Miers that would disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

What do people think will happen with the Miers' nomination in the Senate? The public is clearly less confident about her nomination than they were about Roberts’. About half (48 percent) think the Senate will confirm her, 19 percent disagree and 33 percent are unsure. When the same question was first asked about the John Roberts’ nomination, 70 percent said they thought the Senate would confirm him, only 7 percent thought he would be voted down and 23 percent were not sure (July 26-27).

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on October 11-12.

Bush says, "Trust me."

2005-10-13T16:39:00.000-04:00

I have been asked by many other conservatives, why I don’t trust Bush and his evaluation of Harriet Miers. Well I don't trust him for the same reason I don't trust the government and like always I have found someone to portray this opinion far better then I can.

"But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, 'Trust me.' And a lot of people did....'Trust me' government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs—in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders." -Ronaldus Magnus, accepting the Republican nomination for President, July 17, 1980

Warning to Liberals- Rush Limbaugh

2005-10-12T16:31:00.000-04:00

You think the conservative movement is falling apart. You think it's fractured. You think that all the factions are warring with each other and that a party and a movement divided like this cannot go anywhere. Well, I have a message for you liberal friends of ours out there. I know you think this is lots of fun. You think the conservative movement is split. You think there's an implosion going on, but let me warn you people about something. This is the kind of thing that you liberals should fear the most. You liberals, if you had any sense of history, if you're able to place what's happening today regarding the conservative reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination, if you have any context, historical context; you should be cowering in fear in the corners. The last time conservatives flexed their muscles like this was 1980. The last time conservatives said enough is enough. The last time conservatives rallied together and started demanding that conservatism triumph when Republicans are elected, Ronald Reagan won two landslides (1980; 1984).

That's what happens when the Republican Party embraces conservatism, and that's what happens when the conservative base is motivated to act. Once this matter of the Miers nomination has been resolved one way or the other, the conservative movement and the GOP are going to be stronger and they're going to be better focused because that's what the purpose of debate is, that's what the purpose of arguments is, and that will be the outcome here. The conservative movement and the GOP will be stronger, they will be better focused, they will be more energized than we have been in years. There will be a battle in the Republican primary for president between moderates like John McCain and conservatives, and after that battle is over the target will be the Democratic Party and liberalism. You will be exposed and you will be trounced just as you were in 1980. You have been warned. If you're sitting out there rubbing your hands in glee, feel free to continue, but you have nothing to offer. You don't have an agenda you can be honest and get behind about. You don't have anything positive, uplifting, or inspiring to say to the people of this country, even about this country. We conservatives know what we stand for, and we know our principles, and they are shared by most of America.

We are proud to publicly embrace our principles, and we are proud to campaign on them. You liberals on the other hand, you're always acting undercover, fearful that if your true views and motives are exposed that you can't win, and you can't. You can't win if you expose yourselves and you can't win if you mask yourselves and camouflage yourselves and hide. So go ahead and get cocky, that's the best thing I could ever say that would happen to us is for you to get cocky and to think you've won it and that it's all over. Go ahead and get cocky and get giddy and start celebrating now. But what you're watching and what you're witnessing is not a "crumbling," not a "fracture." It is not a "split." What you're watching is a very healthy and growing conservative movement and a very healthy party preparing to battle you. - Rush Limbaugh

The Democrats' five principles.

2005-10-09T17:07:00.000-04:00

The Democrats' five principles.

These principles were made public last weekend by Rahm Emanuel on Meet the Press:

1. "One, we make college education as universal for the 21st century that a high school education was in the 20th."

2."Second, we get a summit on the budget to deal with the $3 trillion of debt that's been added up in five years and structural deficits of $400 billion a year."

3."Third, an energy policy that says in 10 years, we cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and make this a hybrid economy."

4."Four, we create an institute on science and technology that builds for America like, the National Institutes has done for health care, we maintain our edge."

5."And five, we have a universal health-care system over the next 10 years where if you work, you have health care."

This is supposed to be the Democrats version of the “Contract with America”. This is what is supposed to make conservative shake in their shoes. Well I am not and here is why! AMERICANS WON’T AGREE WITH THESE POINTS.

1. "One, we make college education as universal for the 21st century that a high school education was in the 20th."
A free college education would bring down the quality of education that college provides. While I agree that college tuition is out of control, it would still not be smart to get the government involved, in fact is as always smart not to get the government involved. This would take away a lot of free speech and many professors would have to be silenced. Also the cost of paying for the tuition would be astronomical.

2. "Second, we get a summit on the budget to deal with the $3 trillion of debt that's been added up in five years and structural deficits of $400 billion a year."
Can you say “high taxes”, anyone? In order to get rid of the current debt on top of the cost for the rest of these points, you would have to raise taxes. This would not have to be any tax hike but biggest tax hike in the history of United States. We are talking almost double (I am surmising on the number but I think it is reasonable to assume under the circumstance.)

3. "Third, an energy policy that says in 10 years, we cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and make this a hybrid economy."
How can they CUT our dependence on foreign oil if they are against drilling anywhere near the United States and are against the building new refineries? Also hybrids are not a permanent answer; they are just delaying the inevitable. We need to use government resources and create tax incentives for the research of alternative fuels, which is what the Bush administration did.

