Well, Mitt Romney announced at CPAC that he’s bowing out of the race for the White House.
So much for my prediction that he will be the nominee!
Now, here’s the main question. Is someone going to Hugh Hewitt’s house to be sure he hasn’t died of a heart attack?
WTH
-By Dan Scott
Many of us feel disenfranchised by the clever manner in which the political process was manipulated for the 2008 presidential season. This was due to the front loading of states with liberal demographics and the MSM deselecting conservative candidates they didn’t like by not giving press coverage of the same quantity and quality as they did with very liberal candidates. A choice is not a choice when someone else makes the choices. Politicians and the liberal MSM engaged in deselecting viable candidates denying the public a real choice in whom they want to be President. This de-selection brings us full circle back to the days of the closed door brokering sessions of the power elites. The point of self governance is for the people to decide, not a small clique whose interests and agendas are better served by steering our choices. The first words of the Constitution says, “We the People”, not “We the elites know better, now shut up and do as we say.”
As dissatisfied as we are with the current selection, many of the more disgruntled among us who want to boycott the election are overlooking something very important. On occasion, politicians bend to the will of the People when they become very engaged on a specific issue. Politicians deign to the public in these matters since throwing a bone to them now and then keeps them thinking the politicians have finally got it and won’t pull another stunt. The problem is, the politicians do get it, that’s why they throw the bone, they are testing to see how engaged the public is on the issue. It seems that we have to be constantly on guard against politicians with agendas. You see, in order for politicians to advance their agendas they require our silence, our condoning of their actions. This is representation turned upside down in a Republic, the politician is supposed to represent the thinking of those who elected them. Gone are the days when we can complacently go about our business while expecting our public servants to do our bidding. Unfortunately, as long as they incrementally make changes (laws), the public doesn’t notice or doesn’t see the agenda for what it is until it’s too late. It’s only after the law is made, some people notice but not enough or all at once to make a difference. Arbitrarily not enforcing laws to advance an agenda also works the same way, illegal immigration is the example of this. This is how self governance is corrupted giving way to special interest groups backing politicians with their own agendas.
Continue reading “Sock Puppet for President”
-By Warner Todd Huston
Just a quick note to let Publius Forum visitors know that I was quoted in the Washington Times today.
Writer Jennifer Harper had emailed me the other day for my impression on the media during this election cycle. She featured my opinion up front in the story.
Go check it out:
“Press coverage dry run for fall,” By Jennifer Harper
An important day of reckoning finally arrived in the presidential race yesterday, and not a minute too soon. The press at last had genuine news events to cover, rather than weepy moments or political kerfuffles.
Most news organizations treated Super Tuesday as a dress rehearsal for Election Day, with fancy graphics, multitudes of correspondents and frantic wall-to-wall coverage from rural voting booths and hotel ballrooms alike. But some wonder if journalists remain in “anointing” mode — winnowing down the field of candidates through selective coverage, ultimately proving a disservice to voters who are hungry for substantive issues and acutely engaged in the race.
“Primary coverage is horribly slanted. The mainstream media all-out attacked Fred Thompson and wounded his campaign seriously with the false ‘he’s lazy’ charge, and they serially attacked his wife, too. With him out of the way, they are now doing their best to slam Mitt Romney at every turn in favor of John McCain,” said Warner Todd Huston of NewsBusters, a media-watchdog group.
“They think McCain is beatable, and if not, is liberal enough to suit them. So they are propping McCain up as much as they can,” said Mr. Huston, who also took the New York Times to task.
The paper yesterday showcased a photo of Mr. Romney that looked “sinister” when compared to his rivals, a “happy Clinton, McCain, Obama,” he said.
Continue reading “The Washington Times Came ‘a Callin’ — Me in Today’s Edition”
-By Warner Todd Huston
I’m not going to get all crazy over this one, but I just thought it was odd that in today’s Washington Times piece, Tony Blankley made a flat out wrong historical claim. In his piece titled “The strange GOP nominating victory,” Blankley said:
Assuming John McCain gets the Republican nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party, but was actively despised by about a half of its rank-and-file voters across the country —and by many if not most of its congressional officeholders.
This is not really true. Wendell Wilkie was widely despised by all the regular Republican party bigwigs when he won the nomination through popular acclaim in a dark horse candidacy. When he accepted the GOP nod to run against Frankiln D. Roosevelt in 1940 he had only recently declared we even was a Republican having voted Democrat his whole life until that point.
