It seemed Governor Mitt Romney had the primary all wrapped up, with strong polling in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and even leaping ahead in other early states such as Michigan and Nevada. That is, until the New Hampshire GOP debate, in which Mr. Romney had a less than excellent performance and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson entered the race, challenging his status as the GOP primary's conservative candidate.
Thompson, though, seems to have leveled off, having never surpassed front runner Rudy Giuliani. This leaves the very real prospect that Rudy Giuliani may be the party's nominee heading into 2008, an idea that does not sit well on the stomachs of the party's Christian conservative base. Fearing a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, candidate could take the nomination, several conservative leaders held a meeting recently in Salt Lake City. Led by the likes of Dr. James Dobson of the Focus on the Family as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, these powerful leaders are seriously considering running a third party candidate if Giuliani gets the GOP nod.
As much as I hate to say it, Giuliani is likely this party's best hope of beating the likes of Hillary Clinton. And if social conservatives continue their bickering about not having a "quality candidate" to choose from (we have several), they may just prove themselves to be as short sighted and closed minded as many of their critics portay them to be. Must I remind you all that it was the third party candidacy of Ross Perot who lost George H. W. Bush his re-election bid, thus thrusting William Jefferson Clinton into the White House, a circumstance that is soley responsible for Hillary Clinton's candidacy today, and for that matter, her seat in Congress.
How many social conservatives will simply not vote if Mayor Giuliani gets the nomination? How many are willing to be the reason the GOP loses the White House, and slips us even further into Democratic rule? Apparently, quite a few. Idealists and moral purists may be fine people, indeed, but they must face the ultimate choice with the rest of us. Do we vote for a moderate candidate who can win, and possibly bring in a new Republican majority on his coat-tails in 08 and/or 2010? Or do we throw our chances away because of self-righteous indignation? It is time to take back the party from irrational people with impossible standards. People like James Dobson and Tony Perkins do not own our platform.
To paraphrase one internet user, will they "bless" us with Hillary to prove just how badly they don't get it?
God help us if they do.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Romney Losing Momentum
Within weeks of Giuliani changing up his campaign strategy and putting more on New Hampshire, he has closed the gap on Romney in that state. Polls are now showing the two in a statistical dead heat. In fact, there are less than 6 points of separation between Romney, Giuliani, and Mccain.
Translation: This race is still wide open. The sudden shift in the polls is a very bad sign for Mitt Romney, who needs to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to have a shot at the nomination. Romney has raised and spent millions on these two states and has spent the vast majority of his time campaigning in those states. The fact that a couple of weeks of campaigning by Giuliani and a strong debate performance by Mccain could erode that much support from Romney spells disaster for his campaign. Many analysts have suggested that Governor Romney's support is very weak and largely driven by the media. This sudden and dramatic shift in the polls suggests that this might just be the case.
Governor Romney better get to work fast because this state is a must win for his campaign. The fact that his massive resources have failed to build him any kind of solid support does not speak wonders for his chances.
Speaking of New Hampshire, has anyone seen Mccain's new ads? Not bad.
Translation: This race is still wide open. The sudden shift in the polls is a very bad sign for Mitt Romney, who needs to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to have a shot at the nomination. Romney has raised and spent millions on these two states and has spent the vast majority of his time campaigning in those states. The fact that a couple of weeks of campaigning by Giuliani and a strong debate performance by Mccain could erode that much support from Romney spells disaster for his campaign. Many analysts have suggested that Governor Romney's support is very weak and largely driven by the media. This sudden and dramatic shift in the polls suggests that this might just be the case.
Governor Romney better get to work fast because this state is a must win for his campaign. The fact that his massive resources have failed to build him any kind of solid support does not speak wonders for his chances.
Speaking of New Hampshire, has anyone seen Mccain's new ads? Not bad.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Republicans for Change
Mitt Romney, in my view, is the only candidate talking about needing a change not only in Washington, but within our own party as well. This is one of the reasons I have endorsed him for president. Mitt really hit a homer in my book in this clip below.
Please Vote Again
Now that Fred Thompson has entered the race, I wanted to re-start the poll. Unfortunately, you cannot edit polls once someone has voted, you must delete it and start completely over. So please revote (a recount, if you will..haha).
Colorado State, Moveon.org, and Democracy in Burma
Colorado State Editorial Controversy
Outrage this week, after the editorial board of Colorado State University's campus newspaper published a two word opinion in bold type: "F*** BUSH" (asterisk added). The column prompted an open forum on the issue, with the editorial board members standing boldly in defiance of criticism. Asked if he would have allowed use of the "F-word" in any opinion column prior to this, the editor-in-chief of the paper responded plainly, "No".
Not only does this wreak of arrogance and selfishness, but shows that even the future of media looks as dark and liberal as ever (see also events at Columbia University). The paper has lost tens of thousands of dollars in revenue over the editorial. Asked for an explanation, one board member stated, "We stepped over the line to see where it was". Interesting, given that the paper already has drawn the line; it has a policy that no profanity may be used in any opinion piece. So much for their argument of "free speech". As with all liberals, it appears the editorial board believes only their speech should be protected.
Moveon.org Earns Congressional Rebuke
The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn the Moveon.org ad labeling U.S. Commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petreaus, as "General Betray Us". The vote was 341-79.
Democracy in Burma
God Bless the people of Burma in their struggle for a freer and more peaceful society. The White House has called for an immediate end to the violence, which has pitted Buddhists monks and other freedom fighters against the state police forces. Tens of thousands marched yesterday in protests remeniscent of freedom marches in 1988 which left thousands dead. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, is calling for a Security Council condemnation of the Burmese government, a condemnation that is currently being blocked by that beakon of civil rights, China.
Let this be yet another example of the ineffectiveness and blatant and utter selective righteousness of the United Nations. The blood of the Burmese people are as much on the UN's hands as their tyrannical oppressors.
Outrage this week, after the editorial board of Colorado State University's campus newspaper published a two word opinion in bold type: "F*** BUSH" (asterisk added). The column prompted an open forum on the issue, with the editorial board members standing boldly in defiance of criticism. Asked if he would have allowed use of the "F-word" in any opinion column prior to this, the editor-in-chief of the paper responded plainly, "No".
Not only does this wreak of arrogance and selfishness, but shows that even the future of media looks as dark and liberal as ever (see also events at Columbia University). The paper has lost tens of thousands of dollars in revenue over the editorial. Asked for an explanation, one board member stated, "We stepped over the line to see where it was". Interesting, given that the paper already has drawn the line; it has a policy that no profanity may be used in any opinion piece. So much for their argument of "free speech". As with all liberals, it appears the editorial board believes only their speech should be protected.
Moveon.org Earns Congressional Rebuke
The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn the Moveon.org ad labeling U.S. Commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petreaus, as "General Betray Us". The vote was 341-79.
Democracy in Burma
God Bless the people of Burma in their struggle for a freer and more peaceful society. The White House has called for an immediate end to the violence, which has pitted Buddhists monks and other freedom fighters against the state police forces. Tens of thousands marched yesterday in protests remeniscent of freedom marches in 1988 which left thousands dead. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, is calling for a Security Council condemnation of the Burmese government, a condemnation that is currently being blocked by that beakon of civil rights, China.
Let this be yet another example of the ineffectiveness and blatant and utter selective righteousness of the United Nations. The blood of the Burmese people are as much on the UN's hands as their tyrannical oppressors.
Their Goal
This is just a quick clarification on what I believe is the goal of Al Qaeda. I did what Ron Paul suggested and listened to the reasons Al Qaeda attacks the United States. In the words of one of their own:
"First, chase out the invaders from our territory in Palestine, in Iraq and everywhere in Islamic land.
"Second, install sharia (Islamic law) on the entire Earth and spread Islamic justice there (...). The attacks will not cease until after the victory of Islam and the setting up of sharia." -Abu Musab al Zarqawi
I guess Congressman Paul would like to give them step one and hope they forget about step 2. Well played Congressman.
"First, chase out the invaders from our territory in Palestine, in Iraq and everywhere in Islamic land.