4. "Four, we create an institute on science and technology that builds for America like, the National Institutes has done for health care, we maintain our edge."
That is what the private sector is for. Now maybe you could make the argument to fund more government grants but a whole institute is pure madness. I would most likely be permanently behind the private sector to begin with. The National Institutes help health care because in the medical field research can harmful to the public heath if there was no government influence. Also there are a lot of risks involved in that field with no guarantees, technology on the other hand, is a pro-consumer product. Companies will always be researching new gadgets and products because technology sells.

5. "And five, we have a universal health-care system over the next 10 years where if you work, you have health care."
No Hillary-care please! They have tried this before and America has spoken, "no universal healthcare!". It is not hard to see why; considering that everywhere it has been tried it has only made things worse. In Canada you have to wait two weeks in order to get a MRI. It is also hard to get new surgical tools and methods through.

And the Response to the Charges…

2005-10-08T16:46:00.000-04:00

I do agree that a quota of race or gender is completely irresponsible in Supreme Court nominations. Though the reason I agree is because I believe that a president should pick the most qualified person, who agrees with the president’s judicial philosophy and Harriet Miers is not the most qualified, plain and simple. If you ask me she is not even in the top 25. All you have to do is look at here credentials and find that her most prominent job was the president of the Texas Bar Association and she only held that position for one year. In fact if you follow her career as a whole it is one Bush appointment after another. With out him she would still be stuck as the Chairwomen of the Texas Lottery Commission at best.

It is true that Bush may have nominated her because she seemed to be an easy nomination, but to me an easy nomination is a sign of weakness in the nominee’s judicial philosophy, or in Miers case a total lack of one. The only reason others like Roberts and Ginsberg received so many votes was because they kept their philosophy as hidden as possible. If Bush wanted to be a strong conservative leader he would have nominated a Bork. Who cares if the nominee did not make it, then you go for a Thomas.

As far as the filibuster goes I think that it is a pretty safe bet that as long as he nominated, Justice Rogers Brown for example that the Gang of 14 would fall apart. This is especially true since McCain’s movement toward the right in preparation for his 2008 presidential race.

Also it is not the Republican senators “job” to get any of Bush’s nominees passed. They first must have loyalty to their constituents who campaigned, gave money and voted for them. It is also there constitutional duty to “advice and consent” not just give the president a free pass.

I am not even convinced that Miers will be confirmed. There is already strong caution by Republican Senators Trent Lott and Brownback and we all know the same Democrats that voted against Roberts will inevitably vote against Miers (except for Reid because of his continued affair with her). So hopefully the prayers of every conservative will be answered and a coalition of Democrats and Republican will stand against this abomination of a nomination.

2005-10-07T22:01:00.000-04:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Down With Fred Barnes!

2005-10-07T04:03:00.000-04:00

Yesterday on “Special Report with Brit Hume” Fred Barns attacked his fellow conservatives:

Hume: "Our colleague George Will lacks enthusiasm for Harriet Miers as does Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingram and the former justice department lawyer John Yu, not to mention David Frum. What do they have all in common? They're products of the most prestigious eastern schools. Some observations from Fred Barnes, a graduate of the University of Virginia, as indeed I am, Mort Kondracke of Dartmouth, and Mara Liasson, a graduate dare I say of Brown, is there a bit of elitism in all this?" And this is the answer to the question, Fred Barnes leading off.

BARNES: Snobbery even.

HUME: Snobbery even? Snobbery even? Go ahead, Fred.

BARNES: All those people you mentioned, they're all friends of mine, they're people who I admire, who I always read their columns, but David Frum says, for instance, that she's not good enough for the job, and she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way. I think for most conservatives if she votes the right way, she will be exactly the person who they want on the court. But somehow they've gotten all tied up in this idea that she doesn't have the right credentials, she hasn't written a lot of bedazzlingly intellectual opinions.

KONDRACKE: One of the main critics of Ms. Miers is Rush Limbaugh who dropped out of Southeastern Missouri State College.

HUME: Does that make him the exception to the rule, Mort?

KONDRACKE: Well, Michelle Malkin, critic, went to Oberlin.

KONDRCAKE: I think that the right-wing wanted war, they wanted Armageddon, they wanted --

HUME: For its own sake?

KONDRACKE: Sure. I mean, Rush Limbaugh says is that Democrats are on the ropes. Their last bastion was the courts. We're going to take over the courts. We want somebody we can count on. We want somebody distinguished and well known, and we're going to -- and we're going to -- we're going to take over this.

BARNES: That's different, though. There are two strains of complaint. There's this elitist strand of people who don't think she measures up, she's not, you know, intellectual enough, and that's the ones we've talked about and some of them did go to Harvard and Yale and maybe Brown and Dartmouth as well, but then there's the conservatives represented by Rush Limbaugh who don't know enough about her and worry that she'll be a Kennedy, an O'Connor, or a Souter.

That is just not true. Conservatives do not just want someone who will vote the right way, and it is an insult to say that we do. We want someone who knows why he is voting that way and someone with a complete understanding of the Constitution. It is not enough to say Abortion is unconstitutional; you have to know why it is unconstitutional in order to make a case to your fellow Justices and the nation. This is mind-boggling; we are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States of America not the Small Claims Court of Minot, North Dakota. We need a legal brain from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or Colombia University, not the Chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission form Southern Methodist University law school, ranked 52 by UN News. I do not think it is unfair or being to elitist to think that some school are better then others and nominees to the Supreme Court should be the best of the best of those schools I do not agree with many of the current Justices and I do think that some of them do not belong there do to there radical ideology but their credentials were never in question. No Conservative ever said Ginsberg is not qualified because of her education or experience; they just said she was a radical judicial activist. That is because she is one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country even if she is insane.

