Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Libby, Guilty

Story on the Libby trial I've been ignoring because in many ways it's a non-story:

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters.

He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI.

Ace notes that those three convictions seem to be the same damn thing, reworded. I'd have to agree. Was it not obvious to this jury that since it has been proven that Richard Armitage was the one who "leaked" Plame's name, and that it's now beyond a doubt that no crime was involved in the "leak" anyway that it's far more likely that Libby just forgot some details or was confused when he "perjured" himself?

Whether it was obvious or not it's quite evident that Fitzgerald stacked the jury with people who hate the Bush administration and anyone connected to it in anyway, so they probably would have said guilty regardless of the facts.

Oh well. This is just another poor soul whose name and reputation were destroyed in the name of politics as usual.


Digg This!

Sunday, March 04, 2007

What I Learned From The CPAC Straw Poll

Captain Ed sees little in Romney's CPAC victory. I'm not sure what his evidence is (other than being there), but here's how he views the Romney win:

However, the straw poll probably reflects Romney's organizing abilities far more than his popular support among conservatives. The Romney campaign turned CPAC from a get-acquainted event to a mini-convention by recruiting scores of young activists to attend CPAC and haranguing attendees to vote for Mitt. The Brownback campaign did the same with a smaller coterie of foot soldiers. None of the other candidates bothered to do anything of the kind.
In my opinion, Mitt's win comes from his mix of conservative values and a great Presidential appearance. It's CPAC; they're going to pick a conservative. And since the only other ones in the race (Gingrich and Tancredo) don't have much name recognition, they went with the conservative they felt was the most electable.

Then how did Giuliani and McCain do so well? They're not exactly the model conservatives. And McCain didn't even bother going to CPAC! Well, I'd say their high rankings are the results of scared Republicans. It can be a little daunting when they media is constantly licking Obama and Hillary's balls and paying no attention to the Republicans. Some of the folks at CPAC probably just went with the Republicans with the most name recognition (McCain and Giuliani) out of fear that they didn't have anyone electable.

It's far too early to be calling the Presidential race. I doubt most people could even guess who would win the primaries, let alone the general election. But if there's one thing CPAC showed, it's that conservatives won't be frightened by the Mainstream media into voting for a candidate just for name recognition; we'll pick a conservative who shares our values and can do the job.

Digg This!

Saturday, March 03, 2007

CPAC Straw Poll

I'm one to say that it's ridiculous to pay attention to straw polls and to try and say who's going to get a party's nomination this far out from 2008, but here are the results from CPAC anyway:

WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney won the most support for the Republican presidential nomination in a straw poll of GOP activists attending an annual conference.

Despite his record of inconsistency on some social issues, the former Massachusetts governor got 21 percent of the 1,705 votes cast by paid registrants to the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference. They were asked who their first choice would be for the Republican nomination.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose moderate stances on social issues irks the party's right wing, was second with 17 percent.

Both were among the more than half-dozen White House hopefuls who spoke at the conference.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who rounds out the top tier of serious GOP contenders, skipped the event — and was punished for it. He got only 12 percent of the vote.

Ahead of him were Romney, Giuliani and two others. Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, a favorite of religious conservatives, got 15 percent, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who says he won't decide whether to run until the fall, got 14 percent.
It's nice to see McCain at the bottom where he belongs. It really is fascinating to watch his campaign completely self-destruct in front of our eyes. It's also nice to see that Sen. Brownback was able to make it into the top three (although barely beating a candidate that's not even a candidate yet.)

***Update, 9:46pm***

For those of you who want the numbers without having to read an article:

Mitt Romney 21%
Rudy Giuliani 17%.
Sam Brownback 15%
Newt Gingrich 14%
John McCain, 12%

Friday, March 02, 2007

Giuliani Tries To Fool Conservatives

Load of crap:

"We don't all see eye to eye on everything," Giuliani told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

"You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same, but we have some that are different," he told several thousand activists, comparing such disagreements to different perspectives within a marriage.

But Giuliani argued he shared the core conservative creed on low taxes, the historic role of American primacy, a tough stance in the war on terror, and freeing individuals from the shackles of government.

Yeah, and the core conservative values of gun control, gay marriage and abortion? Give me a break. It' going to have to be a sad field of candidates for him to get my vote in the primary.

Digg This!

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Who's Really Looking Out For 'The Poor'

By: Shane

Since LBJ first had the idea of a Great Society and began to implement massive socialist reforms, the Left has vastly redefined poverty to further their socialist agenda and welfare policy.