"Second, install sharia (Islamic law) on the entire Earth and spread Islamic justice there (...). The attacks will not cease until after the victory of Islam and the setting up of sharia." -Abu Musab al Zarqawi
I guess Congressman Paul would like to give them step one and hope they forget about step 2. Well played Congressman.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Despot at Columbia--The Spirit of '64
President Ahmadinejad (using the term President loosely) spoke at Columbia yesterday and as expected made a food out of himself. This is article is not going to discuss his denial of the Holocaust, his balantly anti-semtism, his hatred of tolerance nor his absurd claim that homosexuality was not an occurance in Iran. Instead we will talk about his right to say these things on his visit to America and a right step taken by the White House. For those of you who do not me, I am in no way an Ahmadinejad apologist.
The American Constitution gives Freedom of Speech as well as the other civil liberties, to every person that is under American Jurisdiction. No where in the constitution does it only offer the writ of Haebous Corpus to only citizens, no where does it disallow freedom of speech or trial by jury to forienger visitors or dignatries. Ahmadinejad galvanzied students to mass protest against his visit to Columbia University, not only in New York City but across the nation. He further illustrated his inept understanding of History. Ahmadinejad was shown that there is little support for his anti-semtism and anti-homosexual outlook in the United States, the most tolerant of all nations.
People will make the claim that he should not be allowed to speak because of his views on the Holocaust and Israel. But why not? The concept of Hate Speech was advanced by Liberals in the 1980's and 1990's, under the premise that this was not deserving of the protection of the 1st Amendment. In a modern society such as ours, people who espouse such views are only driving people away from their point of view and are more damaging to their position. I take up the mantra of John Stuart Mill, the government does not have the right to censor any form of speech. In a modern society like ours, the vast majority of people will see the fallacy in someones bigoted views, expose them and illustrate the ignorace of the speakers.
The main point i want to make about in this article is that, for the first time in along while, the Bush Administration made the right move. In dealing with this Ahmadinejad speech, the Adminstration has made their offical stance of being flippant disregard. A White House press offical annouced that they would do not care that he is speaking at Columbia. His words are damaging enough and the American people can see his stupidity first hand and not through the news clips released form the Iranian Government. If the US Government tried to bar his speech at Columbia it would be seen as our nation being afraid of the words of one petty despot. I was pleasantly surprised by the Administration turning a negative event into one where our American values triumph.
Hat tip to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's nearly hour long introduction about the "petty and cruel dictator" who has beliefs that our either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated". "I feel the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for," Bollinger said to loud applause.
The American Constitution gives Freedom of Speech as well as the other civil liberties, to every person that is under American Jurisdiction. No where in the constitution does it only offer the writ of Haebous Corpus to only citizens, no where does it disallow freedom of speech or trial by jury to forienger visitors or dignatries. Ahmadinejad galvanzied students to mass protest against his visit to Columbia University, not only in New York City but across the nation. He further illustrated his inept understanding of History. Ahmadinejad was shown that there is little support for his anti-semtism and anti-homosexual outlook in the United States, the most tolerant of all nations.
People will make the claim that he should not be allowed to speak because of his views on the Holocaust and Israel. But why not? The concept of Hate Speech was advanced by Liberals in the 1980's and 1990's, under the premise that this was not deserving of the protection of the 1st Amendment. In a modern society such as ours, people who espouse such views are only driving people away from their point of view and are more damaging to their position. I take up the mantra of John Stuart Mill, the government does not have the right to censor any form of speech. In a modern society like ours, the vast majority of people will see the fallacy in someones bigoted views, expose them and illustrate the ignorace of the speakers.
The main point i want to make about in this article is that, for the first time in along while, the Bush Administration made the right move. In dealing with this Ahmadinejad speech, the Adminstration has made their offical stance of being flippant disregard. A White House press offical annouced that they would do not care that he is speaking at Columbia. His words are damaging enough and the American people can see his stupidity first hand and not through the news clips released form the Iranian Government. If the US Government tried to bar his speech at Columbia it would be seen as our nation being afraid of the words of one petty despot. I was pleasantly surprised by the Administration turning a negative event into one where our American values triumph.
Hat tip to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's nearly hour long introduction about the "petty and cruel dictator" who has beliefs that our either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated". "I feel the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for," Bollinger said to loud applause.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
UPDATE On the Trinity University Bake Sale
As you may recall from a previous post, the College Republicans at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, were being given quite a hard time by their campus's administration in regards to their planned Affirmative Action Bake Sale. As I originally wrote, the group was being made to "modify" their event so as not to offend other students.
I received a reply from Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. Felicia J. Lee this morning. Below is her reply in its entirety:
Mr. Hargraves,
Thank you for your email. I want to reassure you that Trinity University is deeply committed to the exchange of diverse viewpoints, values, concepts, and ideas. The Affirmative Action Bake Sale occurred as planned; it was held Friday afternoon. I believe the program generated interesting debate as desired by the student organization.
Sincerely,
Dr. Felicia Lee
"As planned"? Not so, according to a press release issued by Trinity University's College Republican chapter. According to their written statement, campus officials contacted their group's president, Allen Otto, on the evening before the event was scheduled to "discuss" the details. This, even though the event had already been approved over a week prior. After a discussion, the group was given an ultimatum; according to press release, "The CCI office disagreed and told (Otto) his event would instead use a pricing scheme based on shoes or it would not be allowed to move forward."
Otto also conveyed his own frustration. "I feel like our event, which went through all the right policies and got all the correct approval, was watered down and made into one that cannot hope to convey the same message." In a discussion I had with Otto earlier this week, he also conveyed his disappointment in the university's apparent view of its own students:
"...the university sees the student body as people who may not be able to handle themselves, while I see the student body as a resilient society looking for a chance to grow. Events like mine give the community a chance to have discourse amongst themselves about issues that are usually to taboo to talk about. We gave a forum for that talk, the administration feared that talk. The University campus is the place where this sort of learning should flourish, and I believe that most of my campus (liberal or conservative alike) believe this."
Well said. It seems to me that the only people in this instance who actually care about "the exchange of diverse viewpoints, values, concepts and ideas" are Mr. Otto and the university College Republicans.
As with the countless other instances we have seen throughout academia and its insistance that conservative voices be silenced, this will go down as just another example of a conservative student's constant struggle while furthering his or her education.
Kudos to our good friends at Trinity University.
I received a reply from Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. Felicia J. Lee this morning. Below is her reply in its entirety:
Mr. Hargraves,
Thank you for your email. I want to reassure you that Trinity University is deeply committed to the exchange of diverse viewpoints, values, concepts, and ideas. The Affirmative Action Bake Sale occurred as planned; it was held Friday afternoon. I believe the program generated interesting debate as desired by the student organization.
Sincerely,
Dr. Felicia Lee
"As planned"? Not so, according to a press release issued by Trinity University's College Republican chapter. According to their written statement, campus officials contacted their group's president, Allen Otto, on the evening before the event was scheduled to "discuss" the details. This, even though the event had already been approved over a week prior. After a discussion, the group was given an ultimatum; according to press release, "The CCI office disagreed and told (Otto) his event would instead use a pricing scheme based on shoes or it would not be allowed to move forward."
Otto also conveyed his own frustration. "I feel like our event, which went through all the right policies and got all the correct approval, was watered down and made into one that cannot hope to convey the same message." In a discussion I had with Otto earlier this week, he also conveyed his disappointment in the university's apparent view of its own students:
"...the university sees the student body as people who may not be able to handle themselves, while I see the student body as a resilient society looking for a chance to grow. Events like mine give the community a chance to have discourse amongst themselves about issues that are usually to taboo to talk about. We gave a forum for that talk, the administration feared that talk. The University campus is the place where this sort of learning should flourish, and I believe that most of my campus (liberal or conservative alike) believe this."
Well said. It seems to me that the only people in this instance who actually care about "the exchange of diverse viewpoints, values, concepts and ideas" are Mr. Otto and the university College Republicans.
As with the countless other instances we have seen throughout academia and its insistance that conservative voices be silenced, this will go down as just another example of a conservative student's constant struggle while furthering his or her education.
Kudos to our good friends at Trinity University.
Republican Field Lacking, Gingrich No Help
This election year, there is a broader spectrum of Republican primary candidates than there as been in a long time. There are candidates in the race from every part of that right side of the political spectrum. Yet somehow, something is severely lacking.