Let’s look at Miers career:

Education: B.S., Southern Methodist University, 1967, mathmatics major; J.D., Southern Methodist University School of Law, 1970.

Experience: 2004-present, White House counsel; 2003-2004, White House deputy chief of staff for policy; 2001-2003, White House staff secretary; 1995-2001, chairwoman, Texas Lottery Commission; 1972-2000, private law practice; 1992, president, Texas Bar Association; 1989-1991, member, Dallas City Council; 1985, president, Dallas Bar Association.

So what does that say to you; State Supreme Court, Court of Appeals at best. Well not to Bush and his idiot following (and that includes Fred Barns), to them it means the most qualified conservative woman in the United States. Which is ridiculous because I can name 5; Justice Brown, Sotomayor, Williams, Edith Hollan Jones, Owen, and Clement

I personally think it was arrogant for President Bush to think he has such a tight hold on conservatives that he can nominate the chairwoman, Texas Lottery Commission.

Conservatives are not happy!

2005-10-05T17:59:00.000-04:00

A recent Gallup polls on Miers:

Overall, 44% of Americans rate President George W. Bush's choice of Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court as "excellent" or "good," while 41% rate the choice as "only fair" or "poor."

Though 44% is still in the majority, it is extremely low compared to the 64% that Roberts received.

A non-scientific poll taken by townhall.com (a conservative news site):

Do you like President Bush's pick of Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?

No | (79 %)
Yes | (21 %)
Total Votes: 8541

Here is the opinion on conservatives I looked up:

For:

Tony Blankley

Fred Barnes

Mort Kondracke

Horace Cooper

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

Wait and See:

Family Research Council

Paul Weyrich

Grover Norquist

Sen. Sam Brownback, R- Kansas

Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.)

Against:

Rush Limbaugh

Ann Coulter

George Will

Terence P. Jeffrey

Michelle Malkin

Ben Shapiro

Richard Lowry.

David Frum

Michael Savage

Bill Kristol

Laura Ingram

Charles Krauthammer

David Frum

Paul M. Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation

Heritage Foundation

Eagle Forum

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue

(P.S. If you have anyone you want me to add just post a comment and what his/her opinion is. Also if I am wrong about anyone’s opinion please comment.)

Though Miers has some supporters as Reid, still trying to woo her, said;

"As bright and brilliant and as good a lawyer as Judge Roberts was, I asked him - he'd never taken a deposition, he'd never picked a jury, never tried a case. He never tried a case. She has. We need people like that who have real-life experiences."

Betrayal

2005-10-03T17:24:00.000-04:00

I am about to say something that I never thought I would say; “I agree with Al Franklin that Bush lied to the American people!” Though not about the war in Iraq, but rather his campaign promise that he was going to nominate a judicial conservative who would bring common sense back to the Supreme Court. It truly amuses me that as soon as we got rid of that bipolar judicial activist know as Sandra Day O'Connor, we get her twin, Harriet Miers.

News reporters have already started saying that she will most likely be confirmed but I see that as the problem. I want a nominee that may not get the vote; I want a nominee that will make liberals blood boil; I want a nominee that will start the biggest political debate in our nations history; I want a Bork! "I like Harriet Miers." was the first response from Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid when heard of the nomination. That itself should be a reason to worry! In fact resent news reports say that she personally donated money to democrat candidates, even one that once ran against President Bush.

One thing we learned from all of this is that Bush is no Reagan. In fact Bush is no Bush! At least the last two republican presidents nominated one good judge but Bush is 0 for 2. What happened to the President that I campaigned for; what happened to the President that I lead us through 9-11; what happened to the ‘Your either with us or against us’ President! I thought we elected a president who would fight for what he believed in and take no prisoners; but recently he has left congress to push him around and act more like Clinton then Reagan!

NO MORE SOUTERS!!!!!

Rush on Fundamentals!

2005-09-23T18:09:00.000-04:00

"I know how busy you are, but have you read the book by Thomas Frank, 'What's the Matter with Kansas? Well, I'm being made to read the book in an ethics class and write an essay response to a question that my professor is asking. Here is the question: 'Economic quality has long been a major theme in American political discourse, especially with the populist policies associated with the Democratic Party. According to Thomas Frank, how is this theme connected with the backlash phenomenon in American culture? How has the backlash led to a change in class definitions and traditional political alignments?' I know you don't have time for this, Rush, but I just thought I would try. It's getting hard to these campuses anymore. Thanks for everything you do."

"So I had the time and this is what I wrote back. I said, "This is easy. First, your professor's premise is flawed. Economic equality has not 'long been a major theme in American political discourse.' American economic opportunity is the real theme. The premise of economic equality has long been a theme of liberals who blanch at the sight of any inequality they perceive, which is fine as far as it goes, but it is their attempt at solutions to this problem that have wrought even more inequality. When liberals see haves and have-nots, they attempt to equalize or make fair these imbalances, and they do so by punishing those at the top of the ladder, so to speak, in order to bring them down to be more on par with the have-nots. They never attempt to educate or inspire the have-nots to do better and move up or prosper, and that's because they don't believe it's possible. Their faith in the individual is dwarfed by their belief in and love of government, as the great equalizer -- with themselves in charge of it, of course. The backlash Thomas Frank refers to, I believe, results from the have-nots getting frustrated now because years and years of promises by liberal politicians have failed to improve their lot," and let's hearken back to Harry Belafonte at this point. "The liberal authors of these schemes, which promise to rectify this inequality and poverty are wont to accept the blame themselves for the failure of their own policies. They shift the blame back to the haves. They accuse them of being greedy and unwilling to share.