The main reason we ended up with Wilkie taking the top GOP spot waqs because some very powerful media moguls pushed his candidacy in all their publications and built a popular storm for Wilkie outside the Party proper.
So, it isn’t the only such times as Blankley seems to imagine.
Just correcting the record.
-By Thomas E. Brewton
The current Republican and Democratic economic stimulus plan is the latest version of a much tried and repeatedly untrue liberal-progressive panacea.
Stimulus packages first surfaced in this country, under President Herbert Hoover, as a product of the liberal-progressive-socialist doctrine of the early 20th century. They failed miserably throughout the Depression and haven’t worked anytime since then.
The bottom line is that stimulus packages don’t do the intended job of jump-starting the economy. Instead they work against righting misallocation of economic resources and add to inflationary pressures that rob people of the value of their savings.
Tax cuts, coupled with reduced government spending, are the only effective and non-inflationary economic stimulants.
Why then have one-shot stimulus packages?
Continue reading “Stimulus Packages: 1929 to 2008”
-By Warner Todd Huston
From the “a picture says a thousands words” file, take a gander at the New York Times’ campaign graphic. It shows a happy and smiling Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama all of whom are smiling widely, showing teeth and looking quite inviting. Then comes the photo of Mitt Romney. For Mitt the NYT chose a picture with a closed-mouth, wry smile, looking down at the viewer, eyebrows heavily shadowed. Romney looks sinister compared to the photos the other three picked by the Times.
Now, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that they want to make Mitt look uncomfortable, or sinister? Can it be that the Times wants people to see Romney in a worse light compared to the others?
It is instructive to note that the Times supports McCain. Making Romney look less appealing in their graphic is quite a smooth, subtle move on the part of the Times. But it is unmistakable that this is what they are doing. The photo of Mitt was undeniably chosen to make Mitt look less appealing. It is a well-known fact of human nature that a smile showing teeth is more appealing than a grin with lips firmly clamped shut. So, it is unmistakable that this is why they chose the Mitt picture that they did.
The tricks of the liberal MSM never ceases to amaze, eh?
Continue reading “NYT: Campaign Photos Happy Clinton, McCain, Obama — Sinister Romney”
-By Warner Todd Huston
Imagine this! We get to play our favorite game twice in the same day! Yes, it’s time once again for “Democrats or Not,” where we read an MSM story about corruption in politics and try to determine which party the perp is from… because the MSM won’t tell us — usually, that is.
This is a very special edition of “Democrats or Not,” because this time we don’t have to guess which party the violator in question is from. Amazingly, unexpectedly, we have finally found a story where the AP has found the temerity to list the perp’s party affiliation. And we can thank the AP for their bravery in, “Judge Grills E-Mail-Deleting Texas DA.”
An embattled prosecutor (District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal) facing a contempt charge for deleting e-mails was grilled Friday by a federal judge who said he should have known better than to erase material he had been ordered to turn over.
An outrage, I tell you. So, what party does this dastardly, low down, sidewindin’, fourflusher belong to? Which party has the AP valiantly blown the whistle on? (my emphasis)
Since the e-mails were made public, the Republican district attorney has been forced to abort his re-election bid and has faced almost daily calls to resign, including from hundreds of protesters who crowded the courtroom Thursday after marching from his office to federal court.
And there you have it. Story after story has the AP given us where they seem to forget to mention which party their monstrous perpetrator is from. We have detailed so many of those stories here for you. Democrat after Democrat after Democrat has gone unidentified by the AP and other MSM outlets in such stories.
Continue reading “AP Finally Reports Party Label Over Corruption… Guess Which Party?”
-By Frank Salvato
A good friend of mine, a retired firefighter and Korean War Era Marine – a fine and good American if there ever was one, recently sent me an email on the realization that John McCain was the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. In it he espoused the exact sentiment that I fear most going into the November elections. In essence, he said that if McCain wins the nomination he will not be voting…period. I have heard this pronouncement coming from the talk radio elite as well. While it is appropriate to thrash out intra-party ideological differences in the primary elections it is thoroughly irresponsible to abdicate civic responsibility by narcissistically refusing to protect the country from the lesser of the two candidates offered in November.
The battle to convince litmus test voters that theirs is a constitutional obligation to vote for the better of the two candidates presented in November is not an easy one. Over the years politicians, both genuine and opportunistic, have pounded the idea into our heads that we must always choose the best candidate. But what happens when the best candidate isn’t offered on the final ballot? What happens when a political faction’s “darling” doesn’t make the cut? Many true Conservatives are in that very position today.