On the moderate side you have Rudy. Rudy has great general election appeal and can compete in just about every state. However, with Rudy comes a whole lot of baggage. Messy public divorces, estranged children, and a poor recommendation for DHS in Bernard Kerik. Not to mention his long history of liberal views on social issues. The biggest problem for Rudy, however, is his inability to answer a question without his standard rhetoric. Not every question can be answered with "I cut taxes 23 times, and I made New York safe...9/11..."
Also on the moderate side we have John Mccain. Mccain has not been effective in downplaying his age. Sure he jokes about it (taking a play from Reagan's playbook maybe), but the difference here is that Mccain's campaign FEELS old. He is running a tired, and problem plagued campaign that is miles away from the maverick energy he showed in 2000. Speaking of maverick, when did Mccain become the insider candidate? Mccain has aligned himself to closely with the Bush administration and it's policies. What primary voters are looking for in an '08 candidate is a clean break from Bush. Mccain is not that candidate.
Now let's move on to the polished Mitt Romney. Romney falls on the conservative (moderate) side of the spectrum. Mitt is a little too perfect for my liking. His slick, Rick Perryesque appearance, perfect speech patterns, and ability to shift his views on various issues as he sees politically fit lead me to believe that we might just have an opportunist on our hands. Romney strikes me as a guy who wants the presidency and wants it so bad that he's willing to sacrifice his values to get there.
Ron Paul. How this guy stays in office is a mystery to me. Sure he's got a cute little support base going, I'd say a ragtag group of a few enthusiastic libertarians, conspiracy theorists, and general weirdos. They sure do like to blog and youtube for him though. This is a guy who, believes in concealed carry in commercial airliners, drug legalization, eliminating the public school system, cutting off student loans, eliminating the CIA, FBI, FEMA, and DHS (among others), voted against federal aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and supports removing all United States military presence from the middle east. Ron Paul has some loud and enthusiastic supporters, but they are few, and his primary vote tallies will reflect that.
One of my bigger disappointments has been in Mike Huckabee. After watching this guy in the debates and doing a little research, I thought I had my guy. Passionate, articulate, and not afraid to bring in new solutions to Americas problems. No sooner did I announce my support for Huckabee than did accusations of an anti-catholic smear campaign against Sam Brownback surface. These kinds of attacks are disgraceful and should not be tolerated. The Governor has distanced his campaign from the group carrying out the attacks, but we all know how those 527's work. I started digging a little deeper on Governor Huckabee and read the words "Tax-Hike Mike" one too many times. I will, however, give him credit where credit is do. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Governor stepped up when everyone else was dropping the ball and lead efforts to rescue 75,000 people trapped in New Orleans.
I suppose I should address the other front runner in this race, Fred Thompson. I fully expect that his campaign is on the verge of a Wesley Clark style nose dive. Senator Thompson's campaign has been plagued by a multitude of staff shakeups, unimpressive speeches, dodged debates, and general amateur mistakes. To me, a candidate who would take the week, after announcing his candidacy, off from campaigning and refuse to do media appearances is not a winning candidate. He's entered very late into a race with primaries early than they've ever been and he's done so in a very anticlimactic way. Setting aside these serious missteps, there is a bigger issue at hand. Thompson has proclaimed himself the only candidate in the race with true conservative credentials. That's big talk coming from a guy who used to lobby for abortion rights and the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am flight 103. He also refuses to pledge to not raise taxes. Some serious ethical questions have surfaced surrounding Thompson's post senate PAC, through which he directed most of the funds to his son over a four year period for a no show job. He has demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge on important issues in key primary states.
Great Article On Thompson
Seeing a potentially disastrous field, Newt Gingrich is stepping up the rhetoric on potentially entering the race. Gingrich has been talking about new ideas, a return to conservative principles, and a clean break from President Bush. Sounds great. The only problem is that Gingrich is a highly polarizing political figure. After being a key factor in the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Gingrich left office in shame after cheating on, and leaving, his wife who was sick with cancer at the time, and accepting a very sketchy advance on a book that he never wrote.
I don't see a need, at this point, to really comment on Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, or the all too predictable Alan Keyes. This election cycle, my heart is telling me to fight hard to get a Republican in the White House, but my brain is telling me that we're looking at another Clinton Presidency.
On the moderate side you have Rudy. Rudy has great general election appeal and can compete in just about every state. However, with Rudy comes a whole lot of baggage. Messy public divorces, estranged children, and a poor recommendation for DHS in Bernard Kerik. Not to mention his long history of liberal views on social issues. The biggest problem for Rudy, however, is his inability to answer a question without his standard rhetoric. Not every question can be answered with "I cut taxes 23 times, and I made New York safe...9/11..."
Also on the moderate side we have John Mccain. Mccain has not been effective in downplaying his age. Sure he jokes about it (taking a play from Reagan's playbook maybe), but the difference here is that Mccain's campaign FEELS old. He is running a tired, and problem plagued campaign that is miles away from the maverick energy he showed in 2000. Speaking of maverick, when did Mccain become the insider candidate? Mccain has aligned himself to closely with the Bush administration and it's policies. What primary voters are looking for in an '08 candidate is a clean break from Bush. Mccain is not that candidate.
Now let's move on to the polished Mitt Romney. Romney falls on the conservative (moderate) side of the spectrum. Mitt is a little too perfect for my liking. His slick, Rick Perryesque appearance, perfect speech patterns, and ability to shift his views on various issues as he sees politically fit lead me to believe that we might just have an opportunist on our hands. Romney strikes me as a guy who wants the presidency and wants it so bad that he's willing to sacrifice his values to get there.
Ron Paul. How this guy stays in office is a mystery to me. Sure he's got a cute little support base going, I'd say a ragtag group of a few enthusiastic libertarians, conspiracy theorists, and general weirdos. They sure do like to blog and youtube for him though. This is a guy who, believes in concealed carry in commercial airliners, drug legalization, eliminating the public school system, cutting off student loans, eliminating the CIA, FBI, FEMA, and DHS (among others), voted against federal aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and supports removing all United States military presence from the middle east. Ron Paul has some loud and enthusiastic supporters, but they are few, and his primary vote tallies will reflect that.
One of my bigger disappointments has been in Mike Huckabee. After watching this guy in the debates and doing a little research, I thought I had my guy. Passionate, articulate, and not afraid to bring in new solutions to Americas problems. No sooner did I announce my support for Huckabee than did accusations of an anti-catholic smear campaign against Sam Brownback surface. These kinds of attacks are disgraceful and should not be tolerated. The Governor has distanced his campaign from the group carrying out the attacks, but we all know how those 527's work. I started digging a little deeper on Governor Huckabee and read the words "Tax-Hike Mike" one too many times. I will, however, give him credit where credit is do. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Governor stepped up when everyone else was dropping the ball and lead efforts to rescue 75,000 people trapped in New Orleans.
I suppose I should address the other front runner in this race, Fred Thompson. I fully expect that his campaign is on the verge of a Wesley Clark style nose dive. Senator Thompson's campaign has been plagued by a multitude of staff shakeups, unimpressive speeches, dodged debates, and general amateur mistakes. To me, a candidate who would take the week, after announcing his candidacy, off from campaigning and refuse to do media appearances is not a winning candidate. He's entered very late into a race with primaries early than they've ever been and he's done so in a very anticlimactic way. Setting aside these serious missteps, there is a bigger issue at hand. Thompson has proclaimed himself the only candidate in the race with true conservative credentials. That's big talk coming from a guy who used to lobby for abortion rights and the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am flight 103. He also refuses to pledge to not raise taxes. Some serious ethical questions have surfaced surrounding Thompson's post senate PAC, through which he directed most of the funds to his son over a four year period for a no show job. He has demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge on important issues in key primary states.
Great Article On Thompson
Seeing a potentially disastrous field, Newt Gingrich is stepping up the rhetoric on potentially entering the race. Gingrich has been talking about new ideas, a return to conservative principles, and a clean break from President Bush. Sounds great. The only problem is that Gingrich is a highly polarizing political figure. After being a key factor in the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Gingrich left office in shame after cheating on, and leaving, his wife who was sick with cancer at the time, and accepting a very sketchy advance on a book that he never wrote.
I don't see a need, at this point, to really comment on Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, or the all too predictable Alan Keyes. This election cycle, my heart is telling me to fight hard to get a Republican in the White House, but my brain is telling me that we're looking at another Clinton Presidency.