"That's why we constantly hear liberals demand more tax increases on the wealthy. Somehow that will magically improve the lot of the have-nots but it never works because it can't. Redistributionist policies have never succeeded in all of human civilization in equalizing a society economically. Our own Great Society and war on poverty have transferred over $6 trillion from the haves to the have-nots since 1964, and yet the Thomas Franks of the world still complain. It's time to seriously examine the failure of these policies and your professor's premise. We have the proof it doesn't work. The problem is that liberals refuse to have their results examined. They insist their intentions being credited, which in their minds makes them nicer and more compassionate than people who would rather educate the have-nots to become self-reliant and less dependent on governments. Now, the problem you're going to encounter with this in class is this. Liberals, and maybe your professor, believe that capitalism, the basic economic foundation and architecture of America is flawed precisely because they believe it is to blame for this economic inequality, that capitalism by design is unfair, and so it must be regulated, policed, monitored, eventually punished. This is why the enemies of liberals are small and large businesses. Wal-Mart's the latest example along with Big Oil right now and along with wealthy people, the rich, and the successful. These are the enemies of liberals.

"Liberals think that they're just lucky. They've 'won life's lottery.' They have a duty to give back via high taxes and any other scheme that they can dream up. Now this plays well with the have-nots, because they've been made to believe all these years to resent the successful via the liberals' use of class envy language, and end up feeling satisfied not when they do better because they don't do better. They feel satisfied because they think the rich, who are stealing from them and not sharing with them, are harmed economically and then the cycle conditions as it has for 70 years since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Thomas Frank in his book now wonders why all of a sudden these have-nots are starting to vote for Republicans because he thinks that these have-nots are voting for the people who have kept them poor, which is absurd. These people are beginning to see that much of America continues to prosper beyond anyone's wildest dreams while they continue to await the fulfillment of all those liberal promises (Hello, Harry Belafonte) and they're also figuring out that 60 years of failed promises just mean more failed promises. They want in on the action as do people who are members of labor unions. This country used to be 35% organized labor. Today it's less than 12%." Now, I told the student, "I believe it's a tragedy that the left in this country has literally destroyed so many of their own voters' futures by lying to them, by telling them they have no chance because the deck is stacked against them, by telling them things will be made more fair if liberals are made in charge so they can punish the rich.

"Capitalism has its problems, and it does require certain regulations, as all societies require laws, but there's no question that liberalism and socialism fail each time they are tried, whereas the capitalist system of this country has produced the richest country in the history of civilization -- and this is not to say that government can't help. It can, and it should. There are lots of people who for one reason or another simply cannot get by without our compassionate assistance, and that compassion has always been there. You could cite the war on poverty and the Great Society and other ongoing, similar programs as evidence. The shame is when liberals control the government and attempt to make as many Americans as possible dependent on them and the government for the sake of cementing their power. That results in millions of people not given the chance to reach their own potential, to be the best they can be but according to own ambitions and desires. To this liberals and maybe your professor will say something that will reflect their belief that many people really have no potential because of the unfairness -- the structural institutional unfairness of American society -- and the cycle will repeat."

Weekly Posts only in the Summer

2005-06-08T12:13:00.000-04:00

I am sorry to say but due to my crazy travel schedule during the summer I will only be able to posts once a week. They will mostly be on the 2006 election. I promise that once I stay in the same state for more then 10 days, which will be sometime during September, I will start my usually daily posts.

A major victory in the realm of science but who knew?

2005-06-03T06:24:00.000-04:00

This story can be found almost nowhere. A story that deserves to be plastered on ever major newspaper in the country was lucky to make it next to the comic section. (Apparently the NYT had no room on the front page because they had to show the Abu Ghraib photos for the 100^th time.)

Scientists at Australia's Griffith University have engineered a breakthrough in the field of adult stem cell research that's so significant, say experts, that it could render the debate over embryonic stem cell research moot.

The results of the four-year research project showed that olfactory stem cells can be turned into heart cells, brain cells, nerve cells – indeed, almost any kind of cell in the body – without the problems of rejection or tumors forming, a common side effect with embryonic stem cells.- NewsMax.com

Why is that? Why would people cheer when researches in South Korea kill innocent children and come up with almost nothing but not even recognize the huge accomplishments made by research that does not cause death? It is because the left is so absorbed by the abortion issue that they can’t see what is in front of their face. They realize that if embryonic stem cell research is not accepted then embryos may be given some ounce of respect. If human children in the form of embryos are not sent to slaughter factories, i.e. stem cell research labs, then the left is losing. The left will never declare victory till infanticide, by abortion on demand, stem cell research, and birth control, is accepted and used by every American.

First the French and Now the Dutch

2005-06-01T20:30:00.000-04:00

The Netherlands had a referendum on the same “constitution”, if you can call it that, which the French turned down earlier this week. Not only did it receive the same answer as before but it even did worse. A 62% NO vote is the worst result that it has seen so far. This has put the EU back even further and a constitution may not be ratified in till after 2008. On an ironic note, Iraq will have a constructional democracy before Europe will.