The fact of the matter is that we have never – ever – voted for the best candidate in any election. Each and every politician who has ever run for office has had their weak points and their detractors, whether legitimate or contrived. In reality, each election that our country holds, whether local, county, state or national, is a contest in which the better candidate is selected. This being said, it is understandable why many political analysts recognize that it is easier to get voters to the polls to vote against something than to vote for something.
Continue reading “Duty. Honor. Country. Civic Responsibility.”
-By Lee Culpepper
In the rare case of a “McCain” lasting longer than four hours, readers should seek immediate medical attention.
From McCain’s lackluster record at the Naval Academy to his self-important tenure as a United States Senator, John McCain has never missed an opportunity to stroke himself. Unfortunately, leadership is not about the size of one’s popularity. It’s about character, competence, and respect.
Like any poster child for the Democrats, former POW John McCain possesses the victim status necessary to insulate himself from factually transmitted criticisms – according to liberals anyway. However, most men are judged on how they conduct themselves throughout their lives, not on a moment of circumstance.
None of us know for sure what McCain experienced during his time as a POW. All we know is that he survived and came home while many other POWs did not. What was it about McCain that was different? Was it family heritage or was it his proclivity for compromising to get what he wants?
At the Academy, McCain rebelled and barely graduated. In The Nightingale’s Song (authored by fellow Naval Academy graduate Roger Timberg) McCain proves to be more of a playboy than a midshipman. Disobedience, demerits, and distraction mark McCain’s Academy days. Today, McCain continues to demonstrate that he lacks the self-discipline, tact, and integrity on which the Academy prides itself. The Academy’s honor code states clearly, “[Midshipmen] tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known.”
Continue reading “A Poster Boy for Democrats and Viagra: John McCain”
-By Warner Todd Huston
That’s right, you read the title to this piece correctly. I am admitting that I am a RINO. I admit it openly, freely, with relish even.
For those unfamiliar, RINO is not only shorthand for rhinoceros, that great beast of the African plains, but it is also an acronym. It stands for, “Republican In Name Only” — RINO.
Now, I am not going to pull a fast one here and spell RINO out with other words. No, I’m happily sticking right with the words “Republican In Name Only.” So, there it is. I am a RINO.
Some of you reading this may already be feeling your stomach curdle at the very mention of the word RINO. After all, it’s really gotten some bad press. Rush Limbaugh and his brethren have really done a disservice to this fine descriptive word. Heck, even I have hurled it as an epithet when confronted with a politician who hasn’t lived up to my standards.
But, after reflecting on recent events, I realized that I myself am a RINO. At first I bristled at my own thoughts. But, after a time it appeared obvious that I am, indeed, a RINO.
I’m just going to have to accept it. Own it, as our pop psychology spewing friends on the left so earnestly say.
I am a RINO and here’s why…
So, there you have it. The perfect definition of a RINO. That’s me. But, I am not going to lower my head in shame, no sirree. I am proud of this and am glad that I have finally come to terms with it. A little introspection never hurt anyone, ya know?
Let me explain further why I now feel ready to accept my RINOness. (Or is that RINOcity?)
Continue reading “…I Am A RINO”
-By Lee Culpepper
In the rare case of a “McCain” lasting longer than four hours, readers should seek immediate medical attention.
From McCain’s lackluster record at the Naval Academy to his self-important tenure as a United States Senator, John McCain has never missed an opportunity to stroke himself. Unfortunately, leadership is not about the size of one’s popularity. It’s about character, competence, and respect.
Like any poster child for the Democrats, former POW John McCain possesses the victim status necessary to insulate himself from factually transmitted criticisms – according to liberals anyway. However, most men are judged on how they conduct themselves throughout their lives, not on a moment of circumstance.
None of us know for sure what McCain experienced during his time as a POW. All we know is that he survived and came home while many other POWs did not. What was it about McCain that was different? Was it family heritage or was it his proclivity for compromising to get what he wants?
Continue reading “A Poster Boy for Democrats and Viagra: John McCain”
-By Warner Todd Huston
It is true that I want John McCain stopped. And, between McPain… I mean McCain… and Romney it would be Romney that is closer to the principles of a conservative when choosing a presidential candidate for the GOP.
But, this is not to say I endorse Mitt the Malleable, either. The puzzle about Mitt is which Mitt are we supporting? The Mitt of generally left of center politics that ran against Kennedy, and ran for Governor of Massachusetts or the generally right of center Mitt that is now running for president? Or even the Mitt that claims he is an arch conservative?