In the Name of Free Speech
President Bollinger, of Columbia University, and other liberals have defended the formal invitation by Columbia to Iranian President Ahmedinejad in the name of "free speech" and "freedom of expression". For what kind of country would this be if we didn't give tyranical, murderous ideologues a legitimate setting to let loose their hateful venom? Much less tyrants who adamently and vocally oppose the United States?
One begins to wonder, if this is not treason, then at what point may we make the charge? Must we wait until Bollinger himself has kissed Ahmedinejad on the cheek, and pledged his undying support? Must we wait until the Iranian despot has attacked Israel? Must we wait until he has given bin Laden the bomb? Must we wait until we have caught the man himself giving a gun to an Iraqi insurgent?
As I watch our liberal countrymen masquerading about with the bile of the earth; men such as Ahmedinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, I cannot help but see us as throwing ourselves over the threshold, and taking the "first step into a thousand years of darkness".
I want to thank Laura for bringing this small quote to my attention:
"Would he (Bollinger), in the name of free speech, advocate inviting pedophiles to speak at PTA meetings so parents could better understand why their kids should not be sent to playgrounds with no pants on.
"Would Columbia invite a world leader to speak who claims black slavery was a myth or who calls for all black people to be "wiped off the map"? The answer is certain. He wouldn't.
"If Bollinger wants his students, as he has said, 'to understand the world as it is and as it might be,' let him take his students on a field trip to the Walter Reid Medical Center where our troops are coming home without limbs and without faces because of Ahmadinejad. Let him bring them to the airports where families welcome home their loved ones in a wooden box. Let him take them to the Holocaust museum where they can view how university students their own age were turned into bars of soap and lampshades."
-CU graduate Aliza Davidovit who shredded degree over Ahmadinejad visit
Amen.
One begins to wonder, if this is not treason, then at what point may we make the charge? Must we wait until Bollinger himself has kissed Ahmedinejad on the cheek, and pledged his undying support? Must we wait until the Iranian despot has attacked Israel? Must we wait until he has given bin Laden the bomb? Must we wait until we have caught the man himself giving a gun to an Iraqi insurgent?
As I watch our liberal countrymen masquerading about with the bile of the earth; men such as Ahmedinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, I cannot help but see us as throwing ourselves over the threshold, and taking the "first step into a thousand years of darkness".
I want to thank Laura for bringing this small quote to my attention:
"Would he (Bollinger), in the name of free speech, advocate inviting pedophiles to speak at PTA meetings so parents could better understand why their kids should not be sent to playgrounds with no pants on.
"Would Columbia invite a world leader to speak who claims black slavery was a myth or who calls for all black people to be "wiped off the map"? The answer is certain. He wouldn't.
"If Bollinger wants his students, as he has said, 'to understand the world as it is and as it might be,' let him take his students on a field trip to the Walter Reid Medical Center where our troops are coming home without limbs and without faces because of Ahmadinejad. Let him bring them to the airports where families welcome home their loved ones in a wooden box. Let him take them to the Holocaust museum where they can view how university students their own age were turned into bars of soap and lampshades."
-CU graduate Aliza Davidovit who shredded degree over Ahmadinejad visit
Amen.
How Far Left Can the Left Go?
It's good news to hear this from one of UTSA's SWTA (Student Worker Teacher Alliance):
Student Worker Teacher Alliance (SWTA, the largest unregistered student organization at UTSA responsible for organizing the protest against Chris Simcox) isn't going to be as active this semester due to various conflicting obligations.
You heard the man. They're not as active. Let me remind you what their darling little protest consisted of: (I apologize for the graphic image, but it really shows how far the "tolerant" Left can go.)
And in case that's not enough, the girl in red also fought her way to the front of the stage and then decided to shove one of our UTSA Police Officers for doing his job.
Here's the video:
Of course, the Left likes to celebrate its lack of tolerance, logic, and intelligence. Let's go back to Red Smith's libelous letter to the editor in today's issue of the Paisano.
While this is not the place for a long list of examples, here are a few: they openly advocate the harassment of homosexuals; they held a "Capture an Illegal Immigrant" event on campus (UNT chapter), an unnecessarily offensive mockery of a serious situation that costs many people their lives; and they openly support the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, whose members joke about slaughtering all the illegal immigrants they see.
Let's start at the top of the banter from Mr. Smith with the alleged open advocacy of harassment of homosexuals.
That's the most absurd, ridiculous, and outrageous false statement I've heard since I sat in my women in politics class today and had a student say that President Bush would try to postpone the elections in 2008 to try to stay in office. (I can't make this stuff up.)
Mr. Smith doesn't fact check and writes blatant lies to try to push his radical Leftist agenda.
Next: "Capture an Illegal Immigrant". No matter what event YCT ever does, no matter the topic, no matter the issue, no matter the date, time, year, or place. The event sparked debate and discussion on an issue that otherwise would go under the radar to college students. Political satire, commentary, cartoons, and other forms of expression are designed in these cases to motivate the students of universities to pay attention to an issue. The event did nothing to degrade illegal immigrants or create a mockery of a serious issue facing every citizen of the United States and our neighboring countries.
That being said, most universities are apathetic to their own Student Government Associations, let alone United States domestic defense. A pitiful 16% of students voted to increase their own student fees.
A demonstration such as the one that UNT did made students more excited about politics.
And finally, just like last year, the Left kept confusing the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps for the Minutemen Project and began to take quotes off of an unmoderated message board that can easily be spammed by web trolls and moonbats.
In closing, from YCT Alum Brendan Steinhauser:
This is one of the more lengthy rants about nothing in particular that I've read. Kind of reminds me of the president of Iran's speech at Columbia.
Based on this Marxist-Leninist critique of conservatism and YCT, it is clear that Red Smith has paid attention in his classes at UTSA. The left-wing academy continues to produce students that write such drivel, while students' lack of education in civics suffers. (See the recent study by ISI about civic literacy.)
As an alumnus of YCT, I'd be willing to put the ideas of conservatism up to historical scrutiny, to see the value in this world view to our country. Would Red Smith be willing to say the same thing about socialism, the ideology responsible for millions of deaths by war and execution around the world?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ron Paul Cont'd.
Here is a great argument against Ron Paul's world view put in to far greater words than my own.
Why I like Ron Paul
I was doing some thinking today about the upcoming presidential election. As an undecided republican primary voter I've been taking a close look at all of the candidates and examining their strengths and weaknesses. Some of you may be surprised to hear this, but I came to the conclusion that I like Ron Paul.
Now before you Ron Paul supporters out there get too excited, let me explain why. I realized today that Ron Paul brings a unique breed of crazy into this republican primary. The congressman's strange rants tend to create shining moments for the real candidates. As an example, I point to the heated discussion between Dr. Paul and Governor Mike Huckabee in the recent New Hampshire debate. Congressman Paul asserted that we should leave Iraq because our foreign policy is causing the party to lose elections. Governor Huckabee responded "Congressman, even if we lose elections we can not lose our honor, and that is more important than the republican party."
That being said, I can find little else to like about Ron Paul. Some argue that he is a true republican and stands for the values of the founding fathers. I find it insulting that anyone would compare a pacifist like Ron Paul to true republicans, republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan who knew the stakes of the world we live in. These men knew that our way of life must be defended from a position of strength, not of pacifism. In his 1964 endorsement of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan said "You and I have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay, there is a point beyond which they must not advance." Through his belief in peace through strength Ronald Reagan ended the cold war and left a safer world for the next generation.
Ron Paul would have us withdraw all forces from the middle east because Al Qaeda doesn't "want us there". Bill Clinton took the same approach in Somalia, yet for some reason Al Qaeda still wanted to kill Americans. These people do not attack us because we're in the middle east. They attack us because they see us as the largest obstacle to their ultimate goal of one world united under radical Sharia law.
We've all grown so tired of seeing American troops killed abroad that we've lost sight of what's at stake. On this last anniversary of 9/11 I was amazed at how everyone just breezed over it like it wasn't a big deal. Have we forgotten so soon? I still remember the needless loss of life, the heartache, and the outrage of that day. Every time I think about that day, I feel an anger that I didn't know I was capable of, but I'm not ashamed of it. We have a right to be angry. We owe it to those who lost their lives on that day. We have a duty to do everything in our power to seek justice for them. We have an obligation to leave this country safer for the next generation. These goals can only be achieved through a position of strength and unyielding resolve. Leaving Iraq and the middle east may be the easy thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do.