As the Washington think tank The Heritage Foundation points out, a rich man used to own a horse, and a poor man had to walk. These days a rich man owns a BMW and a poor man makes due with a used Buick. The difference between rich and poor in America has become merely aesthetic. When we think of poverty, we imagine people who are homeless and starving to death. This just isn’t the case. Liberals and the media have redefined poverty to include anyone who can’t afford to buy the luxury items that the average working American enjoys.

The Heritage foundation's data shows that “Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.” On top of that, 76% of “poor” households have air-conditioning, 75% own cars, 97% have colored televisions (more than 50% own two or more colored TVs), 78% have VCRs or DVD players, 62% have cable or satellite, 73% have microwaves, more than 50% have stereo systems, and 33% have dishwashers.

Welfare isn’t just going to people who could actually use it - the people who are starving on the streets with no place to sleep at night. A vast majority of it is going to people who are simply too lazy to find work. And why would they want to work when they can have a higher quality of living than the average citizen of Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe without lifting a finger?

The Left thrives on creating class warfare; convincing people that they are victims who need the government’s help. This is how they get votes, basically buying them by promising people who feel a sense of entitlement government paychecks for doing absolutely nothing. While the Left is exploiting the poor to gain power, you and I are paying for it through the countless taxes the Left has placed on practically everything, including sales tax on the things we buy, sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, taxes on services such as auto repair and movie tickets, and taxes on our income, among many others.

If you want a government handout, you’d better actually need it, and not just be sitting in a nice house with the AC blasting watching your TV or driving to the mall to pick up some new clothes (and grabbing some groceries with your food stamps while your out). When a vast majority of welfare recipients have a better standard of living then most Europeans, you know the system is no longer helping those in need, but has become a means of redistributing wealth that's so sneaky Lennon, Marx and Mao would be impressed.

If the Left really cared about the poor they would stop stifling economic growth in America with their incessant taxes and regulations. Cutting taxes not only increases government revenue, but it allows the private sector to flourish, creating more high paying jobs, effectively reducing poverty. Government enforced minimum wage laws lead to an increase in unemployment, hurting the poor. Instead of making $5 an hour like they would before a minimum wage increase, many low skill workers would be fired by employers who couldn't afford to pay the new higher wages. Then they make no money at all; how does that help them? By attempting to restrain an increasingly intrusive government from hindering the free market, conservatives are the ones who are really looking out for the poor. Liberals have simply locked America's poor in a vicious cycle of poverty, and all so they could get a few more votes. Ask yourself; who's really helping the poor?

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Digg This!

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Liberman May Switch Parties

Is Joe Lieberman finally going to jump ship and join to Republicans? It's a "remote possibility."

"Independent" Sen. Joe Liebeman [sic] receives a mini-profile titled "What Joe Wants," a key question since he is "the Senate's one-man tipping point." Republicans, the magazine says, are "courting him" and Lieberman "has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie."

Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin claims that his side still "counts on him as a friend" even though it is "a little painful and awkward."

Last month, after Lieberman told Democratic chief Sen. Harry Reid that he had "stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time," Time's Massimo Calabresi reveals. "Lieberman has started attending again." But Lieberman also keeps in touch with Bush aide Stephen Hadley "every week or two."
Meanwhile, Hot Air adds this bit of info from Politico:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind…

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

“I hope we don’t get to that point,” Lieberman said. “That’s about all I will say on it today. That would hurt.”

It's too bad I'd rather a funded war than a split Senate, but it's good to know that if the Democrats ever get the balls to go through with their real goal of cutting off funding, they may pay the price with control.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Isle-Crossers

The House passed their little non-binding resolution condemning the Troop Surge, you know, the one that's been working. Anyway, there aren't any articles on that story worth posting, but I thought you might want to know the names of the 17 Republicans that crossed the isle to vote for the resolution:

Reps Mike Castle of Delaware, Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tom Davis of Virginia, John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, Bob Inglis of South Carolina; Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, Walter B. Jones Jr. of North Carolina, Ric Keller, Fla.; Mark Kirk of Illinois, Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, Ron Paul of Texas, Tom Petri of Wisconsin; Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Fred Upton of Michigan, and Jim Walsh of New York.
Fred is my congressman. I'm pissed. Someone's getting a very angry letter.

You should also know the 2 Democrats who voted against the resolution, "Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi."