This rejection is a prime example of how a good thing can happen because of the wrong reasons. The French were not entirely voting against the EU but rather capitalism. They think that the constitution and the UK will allow free markets and enterprises to chip away at there model “social” economy. I mean with a 10.1% (US- 5.5%) overall unemployment rate and a 22% for those who are 25 and under, why would you want to change something. Their economy has soared recently with 2.1% GDP in 2004, though the US has a 4.4%; it is till good considering that they have about a 1.5% average in the last few years. This happened because in 2004 they… privatized many companies, go figure. This made their GDP - per capita raise to $28,700 (2004 est.) though it is still relatively nothing compared to evil capitalist nation, i.e. the U.S, which has $40,100 (2004 est.) GDP - per capita. (Second to only Luxembourg) You would think that this would make them realize that capitalism may not be so bad after all but liberals never really see the big pictures, do they.

Understanding Deep Throat

2005-06-01T01:18:00.000-04:00

Since I am not an expert on Watergate and was not even alive at the time I personally had trouble explaining it. So I went to the teacher of all conservative ideas and Rush did not let me down. Here is a quote the better explains what this is all about.

Now, you might say, "So what?" Well, here again, ladies and gentlemen, time to learn a little lesson. This is a template. Deep Throat's a hero to the left. They're so happy to have learned who this guy is, we're going to celebrate this guy, give him the Congressional medal of freedom or honor or whatever it is. This guy is going to become the new hero. He came forward. Here he's 91 years old, obviously before he dies, to receive the accolades now, and we're just reliving 72 all over again, reliving the Nixon resignation. We're reliving what rotten guy Nixon was. We're reminding the country what a horrible time it was, and what a great job the media did, Woodward and Bernstein, in getting rid of Nixon. It's important to understand this because the template for going after Bush was forged right here with Watergate. W. Mark Felt and the whole press push to force a president out of office survives to this day. Whenever another Republican gets into office, the same tactic is employed. Watergate is the template.- Rush

Deep Throat

2005-05-31T16:42:00.000-04:00

Well the man that brought down the Nixon presidency and almost the Republican Party has finally come out of hiding. Mark Felt, the number 2 in the FBI during the 70's, has finally confessed that he was the unknown source that confirmed facts to the Washington Post reporter about Watergate. For years he was ashamed of it and rightfully so, but now that the masses think he is a hero, instead of the low that he is, he has come out to take the glory. . The real story will be if he is lying and it really is Diane Sawyer.

The Left has Lost It

2005-05-30T01:56:00.000-04:00

Even I did not think that the left would ever be this desperate but they have actually needed to write down the reasons not to kill President Bush. Though on a up side I have truly enjoyed watching the left grow slowly into pure insanity but now they have finally hit rock bottom. To see the full extent of there madness click here!

Terrorist Org.

2005-05-28T22:31:00.000-04:00

Well once again the UN proved how useless it really is. For over a month 188 nations have been debating on whether or not we should let terrorist states like Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons. Their solution- do nothing. Though this question can be answered by most pre-scholars, what do you expect when you ask life threatening questions to counties that have a literacy rate lower then most New York City public high schools. The main argument was whether the U.S should be restricted with their nuclear arsenal and why shouldn’t it, I mean when known terrorist are a screwdriver’s turn from being able to blow up themselves along with every neighboring country, the most logical question is what evil intentions the US has. Since we refused to be feed to the lions unarmed, the only thing accomplished was the UN proving once and for all that it is a out-dated organization that was made by the person who killed more of innocent people then the black plague (Stalin); the person that could not even remain Prime Minster after he won a war (Churchill); and the person who sized thousands of innocent japanese americans out of their homes and relocated them in poorly made ghettos (FDR).

Lies

2005-05-28T03:20:00.000-04:00

Well it should come to no surprise for most sane people, i.e. conservatives, that Hilary, Kerry and Dean have been lying to distort President Bush record. Now they are saying that the number of abortions have risen under President Bush. Why they care how many abortions are performed is not known, but most likely they were just celebrating this fact. Well a non-partisan website, factcheck.org, looked into the matter and issued a report saying:

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased... The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary... Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office.

Well there you have it, another perfect example of liberals lying and not even doing a good job of it.

Death of EU

2005-05-26T19:23:00.000-04:00

The European Constitution will lose the French referendum. To my surprise this is being done by the French socialists. They are afraid that England’s influence in the EU will cause capitalist reforms, which may make there stagnate economy actually grow. (The last thing any socialist wants) Even though France had a pathedic1% GDP real growth rate in 2003 and barely managed to get 2.1% in 2004, after some capitalistic reforms like privatizing Air-France, they still think that it could get worse. Though another instance of France driving them selves into the ground comes to no surprise at least there is an up side for the US this time, a united Europe is not likely for enough 2 or 3 years. Not the EU is a huge threat to the US economic supremacy considering that we have $11,750,000,000,000 GDP and the whole EU has just $ 11,650,000,000,000 GDP but with the combined treat of China and Japan it could lead to a rise of two new superpowers.