Now before you Ron Paul supporters out there get too excited, let me explain why. I realized today that Ron Paul brings a unique breed of crazy into this republican primary. The congressman's strange rants tend to create shining moments for the real candidates. As an example, I point to the heated discussion between Dr. Paul and Governor Mike Huckabee in the recent New Hampshire debate. Congressman Paul asserted that we should leave Iraq because our foreign policy is causing the party to lose elections. Governor Huckabee responded "Congressman, even if we lose elections we can not lose our honor, and that is more important than the republican party."
That being said, I can find little else to like about Ron Paul. Some argue that he is a true republican and stands for the values of the founding fathers. I find it insulting that anyone would compare a pacifist like Ron Paul to true republicans, republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan who knew the stakes of the world we live in. These men knew that our way of life must be defended from a position of strength, not of pacifism. In his 1964 endorsement of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan said "You and I have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay, there is a point beyond which they must not advance." Through his belief in peace through strength Ronald Reagan ended the cold war and left a safer world for the next generation.
Ron Paul would have us withdraw all forces from the middle east because Al Qaeda doesn't "want us there". Bill Clinton took the same approach in Somalia, yet for some reason Al Qaeda still wanted to kill Americans. These people do not attack us because we're in the middle east. They attack us because they see us as the largest obstacle to their ultimate goal of one world united under radical Sharia law.
We've all grown so tired of seeing American troops killed abroad that we've lost sight of what's at stake. On this last anniversary of 9/11 I was amazed at how everyone just breezed over it like it wasn't a big deal. Have we forgotten so soon? I still remember the needless loss of life, the heartache, and the outrage of that day. Every time I think about that day, I feel an anger that I didn't know I was capable of, but I'm not ashamed of it. We have a right to be angry. We owe it to those who lost their lives on that day. We have a duty to do everything in our power to seek justice for them. We have an obligation to leave this country safer for the next generation. These goals can only be achieved through a position of strength and unyielding resolve. Leaving Iraq and the middle east may be the easy thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do.
Conservative Students Issued Gag Order at Texas University
The administration of Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, has stifled plans by the campus's College Republican group to hold an "Affirmative Action Bake Sale", saying the group must "modify" their event because it was deemed too controversial.
College Republican President, Allen Otto, had this to say:
“I was told that my pricing setup was not okay because it seems to place value on life and that such a setup might offend some members of the community. I responded that such offense was meant to draw attention to the inherent offensiveness of the racist institution that is Affirmative Action.”
Elsewhere in Academia, murdering tyrant and sworn enemy of the United States, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, is scheduled to speak at Columbia University soon. My, my. With friends like Trinity and Columbia, why would liberty need enemies? The whole charade would be truly laughable if it were not so tragic.
You can contact Trinity University at the following email addresses:
John.Brazil@trinity.edu - President of Trinity University
Felicia.Lee@trinity.edu - VP of Student Affairs
College Republican President, Allen Otto, had this to say:
“I was told that my pricing setup was not okay because it seems to place value on life and that such a setup might offend some members of the community. I responded that such offense was meant to draw attention to the inherent offensiveness of the racist institution that is Affirmative Action.”
Elsewhere in Academia, murdering tyrant and sworn enemy of the United States, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, is scheduled to speak at Columbia University soon. My, my. With friends like Trinity and Columbia, why would liberty need enemies? The whole charade would be truly laughable if it were not so tragic.
You can contact Trinity University at the following email addresses:
John.Brazil@trinity.edu - President of Trinity University
Felicia.Lee@trinity.edu - VP of Student Affairs
Funny Story
I promised myself I wouldn't post jokes. But I will make an exception for this small tale.
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Conservative.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Liberal.”“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault.”
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Conservative.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Liberal.”“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault.”
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Perry for Veep?
The following article, take from RCP, is only posted here because I found it interesting as a Texan, and also because it is one of the few articles speculating about possible picks for Vice President. My personal feelings toward Governor Perry are less than complimentary, but I found this article worthy of posting here nonetheless. I do suggest clicking on the "red meat" link in the article in order to read some of the quotes from his speech. Not bad, Governor. Not bad, at all.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2007/09/perry_for_veep.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2007/09/perry_for_veep.html
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The "Reverend" Jesse Jackson Sets it Straight
"DOH!" This was no doubt the sound pinging through the heads of civil rights activists across the country after the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson accused Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barrack Obama of "acting white". Personally, I'm not sure if its an act. I think it just might be that this is the way Obama really is; "articulate and bright and clean and.." OH wait!!! No no no I didn't mean that, because that would be racist of me to say. I mean, to call a black candidate "articulate" might be perceived to mean that most black people speak some form of English that is markedly different than the rest of the country and....oh wait. Well, you get the point.
Civil rights groups aren't in a panic because Jackson said anything inherently racist. They are mad because he let slip a secret that the civil rights movement has been trying to keep hidden for years; for as much grief as black people give whites for our "intolerance", it appears from the righteous indignation of Jackson's remarks that acting white isn't very tolerated by blacks either (or as Joe Biden would say, acting "articulate, bright and clean"). Then again, everything Jesse Jackson says is filled with righteous indignation, so who knows. To make matters worse, Jackson "doesn't recall" making the comment anyhow.
We have known for years that young black children are frequently discouraged by their peers from doing well in school because that would be "acting white". We know they are discouraged from being successful in anything but sports or music (and by "music" I mean rap), because that would be "acting white".
This is all exagerated, of course (well, not all of it. Its quite true they are discouraged by their peers in school). The point is this; that to state anything inherently obvious about the black community is punishible by death if you are A) white, B) Republican, C) not poor. Its especially bad if you're a man, although a white conservative woman would probably be flogged. It is interesting to think what might have happened had Mitt Romney or John McCain said people shouldn't trust Jesse Jackson because he "acts black". The hypocrisy is thick enough to make Rosie O'Donnell look anorexic.
Oh well. We will have all forgotten about this in two weeks, at which point we can go on pretending there are no innate differences between the two races, although it appears everyone secrety agrees there are.
Civil rights groups aren't in a panic because Jackson said anything inherently racist. They are mad because he let slip a secret that the civil rights movement has been trying to keep hidden for years; for as much grief as black people give whites for our "intolerance", it appears from the righteous indignation of Jackson's remarks that acting white isn't very tolerated by blacks either (or as Joe Biden would say, acting "articulate, bright and clean"). Then again, everything Jesse Jackson says is filled with righteous indignation, so who knows. To make matters worse, Jackson "doesn't recall" making the comment anyhow.
We have known for years that young black children are frequently discouraged by their peers from doing well in school because that would be "acting white". We know they are discouraged from being successful in anything but sports or music (and by "music" I mean rap), because that would be "acting white".
This is all exagerated, of course (well, not all of it. Its quite true they are discouraged by their peers in school). The point is this; that to state anything inherently obvious about the black community is punishible by death if you are A) white, B) Republican, C) not poor. Its especially bad if you're a man, although a white conservative woman would probably be flogged. It is interesting to think what might have happened had Mitt Romney or John McCain said people shouldn't trust Jesse Jackson because he "acts black". The hypocrisy is thick enough to make Rosie O'Donnell look anorexic.
Oh well. We will have all forgotten about this in two weeks, at which point we can go on pretending there are no innate differences between the two races, although it appears everyone secrety agrees there are.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Morris and Stossel
Fantastic article by Dick Morris on the already doomed candidacy of Fred Thompson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/thompson_is_clearly_in_over_hi.html
John Stossel is reliably Up Front about the prospects of nationalized medicine.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/socialized_medicine_is_broken.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/thompson_is_clearly_in_over_hi.html
John Stossel is reliably Up Front about the prospects of nationalized medicine.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/socialized_medicine_is_broken.html
More on the U of F Censorship Escapade
There are reports this morning giving more details about the events that unfolded at the University of Florida during a John Kerry event, leading to the arrest of Andrew Meyer. See yesterday's note for more details.
At this point, my conservative impulse to believe the police over a stark raving mad liberal is kicking in. According to police reports, Meyer never made a sound or resisted at all when cameras were not present. Indeed, in the police cruiser on the way to the jail, Meyer told the police that "you didn't do anything wrong" and that the officers were only "trying to do (their) job."