In that vein, I saw a quote from columnist Jeff Jacoby that sums up a couple of things for me, yet frames the question here perfectly and highlights the reason that, for conservatives, supporting Mitt is problematic.
Here is what Jacoby wrote:
“Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is a different kind of act, one intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man—and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal. [Now,] Romney is where he should have been all along.”
Were Mitt’s views really “liberated” from his past, wrong headed left leaning ideas? Perhaps yes. Or perhaps if all you want to see is a politician that is warming to conservative ideas, then Romney fits the bill?
But, can we believe him? How are we to assume that his drift rightward is genuine? Most of his record shows a man not of conservative bent. Yet, as he geared up to run for president, suddenly and over the space of only a few, short years time, he becomes the conservative’s best friend?
Why should we believe this sudden turn around? Why should we not just assume it is a cynical ploy by Mitt for the support of conservatives and that once in office he will revert to lefty Mitt? It wouldn’t be the first time that a Republican left of conservative ran on conservative platform and then veered left once in office (can we say Trent Lott?).
For his part, Jacoby seems to swallow Mitt’s turn around whole. So, it begs the question to be asked: does Jacoby just see what he wants to see, or does he see what really is? And that is the problem with Mitt Romney’s supposed drift to the right. To believe it, one must suspend any examination of the record, cross one’s fingers, and think good thoughts that it is all true.
Personally, I judge a man by his actions, not by his claims. By Romney’s actions he is no conservative — he shows as a moderate. Sadly, there is no contest between John McCain and Mitt Romney. McCain is far, far worse. But, Mitt is no prize either.
I don’t know about you, but I am getting tired of being asked to chose between the less of two worsers.
-By Frank Salvato
I have been avoiding the discussion of who I am supporting for the Republican presidential nomination in deference to urging others to thoroughly examine the platforms, agendas and records of all those in contention. Only by taking the time to circumvent the agenda-driven propaganda of the mainstream media (and in some cases its non-coverage of certain candidates) can we truly understand who each candidate is and what he – or she – stands for. With both my first and second choices now out of the race I believe it is time to examine the Conservative communities troubling propensity to self-destruct and the accurate definition of the term “RINO.”
For the record, the two candidates that represented my vision of what leaders should be were – and still are to a certain extent – Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Both of these men are strong on defense and understand that no other issue really amounts to much if we lose the wars against Islamofascist aggression and the American Fifth Column. Given that, they too realize that our tax system, in dire need of restructuring, caters to congressional opportunism and financial malfeasance and that the government ought to start diminishing its role in Social Security so that we can lessen our government’s “tax footprint” and continue the creation of an ownership society. They both have considerably more experience in government and non-caustic inside-the-beltway politics than any of the Democrats running for the White House yet they still hold true to the belief that elected officials serve their constituents.
Both of these good and decent men are now out of the race and are so for many reasons, chief among them: a lack of adequate media coverage and a lack of support from those who should have known better. Now we are left with yet again another election where we – we who place the well-being of our nation before special interest litmus tests and victory at the cost of compromise – are left with the task of electing the “lesser of two evils.”
Continue reading “Examining the Definition of ‘RINO’”
-by Warner Todd Huston
I don’t usually like to make predictions like this because, historically this far out, it’s hard to get it right as so many things can change in the many months ahead. But I feel things are solidifying already. So, here it is. My prediction on who will be facing whom for the 2008 election for president.
GOP
Romney will win the nomination for the GOP. He has the delegates and that will just grow as Republicans realize that it is either Romney or McCain. Granted, both are horrible choices… but McCain is by far the worst or the two. As to who Romney will pick for VP, rumors are abound that he will go for Fred Thompson. This is an outside possibility as long as Thompson doesn’t get his heart set on running for Governor of Tennessee and as long as he feels VP is good enough for him. It is also a good choice for Romney because principled conservatives hate the man. Chosing Thompson would add badly needed credibility to the ticket. If Thompson does refuse or does not become the VP choice, I cannot guess who it will be otherwise.
Dem
Hillary will win for the Democrat Party and she will pick gov. Richardson for VP. She also will have more delegates in the long run. As to picking Richardson, after making so many blacks mad at her (and Bill) during this race because of her treatment of Obama, she will have to shore up her Hispanic constituents. They are a bigger voting block anyway. She will ignore her black voters and pander to the Hispanic ones.
The interesting thing here is that both candidates, Romney and Hillary Clinton, have large portions of their voters who don’t like them at all. Many conservatives will not be able to vote for the left of center Romney. His past support of abortion and his man, many, many flip-flops will keep principled voters away from him. And, Hillary has just alienated her black voters and that will probably continue now that Obama won South Carolina by such a large margin. I feel many blacks will not be enthusiastic for her once she wins the nomination and support will slip. But how far?