Safe for Now

2005-05-26T00:16:00.000-04:00

The stem-cell enhancement act passed the House 238-194 and it will pass the Senate. Now let’s get our facts straight, stem cell research is legal and can and has been used by the private sector. This bill uses taxpayer dollars to support the mass and systematic murder of children. In no way is that necessary because as we all know if there is so much promise and money in this research as the liberals like say the private sector could carry it further then the government can even imagine. So why should millions of American have their money spent on what they believe is murder. Well we don’t have to worry because President Bush will veto this bill, which will be his first veto in his presidency. Though the senate will have enough votes to override it; the house will not. So the federal holocaust of children will be delayed for at least 3 years but what happens in 2008 if a more moderate Republican is elected or the unimaginable happens and the Democrats actually win an election. Will the constitutional right to life be preserved or will our government pay for murder? There are only two options: getting a bigger majority in the House and Senate in both 2006 and 2008 or make stem cell research a issue in the primary. I have been told today by a left-wing teacher that my opinion on this issue when I or a loved one gets old-timers, or Parkinson’s. I told him that I will stand firm and never will a life for a life OK in my book

Come one; Come all

2005-05-24T18:21:00.000-04:00

This is a rare and vital insight into the twisted mind of the left and their anti-American military views:

Our military is the father of atrocities, murders, bombings, conspiracies, and more that we will never know. I support our troops, only because they are innocent men and women who do not know what lies beyond the next step. But it is the men who give them the orders that are responsible. Newsweek is not lying. They are just telling everyone what no one wants to hear- Anonymous Liberal

Ok lets exegesis that statement:

Our military is the father of atrocities –

Key facts: Our Military has freed more people then every modern military combined. It was our military that won WWI and WWII, which stop one of the largest atrocities ever, the Holocaust. During that same period of time Japan was stigmatically taking over all of the pacific, burning villages and murdering civilians as they went. I am sorry but liberals need a history lesson, ASAP, because if the over-blown story of Abu Ghraib is the only thing against us then we are relatively spotless.

Our military is the father of murders-

News Flash: people have been killed in wars since the first cave men argued over the last Mammoth leg. Is it not the militaries job to attack and kill enemies of the State, to protect our freedom? Was killing not needed in WWII or the Revolutionary War? If you are talking about the number of innocent civilians that have died in the process then I will tell you a secret that you won’t find in the New York Times: we have a very low percentage of civilian deaths. In fact I think that if you took away the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would have the lowest.

Our military is the father of bombings-

Yes I would say the US has perfected the art of bombing but did we ever use it in an unjust way? Have we ever attacked a country for the sole reason of money or land? Was it not our arms that brought down the four most ruthless and evil countries that ever existed: NAZI Germany; Fascist Italy; the Empire of Japan; and the Soviet Union? I wonder what the Soviet Jewry thinks of our bombs?

Our military is the father of conspiracies-

Correction France and Italy are the fathers of conspiracies. The amount of conspiracies and distrust towards our military is nothing in comparison to what pervious militaries faced. Also if we talk out liberals there is practically no one who believes conspiracy theories.

Our military is the father of more that we will never know.

The vast majority of military documents are open to the public or at least public officials like Senators. This also goes back to the idea of conspiracies theories and although I admit many things are with held from public view, I still believe that with modern technology very little major events get past the press or the American public.

I support our troops, only because they are innocent men and women who do not know what lies beyond the next step.

Well if that is the only reason liberals support our troops then boy do they need to become mentally rehabilitated. Let me give them a just one more reason they should support the men and women in the armed forces: because it is their sacrifices that allow you(liberals) to be acting like an ignorant ass by calling their origination the father of atrocities.

But it is the men who give them the orders that are responsible.

What orders are the liberals revering too, the ones to protect themselves; the ones to protect the Unites States; or the ones to protect the world? Well you are right, the men and woman (notice the liberal only said men, sexist maybe) who give orders are responsible. They are responsible for keeping this country safe and its citizens secure, and let me be the first to say they have done a great job.

Newsweek is not lying. They are just telling everyone what no one wants to hear.

Newsweek said they got the story wrong, the military said the story was wrong, even moveon.org has not said otherwise. Also even if Newsweek got the story straight they would be lying about lying because they retracted the story and apologized for it. Like usual the only ones that don’t want to hear the truth are the liberals because where there is truth there is also light and in the light liberals can’t hide behind their lies and deceptions.

The New Holy Roman Empire

2005-05-22T14:27:00.000-04:00

Q: What is liberals’ worst fear? (Besides me) A: Religion. This is because any moral understanding or fear of a high power shows them for what they truly are evil, pro-death, and morally corrupt pessimists. So it should come to no surprise that when any form of religion enters the political spectrum they cry “foul” and demonize it. Even the far-right respects “Separation of Church and State” which was supposed to stop an established religion like in England but liberals go way beyond this to the point of persecution.

The words of Jesus, Yahweh, and Allah are not only for religious guidance but are historical human teaching. So when President Bush says that “Love thy neighbor as thy self is an American idea” he is not establishing or even endorsing a religion because those words are not only Christian teaching but is and should be a human idea. There is no sane person that will tell you, they don’t try and live their life according to that idea. When in all of human history was, “loving your neighbor as your self” a radical idea.

The same is goes with the Ten Commandment, because they are the basics for all modern law. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai it was not only a major religious event but also a historical one that will go down in history. Moses was therefore a historical figure; maybe not a 200 year old man who can make water come out of rocks but someone did lead the Israelites out of Egypt and through the desert. So what is wrong with the First Lady of the United States visiting the alleged burial pace of Moses.

Liberal just don’t understand that religion is not something to fear but to respect. Socialism is also connected to religion, just look at Western Europe, the former Soviet Union and China. The liberals can not accomplish there goal of a socialist United States if religion thrives. You just have to look at history to see that the rise of socialism and the fall of religion go hand in hand.

Dean Sucks

2005-05-20T17:21:00.000-04:00

Well the Democrats have finally managed to mess up their own party even worse then what they did in the late 70’s. (Trust me I am not complaining). They appointed a big mouth idiot as chairmen, who could not even win his primary. Howard Dean has not shown mush improvement since then. Even Steve Rosenthal, CEO of America Coming Together, a group formed to energize and turn out Democratic voter, said: "Democrats should be stirring things up, roiling the waters on (the GOP) side the way Mehlman is on ours. He's playing in our sandbox."