Information has also surfaced indicating that Meyer was actually filming the event with his own camera, asking a fellow student if she would film more specifically his questions to Senator Kerry. Rumors now abound that this was all a planned stunt for Meyer's website. As to his friends denying this was a stunt, I'm going to play the "kooky liberal" card one more time, and guess that there is at least a 50 percent chance that it was.
As my previous post indicated, my default reaction as a conservative was that whoever got Tasered probably deserved it. It is beginning to look more and more that way. The police say Meyer screamed "they're going to kill me" and "they're going to give me to the government." But after watching that video for a second time, it looks like the only thing Meyer needs to be given is a good dose of Ritalin.
At this point, my conservative impulse to believe the police over a stark raving mad liberal is kicking in. According to police reports, Meyer never made a sound or resisted at all when cameras were not present. Indeed, in the police cruiser on the way to the jail, Meyer told the police that "you didn't do anything wrong" and that the officers were only "trying to do (their) job."
Information has also surfaced indicating that Meyer was actually filming the event with his own camera, asking a fellow student if she would film more specifically his questions to Senator Kerry. Rumors now abound that this was all a planned stunt for Meyer's website. As to his friends denying this was a stunt, I'm going to play the "kooky liberal" card one more time, and guess that there is at least a 50 percent chance that it was.
As my previous post indicated, my default reaction as a conservative was that whoever got Tasered probably deserved it. It is beginning to look more and more that way. The police say Meyer screamed "they're going to kill me" and "they're going to give me to the government." But after watching that video for a second time, it looks like the only thing Meyer needs to be given is a good dose of Ritalin.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Censorship at the University of Florida
When I first heard of a student being tasered at a political event, my conservative default reaction was that this student was likely a liberal activist demonstrating hysterically at some conservative forum. When I learned that it was, in fact, an event hosting Senator John Kerry I became more interested, as I began to consider that it may in fact have been a conservative student. In either case, my second conservative knee jerk reacion kicked in; whoever had been tasered, liberal or conservative, he probably deserved it.
But then I watched the tape. While it was indeed a liberal student conducting himself in a truly typical hysterical fashion, my dismay and alarm at the reaction of university police could not be more critical. Yes, it appears this student did resist an officer (it looks like 4 or 5 actually), at which point the student should have stopped, and allowed himself to be escorted from the building.
But this begs the question why the student needed to be escorted out at all. True, he may well have went over his time, but is this a reason to forcibly remove someone from a microphone? A microphone that had just been shut off anyway? As former war protester Tom Hayden told Fox News Channel, had the police given the student another 10 seconds he would likely have been finished or urged to stop talking by students growing weary of his liberal rant. At the time he was tasered, the student was on the ground, pinned by at least three officers and rumored to be handcuffed, although I am not able to verify that last bit of information. Among other things, he was charged with resisting an officer with violence, a felony.
I'm not sure what disciplinary action should be taken against either the student or the officers. But I must say I agree most with one of the signs being held by a protester at the university today: Free Speech is not a Felony.
To my liberal friends out there, NO, this does not mean I am turning into a liberal.
To my conservative friends out there, NO, this does not mean I am turning into a liberal.
But then I watched the tape. While it was indeed a liberal student conducting himself in a truly typical hysterical fashion, my dismay and alarm at the reaction of university police could not be more critical. Yes, it appears this student did resist an officer (it looks like 4 or 5 actually), at which point the student should have stopped, and allowed himself to be escorted from the building.
But this begs the question why the student needed to be escorted out at all. True, he may well have went over his time, but is this a reason to forcibly remove someone from a microphone? A microphone that had just been shut off anyway? As former war protester Tom Hayden told Fox News Channel, had the police given the student another 10 seconds he would likely have been finished or urged to stop talking by students growing weary of his liberal rant. At the time he was tasered, the student was on the ground, pinned by at least three officers and rumored to be handcuffed, although I am not able to verify that last bit of information. Among other things, he was charged with resisting an officer with violence, a felony.
I'm not sure what disciplinary action should be taken against either the student or the officers. But I must say I agree most with one of the signs being held by a protester at the university today: Free Speech is not a Felony.
To my liberal friends out there, NO, this does not mean I am turning into a liberal.
To my conservative friends out there, NO, this does not mean I am turning into a liberal.
Rasmussen: Thompson Opening up Wide Lead
Since his presidential announcement last month, former Tennessee Senator-turned-actor Fred Thompson has opened up a considerable lead over his GOP rivals, including Rudy Guiliani, who had been leading in all major national polls. Since early August Rasmussen has reported steady gains for Senator Thompson, who has conducted virtually no campaigning and very little fundraising. The steady rise in support has also occurred even with the Senator having not appeared in a single Republican primary debate. In other words, its a campaign built on sand. Take a look at the most recent Rasmussen surveys:
08/09-08/12
Guiliani - 28
Thompson - 22
08/23-08/26
Guiliani - 24
Thompson - 23
09/05-09/08
Guiliani - 22
Thompson - 26
09/13-09/16
Guiliani - 19
Thomspon - 28
Also interesting in Rasmussen's reporting is that Senator Thompson's entrance has most affected Mayor Guiliani. Arizona Senator John McCain has actually seen an uptick in his polling since Thompson's announcement, as well as former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was recently honored by simply being included in Rasmussen's polling.
Even more striking is the poll position of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who supposedly had the most to lose by a Thompson bid by losing his "social conservative" status. But, despite this and a rather dull debate performance in which he was out maneuvered by Senator McCain and out performed by Governor Huckabee, Governor Romney has managed to hold steady at about 13 percent (having only dropped to 12 in the most recent poll).
Many question how long this Thompson surge will last, and if he can withstand the wave of criticism which will do doubt be thrown his way after months of twiddling his thumbs while the rest of the GOP field actually campaigned and earned votes. I suspect Fred's steam engine will flame out sooner rather than later as more word of his past and record (or lack thereof) as Senator begin to come out. Fred Thompson is supposed to be the "true conservative" alternative for evangelical voters. But, Fred may have given those voters too much time to get comfortable with Mitt Romney and now even faces the challenge of emerging contender Governor Huckabee.
As I said, it's finally getting interesting.
08/09-08/12
Guiliani - 28
Thompson - 22
08/23-08/26
Guiliani - 24
Thompson - 23
09/05-09/08
Guiliani - 22
Thompson - 26
09/13-09/16
Guiliani - 19
Thomspon - 28
Also interesting in Rasmussen's reporting is that Senator Thompson's entrance has most affected Mayor Guiliani. Arizona Senator John McCain has actually seen an uptick in his polling since Thompson's announcement, as well as former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was recently honored by simply being included in Rasmussen's polling.
Even more striking is the poll position of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who supposedly had the most to lose by a Thompson bid by losing his "social conservative" status. But, despite this and a rather dull debate performance in which he was out maneuvered by Senator McCain and out performed by Governor Huckabee, Governor Romney has managed to hold steady at about 13 percent (having only dropped to 12 in the most recent poll).
Many question how long this Thompson surge will last, and if he can withstand the wave of criticism which will do doubt be thrown his way after months of twiddling his thumbs while the rest of the GOP field actually campaigned and earned votes. I suspect Fred's steam engine will flame out sooner rather than later as more word of his past and record (or lack thereof) as Senator begin to come out. Fred Thompson is supposed to be the "true conservative" alternative for evangelical voters. But, Fred may have given those voters too much time to get comfortable with Mitt Romney and now even faces the challenge of emerging contender Governor Huckabee.
As I said, it's finally getting interesting.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Pride?
My good friend John Larue, of Houston, Texas, wrote this note on June 18, 2007. He agreed to let me share it with you. Thank you, John.
Pride?
June 18, 2007
John Larue
After reading several of the leading gay conservative blogs (yes, it's true, I am not the only gay conservative in the U.S.), it seems there is a consensus among them not to participate in gay pride festivities across the country. Honestly, I can't say I blame them. For those of you who aren't aware, June is gay pride month. While I love Pride (especially here in Houston) it's really not as loving and open-minded as it proclaims to be. For example, let's say I showed up to gay pride in a Log Cabin Republican shirt (not that I have one), or one of my Bush/Cheney shirts, or hell, even a John McCain shirt-- I can guarantee you I would get dirty looks, nasty things yelled at me, or even worse.