So, the question becomes, NOT which candidate has excited more people than the other to win election, but which one has peeved off the most! Has Clinton lost enough black votes to affect her chances, or has Romney lost enough conservatives to lose his bid against Hillary?
Other GOP VP choices
Continue reading “Presidential Race Predictions 2008”
-By Dan Scott
I hear a lot of breast beating by my fellow conservatives that with the last nationally recognized truly conservative candidate bowing out of the race that now we as a movement and a nation face rueful choices and consequences. With Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson bowing out this leaves only Alan Keyes as the lone conservative among the current candidates running for the Republican nomination for President. Unfortunately and it pains me to say it, Alan doesn’t have the executive experience or the national recognition needed to take up that banner. If Tom, Duncan and Fred represented the stalwart national face of conservatism, Alan represents the soul.
So where do we go from here, what are our choices? On one hand we see the Main Stream Media (MSM) has been successful at hoodwinking the electorate yet again by deselecting candidates they don’t want through negative or no press coverage. None of the four conservative candidates ever received the quantity and quality of press coverage collectively that Obama and Clinton have received individually let alone the other more liberal Republican candidates. We clearly under estimated the residual strength of the MSM, dying as they are in the ratings themselves. They may yet be successful in influencing the 2008 general election for the Dems but in doing so will equally share in the blame when failure occurs. However, we should not discount the positive effect of the alternative media, both radio and internet, in that had it not been for them, we would never have even heard of Tom, Duncan, Fred or Alan but for scant mention of their existence. What this tells us is the glass is neither half full or half empty, it means that the glass is currently too big! We need to continue with the successful strategy of outing the MSM every time they engage in propagandizing. Our efforts thus far have reduced the trust they usurpt through presumption and consequently the ratings they enjoyed at the expense of the public trust. A few more years of consistent chopping will fell this tree that has cast a shadow over the political arena in the debate of ideas. Remember it was the alternative media starting with Radio that gave the conservative cause a voice where none before existed due to the intolerance of the liberally controlled MSM.
Continue reading “Breast beating by the Conservatives”
By Selwyn Duke
To use a play on Winston Churchill’s cynical words, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute perusal of election coverage. Another way to put it – at risk of sounding trite – is if it weren’t for nonsense, it wouldn’t make any sense at all. Yet, if being trite were a sin, most presidential aspirants would languish in political purgatory.
First we have the bromidic bilge about change. You can bet your withholding tax that the Democrat candidates were programmed to pepper their speeches with the word in a measure as liberal as their politics. Tell certain constituencies you’re a change agent – even if the only thing you change is your personality – and the idiot vote swoons.
Change isn’t by definition good; it’s just by definition change. One-hundred years ago, Russians’ dissatisfaction with the Tsar led them to roll the dice. Things couldn’t get any worse, many thought. So they made a change.
And the communists took power in 1917.
Then, if your child’s diet yielded vigor and health, would you place him in the hands of some guru promising ambiguous change? Wouldn’t you demand specificity?
Continue reading “Election Year Nonsense”
What a perfect montage of why no Republican should vote for John “the Maverick” McCain.
And those are only but a FEW reasons that McCain does not deserve the GOP nomination for president. There are so many more that a commercial styled video hasn’t the time to lay them all out.
-By Frederick Meekins
Throughout his time in the public limelight, Republican Mike Huckabee has made obesity awareness one of his pet issues having lost over 100 pounds himself. However, as is typical of most fanatics having come to a realization or a cause a little later in the game than most, it is not enough for them to keep what they have learned to themselves but now they are out to impose their new way of life to such an extent that they are willing to appeal to the mechanisms of the state in order to enforce their vision of reality.
As part of an initiative to combat childhood obesity, as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee implemented directives where each public school student in that state would have their weight cataloged by operatives of the educational system. From this assessment, a document similar to a report card would be generated and sent out at about the same time as the more traditional scholastic evaluation.
Those with their perceptions mired in what to them seemed more carefree times might respond, “What’s the big deal?” Perhaps they should stop and reflect for a moment.
As in the case of grades and such, once the state tabulates an individual’s weight,, it will become part of their permanent file and be used to track them for the rest of their lives. And don’t go around thinking the number will simply remain just another harmless statistic tossed into a file folder with no additional reference made to it.