Though I do understand why Dean does not try and take Republican ranks: it is fruitless. Republicans are bound together through moral and spiritual (not necessarily religious but also patriotic) understanding. What are The Democrats binding forces: taxes and abortion? While Ken Mehlman is ripping through the Democrats own base by targeting minorities, democrats are still in denial about 2004. Here is some numbers for you to grasp:

President Bush gained last year among blacks, rising from 8% to 11%. More worrisome for Democrats as they look at future swing states, Bush went from 9% to 16% among black voters in Ohio — the state that gave him the presidency with a 2-percentage-point win. Among Hispanics, the fastest growing part of the electorate and once reliably
Democratic, Bush went from 35% to more than 40% nationally.
The GOP recently set new goals — register 4 million new voters, identify 19 million new potential supporters — to make sure it keeps growing over the next four years.

He also has not even learned to keep his mouth shut.

He has called Republicans "corrupt," "brain-dead" and "mean." "They are not nice people," he said last month in a radio interview on Air America Minnesota, according to the political newsletter Hotline. Last weekend he said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, whose associates are under investigation but who has not been charged with anything, should go home to Houston to "serve his jail sentence" at Texas expense. (What happened to the party of compassion and understanding?)

Like most liberals Dean is not very good with money:

Democratic National Committee (DNC) fund raising under the chairmanship of Howard Dean shows a disappointing $16.7 million raised in the first quarter of 2005, compared with $34 million reported by the Republicans.
That tends to confirm dire predictions by old-line Democratic fund-raisers of a fall-off in money if Dean became chairman. He had promised to bring in heavy individual contributions, as he did in his 2004 campaign for president. But the DNC in the first quarter received only $13 million from individuals, compared to $31 million for the Republican National Committee (RNC).

In conclusion: Dean sucks; Democrats can’t even manage their own party; and they have no chance in 2006 or 2008. (We did not learn much here but we did reinforced what we already know, which is always a good thing)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-19-parties-outreach_x.htm
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050507.shtml

Center-right America

2005-05-16T23:13:00.000-04:00

Gallup Origination has released what seems to be one of the biggest wins for the modern conservative movement in months. It seems like we are unbeatable right now (knock on wood). Early this week Gallup preformed a poll on moral issues in America. Its released showed liberals are losing in almost all moral debates. Here is a summery of some of the major issues. (To get the full report here is the link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci=16318 )

The death penalty. Gallup's 2001 survey found that 63% of Americans said the death penalty was morally acceptable. This sentiment showed only minor variations from 2002 through 2004. Now, the perceived moral acceptability of the death penalty has reached its highest point to date, with 70% saying it is acceptable.

The poll also finds that only about one in five Americans rate the overall state of moral values in the country today as excellent (2%) or good (17%). Nearly 4 in 10 adults nationwide rate moral values as poor. Over the past four years that Gallup has asked this question, the results have essentially been the same each year, with one minor exception. In 2003, the percentage rating morality in the country as poor was slightly lower, at 35%.
Abortion: 40% morally Acceptable while 51% think it is morally wrong.

What Your Right is and What is Right.

2005-05-15T23:21:00.000-04:00

One of the many subjects that liberals just don’t understand is reverence. I tried to explain to my liberal friends that just because you, as a US non-Catholic, have the right to criticize The Catholic Church (I am Catholic) does not mean you should. Well, all of a sudden I was tiring to deny their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. This all leads back to the lefts inability to have reverence for anything. They literally don’t understand that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. The loony left always tries to blame Bush for the lack of international respect towards the US but the term ignorant American started way before the year 2000. It is because most Americans have to put there two cents into everything and I am not talking about the United States government but rather the American public. We just never shut up. This all originates from the school yard saying, “It is a free county and I can say what I want.” Well it is and you can say anything you want but there is a fine line between what your right is and what is right.

I have rights too...

2005-05-15T05:32:00.000-04:00

Well the so called intellectual left has struck again and their new slogan is “intolerance”. We all know that once a debate starts in Washington that it soon spreads like wildfire to every part of the county; well the same is true about gay marriage. I have personally been attacked by the local lonely leftists who label me as a homophobe and even a racist (yes apparently homosexuality is a race, go figure). While provoking my first amendment right to freedom of speech (which I later found out only applied to people who agree with them), I said that marriage should be between a man and a woman (how extreme is that). After our friends on the left questioned my feeling towards gays saying; “Do you like being around gays?” I simply replied that I was uncomfortable being around most homosexuals and I personally felt that their life style was a sin. (Let me make my self clear I did not in anyway condemn or judge anyone). Well you would have thought I called for a second Final Solution because they went crazy (I mean more then usual). They started talking about the 60’s and the civil rights movement (which is absurd because my 2nd cousin is African American and so are a lot of my friends) and most of their normal rants. My answer was “well don’t I have the right to feel uncomfortable”. There answer was a blunt, no. Well let me make my point. Unlike what my liberal friends think, I am not calling for segregated school between heterosexual and homosexual teens. I am just saying that I have the right to politely move to the other side of the room or bus if someone I feel uncomfortable with sits next to me. I am not trying to hurt anyone’s feeling or cause trouble but there are some people I do not feel comfortable being around, and I should not be forced to sit next to them for the sake of tolerance. I do not need them to leave the room nor should they have to but I can move to the next row or seat without being intolerant. I am not targeting homosexuals because there are other people that I sometimes feel weird around like some extreme evangelicals, people with too many tattoos or pricings, and especially liberals. Some people may feel uncomfortable around me, and I would not mind if they moved to another seat when I sat down. I just want to able to hang out with the people I want without being condemned by people who would not want to sit next to me because I am one of those ignorant, incompetent, intolerant right wingers.