The truth, then, is that gay pride is not about the freedom to be who you are. Rather, it's the freedom to be who you are, provided you confine yourself to mainstream gay culture. While drag queens, leather daddies, transsexuals, and drugged-up club kids are free to express themselves as they see fit at gay pride, gay conservatives are shunned and looked down on. To be sure, I have no problem with the drag queens or any of the other groups that many look upon as weird-- it's pride, be who you are. All I ask, then, is the same courtesy in return. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen any time soon.
If pride events are exclusive, then what's the point? What are we proud of? It's certainly not our open-mindedness and desire for diversity-- I've just shown that. I was actually debating this last week with a co-worker and took the side of pride participants. After further reflection, however, I think he might be right. What are we proud of? Is there are straight pride parade? The only thing close I can think of is Mardi Gras, but that's more of a "let's get naked and drunk" parade (and gays have their own version of this called Southern Decadence). There's a white pride group, but I don't know anyone in that, so I'm not sure if they have a parade or not. If you know someone in the KKK, though, let me know so I can update this. It would seem that the only thing pride serves to do is showcase the diverse parts of the gay community-- but, you know, not all of them.
So, what's a gay conservative to do at pride? Marching is not an option-- there's no credible gay conservative group, and if there was they wouldn't be allowed to march, and if they DID march, they'd probably be booed and have things thrown at them (so much for open-mindedness). We can go to the parade, but while there we're certainly not allowed to wear anything that expresses our conservative beliefs. Finally, we could stay home and skip the whole thing altogether. Most, from what I'm reading, are choosing the latter, a sad statement that shows gay pride isn't so inclusive and that many are forced to skip out on an otherwise fun event.
I'll go to Pride this year, sans Bush/Cheney '04 t-shirt. Why? Because it is a nice time to spend with old friends and a tradition that I've gone to for the past two years. Perhaps, though, I won't be as upbeat about pride this year. Oh, I'll smile and wave as the countless "mainstream" gay groups march in the parade while one of the few groups that could represent me is marginalized. But if the gay community really wants equality and inclusion, as the say they do, they'd better start practicing what they preach.
Pride?
June 18, 2007
John Larue
After reading several of the leading gay conservative blogs (yes, it's true, I am not the only gay conservative in the U.S.), it seems there is a consensus among them not to participate in gay pride festivities across the country. Honestly, I can't say I blame them. For those of you who aren't aware, June is gay pride month. While I love Pride (especially here in Houston) it's really not as loving and open-minded as it proclaims to be. For example, let's say I showed up to gay pride in a Log Cabin Republican shirt (not that I have one), or one of my Bush/Cheney shirts, or hell, even a John McCain shirt-- I can guarantee you I would get dirty looks, nasty things yelled at me, or even worse.
The truth, then, is that gay pride is not about the freedom to be who you are. Rather, it's the freedom to be who you are, provided you confine yourself to mainstream gay culture. While drag queens, leather daddies, transsexuals, and drugged-up club kids are free to express themselves as they see fit at gay pride, gay conservatives are shunned and looked down on. To be sure, I have no problem with the drag queens or any of the other groups that many look upon as weird-- it's pride, be who you are. All I ask, then, is the same courtesy in return. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen any time soon.
If pride events are exclusive, then what's the point? What are we proud of? It's certainly not our open-mindedness and desire for diversity-- I've just shown that. I was actually debating this last week with a co-worker and took the side of pride participants. After further reflection, however, I think he might be right. What are we proud of? Is there are straight pride parade? The only thing close I can think of is Mardi Gras, but that's more of a "let's get naked and drunk" parade (and gays have their own version of this called Southern Decadence). There's a white pride group, but I don't know anyone in that, so I'm not sure if they have a parade or not. If you know someone in the KKK, though, let me know so I can update this. It would seem that the only thing pride serves to do is showcase the diverse parts of the gay community-- but, you know, not all of them.
So, what's a gay conservative to do at pride? Marching is not an option-- there's no credible gay conservative group, and if there was they wouldn't be allowed to march, and if they DID march, they'd probably be booed and have things thrown at them (so much for open-mindedness). We can go to the parade, but while there we're certainly not allowed to wear anything that expresses our conservative beliefs. Finally, we could stay home and skip the whole thing altogether. Most, from what I'm reading, are choosing the latter, a sad statement that shows gay pride isn't so inclusive and that many are forced to skip out on an otherwise fun event.
I'll go to Pride this year, sans Bush/Cheney '04 t-shirt. Why? Because it is a nice time to spend with old friends and a tradition that I've gone to for the past two years. Perhaps, though, I won't be as upbeat about pride this year. Oh, I'll smile and wave as the countless "mainstream" gay groups march in the parade while one of the few groups that could represent me is marginalized. But if the gay community really wants equality and inclusion, as the say they do, they'd better start practicing what they preach.
Friday, September 14, 2007
More on Moveon.org's NYT Deal
The New York Post is reporting more details regarding Moveon.org's ad berating General David Petraeus as a traitor. According to the Post, Moveon.org has confirmed that it paid only about $65,000 for the ad, but according to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692." That means the liberal anti-American hate group got a price reduction of more than $116,000 from the equally liberal New York Times.
Said one Republican staffer, "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."
Said one Republican staffer, "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Moveon.org Is a Discount Shopper
New word today that Moveon.org's New York Times ad may have been published at a substantial discount. The ad features a picture of General David Petraeus, commander of U.S forces in Iraq, with the subtitle "General Petraeus or General Betray Us".
As U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) said, Moveon.org most likely received the "friends and family discount". The ad, of course, was published before Petraeus ever gave his report to Congress; further proof that defeat in Iraq is a foregone conclusion for liberals across America.
Ann Coulter's weekly column is out today regarding the topic of liberal defeatism. I encourage you all to check it out at http://www.anncoulter.com/ .
As U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) said, Moveon.org most likely received the "friends and family discount". The ad, of course, was published before Petraeus ever gave his report to Congress; further proof that defeat in Iraq is a foregone conclusion for liberals across America.
Ann Coulter's weekly column is out today regarding the topic of liberal defeatism. I encourage you all to check it out at http://www.anncoulter.com/ .
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
500 Scientists Publish anti-Warming Studies
New information from earthtimes.org may help to debunk the myth of man-made global warming. Key points from the text of Hudson Institute's press release:
-A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age.
-our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
According to Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, this and other data found in the studies "makes a mockery of the claim that a scientific consensus" exists regarding the possibility of man-made global warming.
A truly insightful article, Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer have truly turned up the heat, so to speak, on global warming alarmists. "We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," says Singer. It is a must read.
Avery and Singer are co-authors of the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years".
Link to article:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
-A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age.
-our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
According to Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, this and other data found in the studies "makes a mockery of the claim that a scientific consensus" exists regarding the possibility of man-made global warming.
A truly insightful article, Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer have truly turned up the heat, so to speak, on global warming alarmists. "We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," says Singer. It is a must read.
Avery and Singer are co-authors of the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years".
Link to article:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
The Fred Factor and Mitt's Momentum
Until Fred Thompson's announcement of his candidacy on Septbember 6, everything looked pretty good for former Massachussetts governor Mitt Romney. He was head and shoulders above the rest of the crowded GOP field in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and had finally breeched a RealClearPolitics.com average of 10 percent in national polls. In fact, since his victory at the Ames Straw Poll in late August, his RCP average had gone as high as 14.2 percent in national polling, surpassing John McCain, whose campaign had all but sputtered to a halt.
My, what a difference a week makes.
Set back by what many considered at best a mediocre performance at the September 5, Fox News Channel debate and Thompson's official announcement as a contender, Romney has predictably lost some of that momentum. His RCP average has dipped nationally to 11.2 percent, nearly on par with his support prior to Ames, and he has even suffered some loss of ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he has staked virtually his entire campaign.
In both of those states, Romney, who has enjoyed support in the low- to mid-30's, now is showing support in the mid- to high-20's. And although he still has a commanding lead over his opponents, that considerable loss of support is due only to Thompson's announcement and Romney's lackluster performance in the last debate. This should be troublesome to the Romney campaign, as it shows his support is not cemented even those early states in which he has invested so much time and money; and which Fred Thompson has all but neglected.