In a FoxNews.com story posted 6/13/04 titled “Students To Be Graded On Weight”, the health coordinator is quoted as saying, “We’re going to know how many are overweight, how many are underweight, how many are normal weight.” It’s bad enough for the government to have such information in its possession, but it gets even worse when it serves as the basis for the implementation of concrete policies.
Continue reading “Huckabee’s Fat Lip Yammering On About Your Gastronomic Business”
-By Nancy Salvato
While a great number of people do not see the value in the Electoral College (And “W” Takes the Series), it is possible an even greater number of people don’t fully comprehend how each political party selects their candidate for president. During the Iowa Caucus, after I heard several people draw a blank when asked to explain how a Caucus works, I decided it might be time to put together a primer on the nominating process.
The Republican and Democratic political parties < href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary>“officially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions, usually held the summer before the election.” In order to win the nomination, a Democrat must win 2,025 delegates out of 4,049 possible and a Republican must win 1,191 delegates out of 2,381 possible. Leading up to the national conventions, there are a series of presidential caucuses and primary elections which take place across the nation. Traditionally, this begins with the Iowa caucus, held in early January of the presidential election year, and is quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary.
“Most [Emphasis mine] of the delegates in each party are awarded based upon election results in any given state.”
“Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may be actually voting to award delegates bound to vote for a candidate at the state or national convention or may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention.” [Emphasis mine]
Continue reading “A Primary Caucus Primer”
What for Federalism With Thompson’s Loss?
-By Warner Todd Huston
The question many of us dreaded is upon us. Fred Thompson has shown he cannot capture enough primary victories in his race for the White House. This brings us to a seminal question; what does Fred Thompson’s withdrawing from the race — or his irrelevancy to it — mean for the conservative cause? Even more specifically, what does it mean for the concept of Federalism? There is only one answer possible and it is one none of us want to hear. It means that, for the foreseeable future and for all intents and purposes the concept of Federalism in particular and the conservative agenda in general are more or less back burner issues in Washington D.C.
Now, I am not saying that no conservative issues will ever again win the day in D.C. I am also not saying that we conservatives should pack our bags and go home. Staying in the fight is absolutely a must for sure. But winning in the big game by taking the White House, or leading the cause from out in front is seemingly out of the question for now. Unfortunately, we are nearly back to a similar situation as the conservative movement was in1979, a day when conservatism was barely able to gather enough forces to win at small issues in Congress and in the national debate. Only, this time, there will be no Ronald Reagan poised to lead the charge.
Fred Thompson was the last chance we will see for a very long time for a president that is a traditional, conservative, principled American presidential candidate. We will see from this point on candidates who are far more socialist than conservative with their base ideological philosophy. Sure they will pretend at being conservative, but they will not be and their records will prove it.
Candidates like the center, left Mitt Romney and Rudly Giuliani will be the norm for the GOP because it will be assumed both by pundits and political campaign operatives that the strictly conservative candidate is doomed to lose. No one of Reagan’s basic small government principles will be able to run for the White House for a very long time with Thompson’s bowing out.
Continue reading “All Done but the Moulderin’”
-By Warner Todd Huston
Day in and day out the Democrat Party makes its bid for defeat in Iraq and the war on Terrorism. Many of us out here in “flyover country” wonder on a daily basis why so many of our representatives in Congress have invested themsleves wholly for defeat? Well, here is a chance to do something about that.
12 U.S. Military veterans have come together to run for Congress across this great land and they are running on a platform of VICTORY in this great struggle in which we are engaged. Take a visit to the website Iraqivetsforongress.com, where you will see info on all 12 candidates.
UNIFY ALL PRO-VICTORY REPUBLICAN
IRAQ VETERANS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS IN 2008
Whether Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine, we all shared a common goal in Iraq: victory. As Republican candidates for Congress we share a vision for America’s future, her security, and that of future generations. We are unified in our commitment to relieve the Democrats of their command of Congress.
Voters want to restore leadership and honor back to Washington. Who better to accomplish that mission than our generation of warriors?
All veterans whose service to the United States brought them first to Iraq and now to a run for the House as pro-victory Republicans are welcome to become part of Iraq Veterans For Congress.
United we are capable of sending to Congress a squad-size element of Iraq vets to keep us on offense in the War on Terror and counter calls for defeat.
In short, unification of all Republican Iraq Veterans will be a powerful force multiplier. By joining forces we will generate crucial nationwide grassroots support while sharing ideas and strategies.
This is a great way to highlight a victory platform so please pass the word on about this effort.