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Weekend Roundup

And now, a weekend roundup of the stories I would post on, if I didn't have other things to do:

First, from the NYT:

Ney Is Sentenced to 2½ Years in Abramoff Case
Next LGF has a great update on the "Jamil Hussein" debacle, I suggest you read the whole thing:
Whose Credibility Is Gone Now?
Speaking of "Jamil Hussein," Flopping Aces has a great post on the subject too:
The Latest & Greatest On The "Burning Six" Story
Also on Flopping Aces, the somewhat misplaced, but very informative, "9/11 Mysteries Debunked."

And finally, a hilarious story:
A 29-year-old man who apparently was horsing around with some friends crashed through a window and fell 16 stories at the downtown Minneapolis Hyatt Regency early Saturday morning.

His most severe injury? Police say he may have only a broken leg.

It's not an injury, but police also noted that he shit his pants.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

John McCain Would Support Overturning Roe v. Wade

Here's a post over at the Daily Kos titled "John McCain would support overturning Roe v. Wade ":

... McCain has flip-flopped on his 1999 statement that he wouldn't support overturning Roe v Wade. This is a fantastic catch. They've included the video at that link, and the ABC transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?

MCCAIN: I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you'd be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

(Emphasis added.)

This man is not a "moderate". He's pandering to the extreme religious right. Clearly, should McCain decide to run in 2008 , a vote for him would be a vote against a woman's right to chose.

Bad news for Kos - good news for conservatives that are concerned that McCain may be our nominee in 2008.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

Not that I'm surprised, but a new study finds that "religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income."

That's because we know our treasure is in Heaven, not on earth. Secularist liberals need as much wealth as they can get so they can buy lots of stuff to please their hedonistic greed.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Big Three Auto Makers 'Impressed' With President Bush's Concern

GW met with the Big Three auto makers. They were aparently impressed with him. Reports AP:

The automakers later told reporters they'd had a good meeting. "The president clearly understands the importance of the business to the United States and the global economy," said Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally.

The auto executives said they pressed their concerns about health care and trade issues, while making clear that the troubled industry does not want a federal bailout.

"We found a lot in common," said Bush, who met with the leaders just hours before he was to leave on a trip to Asia and a meeting in Vietnam with Asia-Pacific economic partners. The message he will give those partners, Bush said, is "just treat us like we treat you. ... Our markets are open for your products and we expect your markets to be open for ours, including our automobiles."

Monday, November 13, 2006

Senator Mel Martinez To Become Chairman Of The RNC

Hot Air is reporting that Mel Martinez will be the new head of the RNC. Hot Air:

Hot Air commenters agree: it's an awful pick, transparently aimed at appealing to pro-amnesty Hispanic voters. If the GOP goes ahead and puts Boehner and Blunt back in place in the minority leadership, you're looking at a very dire electoral situation in 2008.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Republicans Should Return To Reaganism

From Yahoo:

"We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles that minted the Republican Congress."


No crap. I wouldn't argue that Republicans got what they deserved for straying too far from the principles that Reagan worked with to form the modern Republican party.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Dems May Appoint Harold Ford DNC Chairman

Hot Air says Harold Ford may replace Dean now that they need to keep up the illusion that they support minorities. Why is it that Republicans appoint and elect people of color based on their qualifications and the Dems only do it when they need a black person to point at and say "he's with us"? And you'll notice that our method of appointing talented people yields more minorities then their affirmative action...

Mehlman Out. Steele In?

I hate when I forget to post on something, because then I look behind on the times when I post on it later. However, better late then never!

So, Ken Mehlman is going to step down as Chairman of the RNC . He's done a great job, I think they just want a change in leadership (don't buy this "Mehlman Stepping Down After Maher Outs Him" crap. He announced he'd step down before Maher slandered him).

The Republicans have tapped Republican All Star Michael Steele to be the new Chairman. Let's hope he takes the job, I would love to see him go head-to-head with Dean!

Friday, November 10, 2006

Terrorsists Support Libs Becuase Libs Support Terrorists

Why am I not surprised... Reports AP:

On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

Aren't these the guys who were practically campaigning for Johny Kerry? If anyone is shocked by the fact that the terrorists support liberals then they need to pay closer attention. If you were trying to destroy civilization would you rather your only adversary want to kill you back or want to talk with you about your feelings? I think being endorsed by Osama should automatically qualify you to be thrown from office...