To make matters worse for the Romney camp, now even John McCain seems to be back in play after his debate performance. For now, that is.
It's finally getting interesting.
My, what a difference a week makes.
Set back by what many considered at best a mediocre performance at the September 5, Fox News Channel debate and Thompson's official announcement as a contender, Romney has predictably lost some of that momentum. His RCP average has dipped nationally to 11.2 percent, nearly on par with his support prior to Ames, and he has even suffered some loss of ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he has staked virtually his entire campaign.
In both of those states, Romney, who has enjoyed support in the low- to mid-30's, now is showing support in the mid- to high-20's. And although he still has a commanding lead over his opponents, that considerable loss of support is due only to Thompson's announcement and Romney's lackluster performance in the last debate. This should be troublesome to the Romney campaign, as it shows his support is not cemented even those early states in which he has invested so much time and money; and which Fred Thompson has all but neglected.
To make matters worse for the Romney camp, now even John McCain seems to be back in play after his debate performance. For now, that is.
It's finally getting interesting.
N.C School Bans American Flag
A Sampson County, North Carolina school district banned the depiction of all flags, including the United States flag, for fear of "disruption" in the classroom and "is consulting with legal counsel to address the issue presented", said superintendent Dr. L. Stewart Hobbs, Jr., after calling the situation "unfortunate".
Unfortunate, indeed, Dr. Hobbs, that students could not show support and love of country on a day as frought with patriotism as September 11. One can only imagine the motives behind the school district's decision to ban any and all flags from campus. The term "anti-American" storms to mind, and yet left-wings radicals with their political correctness will surely wonder why their patriotism is consistently called into question.
One would almost be urged to contact the ACLU, if not for fear they would side with the good Dr. Hobbs.
Unfortunate, indeed, Dr. Hobbs, that students could not show support and love of country on a day as frought with patriotism as September 11. One can only imagine the motives behind the school district's decision to ban any and all flags from campus. The term "anti-American" storms to mind, and yet left-wings radicals with their political correctness will surely wonder why their patriotism is consistently called into question.
One would almost be urged to contact the ACLU, if not for fear they would side with the good Dr. Hobbs.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
A Memorial
As we reflect on the events that transpired just six years ago, it is incumbent upon us to remember not only loved ones lost and lives sacrificed, but also how this magnanimous event effected our national conscience, and particularly how it effected our perception of the world. For an examination of the brief history since September 11, can show us how we arrived where we are today.
In 1999, President Bush ran as a candidate whose foreign policy objective was to cease our role as "the world's police". I believe many conservatives were dedicated to this. That is, until September 11, 2001, after three assaults on critical U.S. targets, filled with thousands of civilians, and a failed attack that brought down a fourth commercial airliner. All this in a single day, "and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack."
In his speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush indicated a long struggle ahead : "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there."
President Bush told us how we would fight this war: "We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network."
President Bush knew what it would take and he told Americans and the world: "Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism."
President Bush rallied the world to our side: "This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. We ask every nation to join us"
President Bush asked for our support: "I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle. "
President Bush was clear about the objective: "But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world."
Most conservatives recognize our efforts in Iraq as part of something greater. Most conservatives believe it is just a battle in an ongoing struggle against terror. President Bush laid out the framework for our efforts from the beginning. He told us our mission, our means, and the only acceptable outcome. We were with him in the beginning. And this Republican, at least, will be with him to the end.
In 1999, President Bush ran as a candidate whose foreign policy objective was to cease our role as "the world's police". I believe many conservatives were dedicated to this. That is, until September 11, 2001, after three assaults on critical U.S. targets, filled with thousands of civilians, and a failed attack that brought down a fourth commercial airliner. All this in a single day, "and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack."
In his speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush indicated a long struggle ahead : "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there."
President Bush told us how we would fight this war: "We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network."
President Bush knew what it would take and he told Americans and the world: "Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism."
President Bush rallied the world to our side: "This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. We ask every nation to join us"
President Bush asked for our support: "I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle. "
President Bush was clear about the objective: "But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world."
Most conservatives recognize our efforts in Iraq as part of something greater. Most conservatives believe it is just a battle in an ongoing struggle against terror. President Bush laid out the framework for our efforts from the beginning. He told us our mission, our means, and the only acceptable outcome. We were with him in the beginning. And this Republican, at least, will be with him to the end.
Monday, September 10, 2007
On Congressman Ron Paul
Fox News Channel's most recent GOP debate should be regarded as the most succesful debate thus far. This is true because three underdogs were truly able to disinguish themselves. Duncan Hunter gave an outstanding performance, though no doubt of little help to his campaign effort. John McCain blew new life into his sails, though it is far too early to tell of what capacity or longevity. And Governor Mike Huckabee stole the show in my honest opinion. But it was also true because of two distinguished gentlemen who really highlighted a point I've been trying to articulate for some time now.
Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Huckabee honored us with a rare and truly genuine exchange between candidates tonight; a truly engaged discussion between two men from the same party, yet different times, struggling to make sense of the Iraq question. Actually, Congressman Paul doesn't seem to be struggling at all with this question, and for this he deserves all of our respect. This may seem unlikely to be coming from someone who actually agrees with Mike Huckabee on this issue. But Congressman Paul represents one of the last stalwarts of what the Republican party used to be. After all, he is the only candidate who articulately expresses a true conservative message in regards to the preservation of the Constitution, unlike the other candidates (from either party) who mention it only in a canned remark about "activist judges", which, I must note, they only mention when it coincides with their opposition to gay marriage.
The Republican Party has truly veered far from the road it was on in Congressman Paul's day. Post-9/11 conservatives take a much more activist approach in regards to foreign policy, and I happen to agree with that approach. In the days of terrorism and Islamo-fascism, it is necessary, in my view, for the President to have a greater degree of power in order to protect us. As Gov. Huckabee said, the most important oath a President can take is to protect America from all enemies. This is in contradistinction from Congressman Paul's view, that the most important oath the President makes is to protect and preserve the Constitution.
In my view, Republicans 50 years ago would likely agree with Congressman Paul. I say that we should respect Congressman Paul because he reminds us of what the Republican Party used to be. Surely we'd all agree that preserving the Constitution is an important task, but we'd also agree that protecting Americans is imperative as well. I side with alot of Republicans today that the latter should take precedent. At least for now.
I hope that we can proceed down our new road not leaving the preservation of the Constitution in the back seat, but rather moving it to the passenger's seat. But whatever happens, we should all take note of the road we are leaving behind, for that ,too, was a noble mission.Thank you, Congressman Paul.
Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Huckabee honored us with a rare and truly genuine exchange between candidates tonight; a truly engaged discussion between two men from the same party, yet different times, struggling to make sense of the Iraq question. Actually, Congressman Paul doesn't seem to be struggling at all with this question, and for this he deserves all of our respect. This may seem unlikely to be coming from someone who actually agrees with Mike Huckabee on this issue. But Congressman Paul represents one of the last stalwarts of what the Republican party used to be. After all, he is the only candidate who articulately expresses a true conservative message in regards to the preservation of the Constitution, unlike the other candidates (from either party) who mention it only in a canned remark about "activist judges", which, I must note, they only mention when it coincides with their opposition to gay marriage.
The Republican Party has truly veered far from the road it was on in Congressman Paul's day. Post-9/11 conservatives take a much more activist approach in regards to foreign policy, and I happen to agree with that approach. In the days of terrorism and Islamo-fascism, it is necessary, in my view, for the President to have a greater degree of power in order to protect us. As Gov. Huckabee said, the most important oath a President can take is to protect America from all enemies. This is in contradistinction from Congressman Paul's view, that the most important oath the President makes is to protect and preserve the Constitution.
In my view, Republicans 50 years ago would likely agree with Congressman Paul. I say that we should respect Congressman Paul because he reminds us of what the Republican Party used to be. Surely we'd all agree that preserving the Constitution is an important task, but we'd also agree that protecting Americans is imperative as well. I side with alot of Republicans today that the latter should take precedent. At least for now.
I hope that we can proceed down our new road not leaving the preservation of the Constitution in the back seat, but rather moving it to the passenger's seat. But whatever happens, we should all take note of the road we are leaving behind, for that ,too, was a noble mission.Thank you, Congressman Paul.