The candidates each have a link to where you can donate you financial support.
Here is a list of the candidates and for what seat they are running:
Continue reading “12 Veterans For Victory Running For Congress”
-By Vince Johnson
Dear Candidate for President of the United States: (Either party)
Last week you announced that your next conference would be held near Jamestown, Virginia where you would discuss changes you would advocate in our Foreign Policy. Here’s the speech I’d like to hear:
“Since the end of World War II, America’s foreign policy has been more confusing than it has been successful. Example: America has repeatedly told the world we were concerned about the “domino effect” regarding the spread of communism into North Korea and Vietnam. This totally ignores a reality known as Cuba which succumbed to Communistic rule in 1959. There is no reasonable explanation why Communist nations several thousand miles away were regarded as a greater threat to America than another Communist nation only a few miles from Florida. (Havana is 106 miles from Key West and Hanoi is 7,560 miles from Los Angeles.)
“The total of American lives lost in the Korean and Vietnam wars is 95,083! This is a horrible reality all Americans have to live with. The 2007 CIA World Fact Book classifies North Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba as Communist States. These are the same classifications North Korea and Vietnam had before all those lives were lost several decades ago. America did nothing when Cuba adopted communism in 1959. In 1961, Cuban exiles trained by Americans in Florida were involved in an invasion that failed miserably at the Bay of Pigs. North Korea and Vietnam are still communistic states and Cuba was added to the list after the Korean War and prior to the war in Vietnam! Our record in foreign affairs does not work. It must be changed while there is still time to do it.
Continue reading “6th Open Letter to the Candidate I’d Vote for”
-By Nancy Salvato
I’m enjoying the prime time primaries, carefully considering what each politician brings to the table as they all campaign to participate in what policy wonks might consider the political equivalent of the National League and American League playoffs in baseball.
It’s exciting and compelling observing the players moves; assessing “statistics” comprised of voting records and accomplishments; and listening to analysts determine the catalyst behind voter reactions, compare and contrast the candidates’ styles, analyze the spin, and comment on occasional heartfelt passion, as each contender competes to “go to the show,” our nation’s 2008 presidential election.
After the Democrats choose their candidate and the Republicans choose their candidate, each will compete to win the electoral votes in the 50 states. They do not win based on the popular vote; they win based on which states electoral votes they’ve earned. This is not unlike the World Series in baseball. The team that takes the series becomes the champion based on the best of seven games played, not on the number of runs cumulatively earned during the series.
Continue reading “Prime Time Primaries”
-By Dr. Don Boys
Frank Schaeffer, in his column, “The Huckabee Win is America’s Loss” spews out venom, vitriol, and vacuity toward Mike Huckabee, Christians in general, and his deceased father in particular. While he has every right to take the positions he takes, I have every right to set the record straight and to defend Huckabee, Christians, and the legacy of Frank’s father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer who helped Christians realize that we can serve God, take care of our families, and get involved in politics at the same time. Frank’s dad helped awaken us, alarm us, and activate us. It was about time!
Frank goes on and on and on ridiculing Huckabee’s followers who held hands and prayed “beseeching Jesus to help their candidate save America from the rest of us.” Well, I am far more comfortable with that than having political parasites in a smoke filled room or academic professors in a university lounge, or CFR jerks in a plush Washington office plotting how to run America off the rails. And yes, we had better save America from them because they (the bad guys) are in the process of destroying this nation with their moronic policies—both parties.
Frank suggests that Christians getting involved in government is “actually more like [opening] the doors to an insane asylum.” Please note that leftists of his ilk often speak about how mean Fundamentalists are but Frankie is as mean as a junkyard dog.
Frank wrote, “There are no theological ideas worth hating anyone over.” Wow! How profound! I wonder if Frank came up with that on his own. He seems to be saying, that if Americans discuss issues and even strongly disagree, then we must be haters! Frank has problems. Not sure if they are mental, emotional, or spiritual—maybe all.
Continue reading “Frank Schaeffer: Fearful of Huckabee Win!”
-By Warner Todd Huston
The folks at the New Republic struck gold with a great article on the racist, sexist, and homophobic content of decades of Ron Paul’s newsletters. This should be a needle in the Ron Paul balloon… but it is doubtful it will dissuade too many Paullynuts. After all, the racist, nutbar content of his past newsletters fits the great majority of his follower’s ideology.
The piece by James Kirchick is very long, but it is well worth the read. go on over and pick it up at Angry White Man.
I won’t bother repeating the dreck in these newsletters, but here is the salient bit close to the end of Kirchick’s piece:
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications–ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”
In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it.