Church Silenced

2005-05-11T22:59:00.000-04:00

Today the Pastor of a Baptist Church resigned after pressure from left wing groups. It was because during the election he condemned Kerry views on social issues. Now Democrats are investigating to see if he broke the tax exempt rule for churches. It says that if a Church gets involved in politics and breaks the separation of Church and State ruling that they would have to pay taxes. Liberals have been using this rule as black mail to churches for years. Well my question is why can the government do thing that breaks the churches view and not allow it to speck out about it. I mean is that not under freedom of speech, does that church not have rights. The answer is only people or originations that support the left wing movement have rights, and since no Republican besides Rick Santorum stands up for Churches, things can only get worse.

Minority Rule

2005-05-10T23:30:00.000-04:00

Minority Rule

Written by: Thomas O’Donald

Edited by: Oscar

We all knew they would find a way, and they did. The democrats newest method of governance, is one were the minority can and must unreasonably paralyze the government of a country that soundly and fairly decided they weren’t up to the task in the past few elections. This method of governance is the filibuster, wherein members of congress stand and talk about anything, potentially indefinitely if enough congressmen/senators are willing, simply to delay voting on a piece of legislation until a proper compromise can be reached.

The filibuster was originated by Senator John C. Calhoun (D-SC) to stop anti-slavery bills from passing in the 1840's. (History 101: Dem: pro-slavery; Rep: anti-slavery.) The Filibuster’s dark past continues as it was used in both 1870 and 1891 to stop legislation protecting African-American voters; and again in 1922 and 1935 anti-lunching bills.

For 214 years it has been used to stop legislation; now for the first time in its history it is being used to stop judicial nominations, even when those nominations have majority support on the Floor of Congress, specifically, the Senate. For months this unprecedented misuse of power has clearly violated with the Advise and Consent Clause in the constitution. The Senate as a whole can’t advise or give consent without voting.

This stubbornness has lead to a number of threats and subsequent penalties imposed on the Senate by the American people themselves. The democrats promised to shut down the government if the Republicans implemented the Constitutional Option, which would involve changing senate rules to stop judicial filibusters. Turn back the clock to March 8, 2000 when the then-Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle said, “Among the constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the Senate, none is more critical to the well-being of our democracy than advising and giving, their consent on Presidential nominations.” Clearly Daschle’s going back on his own word may have had some effect on him losing his own seat in the Senate. See the reason they need to block Bush’s nominations is because the judiciary if the only branch of government they control. The judiciary branch has always been a safe haven for the losing party because the people don’t get to decide, legislators do. Also in order to protect the mass genocide of children (abortion) liberal judges are a must.

Democrats show no signs of yielding, up till this point. The idea of a filibuster is to force compromise, but Democrats are being uncompromising in their stand against judicial nominations. They are flirting with childish and undignified insubordination that may cost them even more in the long run. There is some honor and dignity in acknowledging you have lost, and allowing the victors their day in the sun.

In response to the childish insubordination, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has threatened what has been termed the “Nuclear” or “Constitutional Option. This would involve changing of the Senate rules to allow a floor vote for the judicial nominees. A majority of Americans are against changing the rules, but a majority is also in favor of letting those filibustered nominees get a vote on the floor of the senate. If Democrats aim to regain some of their lost ground, it’s time they gave up their losing fight on judicial nominations.

For my prediction I think that Sen. Bill Frist will have to use the Constitutional Option before the 2006 elections, because I don’t see Democrats relenting from their childish rebellion anytime before then.

Hidden Welfare

2005-05-10T23:22:00.000-04:00

"It's like Social Security. I want to go back to this. The real bottom line, the problem with Social Security is everybody in this country is on a welfare program and doesn't want to admit it. Every Social Security recipient today is on a welfare program and by that I mean today's recipients are not living off their own tax contributions throughout their life. It is taking taxes of other people working today to pay the retirement benefits of those on Social Security. It's only going to get worse as people live longer, retire the same age, that's why the burden, the tax burden on workers today is going to get even greater because it's going to take more taxes from these people to pay the Social Security benefits of people who are living longer and retiring. You know, if Social Security were a program where you only get back in real-dollar terms of what you put in, fine, it wouldn't be a welfare program. But when other people, when your neighbors, when your friends all over the country are paying for your retirement, sorry, it's a welfare program. And a lot of people don't want to admit that they're on a welfare program, but you are. And since you don't want to admit it, of course, the conventional wisdom will never be that it's a welfare program. Democrats will make sure it isn't that, "Oh, no, no, this is an insurance program. This is a retirement program. It's a full-fledged contract that we made with the citizens of this country, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Well, it was at one time. It's a Ponzi scheme and we've gotten to the point now where the early players are the winners and the current contributors are the losers and they're never going to get out of it what they put into it and something's going to have to be done. Social Security, back is going to break on it at some point down the line, just like all these pension plans and health care plans at these companies, at some point they're going to break the back and some sort of change is going to have to be made. I'm not going to pretend to know what the change would be, but this stuff can't go on economically in perpetuity. It just can't do it, no matter what the deal was at the outset."
-Rush