It is out of the question to believe that Ron Paul could be separated from the newsletter that bore his name for decades!
Certainly, Paul may not believe every racist sentiment in these past newsletters, but he allowed his name to be associated with it for many, many issues and this puts his seal of approval on the whole mess.
As a Republican that has libertarian tendencies, I demand that Ron Paul remove himself from contention for the presidency. Further I demand that he resign from his seat in Congress. He is a disgrace to all Republicans and Libertarians everywhere. For a while I just felt Paul was a goofy, oddity. Now I see that he is a racist, nutball and a man like this is far more dangerous than I thought.
Continue reading “Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters”
“Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.”
(Mitt Romney, 1994 Senate Debate, Boston, MA, 10/25/94)
“I wasn’t a Ronald Reagan conservative.” (Mitt Romney In Interview with Marc Ambinder, “Romney Explains Himself,” National Journal, 2/9/07)
“I’m very clear I think, to the people across the Commonwealth – my “R” didn’t stand so much for Republican as it does for reform.”
(Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)
“I’m not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That’s not what brings me to the race.”
(Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)
-By Vince Johnson
Dear Sir/Ms/Mrs._____________________________________________
In review: In my first letter I suggested you walk out during a nit picky debate and announce a press conference on the Mexican border near Del Rio, Texas. At Del Rio you explained what you plan to do about immigration and announced your third conference at Santiam High in Mill City, Oregon. At the third conference you make a short speech before an audience of students, and teachers at Santiam High School:
“Last week I discussed my plans about immigration. This week I will state my position on education. Each student in this room is nearing a decision point that will affect their life as long as they live. Those desiring to have a meaningful and successful career have two basic choices. You can serve your country in any of many trades and professions. Or you can serve your country in the armed forces.
“In 2006, $1.4 billion tax dollars were spent on advertising designed to persuade you to enlist in the armed forces. Once you enlist, more billions are spent to feed you, cloth you, fix your teeth, treat you when you are ill, and on and on. Beyond that, more billions will be spent to train you in a wide variety of technologies and essential skills. And beyond that, billions and billions more are spent on military assets that you might operate, navigate, repair, maintain, and so on.
“To repeat: You have two options. You can serve your country in the armed forces, or you can serve your country in any of the thousands of trades and professions. Keep in mind that either choice is honorable and absolutely necessary. If you choose to join the armed forces the government pays you and gives you everything you need If you choose a career in one of the trades or professions, you might qualify for a loan from the government, otherwise you are on your own. This is not a wisecrack. This is fact.
Continue reading “Third Open Letter to the Presidential Candidate I’d Vote For”
-By Resa LaRu Kirkland
(Is a Mormon ready for the White House? Is THIS one?)
Before we were born, we had a choice to make. As our Heavenly Parents were helping us decide on the hows and whats of the next section of our eternal progression, we were confronted with a baffling decision. We had progressed as far as we could spiritually; now was the time to conquer the flesh. We all wanted to return to live with our Parents when our earthly mission was over, but knew that once we had a body on earth, we would be weak things whose default mode was sin. That meant it would be impossible for ANY of us to return to Father, who can look upon sin with no tolerance.
What to do?
Enter two beloved siblings, each with a plan.
The plan of our oldest brother–who would on earth be known as Jesus–was to allow us what we already had in Heaven–free will–but pay the wages for any of us sinners who would agree to follow him. That way He could satisfy the demands of justice–which mercy can NOT rob–but give the gift of mercy for those who would choose it. He even volunteered to be the one who paid that price, and in humility offered the glory that would follow such a gift back to His Father.
Continue reading “A Mormon President – The Talk VS. The Walk”
By Selwyn Duke
There is a candidate in the presidential race who has a serious religion problem. No, it’s not Mormon Mitt or recently-religious Rudy. It is Mike Huckabee.
Just for the record, I share Huck’s faith in Jesus Christ. Not only have I no problem with religion in public life, I also understand that one can’t really separate a person’s world view from his politics. The political is merely a reflection of the spiritual; our politics doesn’t emerge in a vacuum.
So what is my problem with Huck? Do I accuse him of false religiosity?
No, what scares me is that his beliefs are all too real.
To that enormous secular conservative voting block out there, I will say, be not afraid. It’s not that Huck would impose religion through government. No, his actions would truly offend you.
He would impose statism in the name of religion through government.
Continue reading “The Church of Huck: Growing Government in the Name of Religion”
A great Fredhead video campaign ad from the Right Wing News…