69 Comments Add your own

• 1. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 11:11 am

  The tanking Republican brand is highlighted by the Pew Research Center:
  

  The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.

  In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.

  The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.

  The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.
  __________
  Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

  This does not automatically turn into votes for Democrats as the report notes. However, it does clearly show that fewer people than ever feel that the Republican Party represents them. Combine that with the dual anvils of a highly unpopular war started by a highly unpopular Republican president and an economic crisis which is undermining the fundamental confidence that ultimately underlies the banking system and it’s a tough row to how for those Republicans who aren’t among the large number who’ve decided to chuck it and retire from Congress.

  Perhaps the blog could change its moniker to Blogs For V(i)ctory.

• 2. Joe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am

  Wasn?t there just a post the other day about talk of a recession being overblown?
  Not sure everyone got that memo.

  WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — U.S. consumer confidence fell in March, while expectations hit a 35-year low on pessimistic views of the business climate, job market and personal income, the Conference Board reported Tuesday.
  The March consumer confidence index fell to 64.5 from a revised reading of 76.4 in February. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected a March reading of 73.3. Consumer confidence is at its lowest since the Iraq War in 2003.
  The Conference Board’s expectations index, meanwhile, hit its second-lowest level ever, falling to 47.9 in March from 58.0 in February. In December 1973, expectations were at 45.2.

  Lowest since 1973. That is saying a lot.

• 3. SEW  |  March 26th, 2008 at 11:32 am

  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_obama_should_withdraw

  Certainly the united Dems will vote for the winning nominee? 22% each way, all will hug and make up.

• 4. Almiranta  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  I was intrigued by a recent article by Dean Barnett, and copied a few lines to post here. Re: The Obama Doctrine—–
  ……………………………

  “As it is, the Obama Doctrine is of a piece with the rest of his campaign. It’s an attractively outlined set of worthy goals unsupported by any apparent plan of action to realize those goals.

  The Obama Doctrine dovetails nicely with Obama’s promise to begin an aggressive round of–what else?–talking with all our enemies. Once again, no clearly expressed goals preceded Obama’s promise to talk. Almost needless to say, Obama has offered no elaboration on how the talking will advance specifically defined American interests. The talking is itself the point.”
  …………………………….

  I think this sums up some of the concerns of those who have yet to be won over by the superficial rock star attributes of Obamapalooza, and who are waiting to find out what he really PLANS.

• 5. SEW  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  Team God D America finds support.

  http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/26/chavez-anyone-but-mccain/

• 6. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  SEW,

  To quote the Vice-President in dismissing the stupid, unwashed American majority that opposes the Iraq fiasco, “So?”

• 7. Mark E  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  Shameless plug.

  Saddam didn’t “just” assist terrorist groups, who ordered attacks on Americans
  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQzMmY4MGFmZDZkZjZmNTAwYTMzODFhNzllOWVkNDQ=&w=MA==

• 8. Almiranta  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

  Diana’s passion for polls once again shows her tendency to think that politics is just a popularity contest. And, even more so, it shows her ignorance of conservatism.

  As so many here have noted, over and over again, we do not first identify ourselves as Republicans, but as conservatives. I have often said so about myself, and gone on to note that I do tend to vote Republican, because while the party is not perfect, it is more likely to govern according to conservative values than the option.

  Anyone who has really paid attention to the political currents in this country in the past few years would have noted that conservatives have become increasingly disenchanted with the Republican Party. This awareness does not require any special insight. We come right out and tell people: “We (conservatives) are really getting fed up with the Republican Party, because it has shifted so far from conservative ideals and values.” Duh.

  So it is no surprise that more and more are not identifying themselves as Republicans. But Diana misses the most important point—they are NOT shifting over to Liberalism.

  The opposite is true. They are moving away from, as she calls it, the “Republican brand” but they are hardly doing so because they intend to vote for Leftist candidates. No, they are protesting that the GOP is not conservative enough.

  So they will still vote Republican, because the options are just too radically Leftist. They just won’t use the word “Republican” to identify themselves, because the GOP of today has slid too far to the left for them.

  Her feeble attempt at political analysis in her penultimate paragraph is just an insight into Diana’s wish list, and her peculiar biases. But it is hardly great political analysis. It’s much more like the Left’s efforts to spin polling data—for example, when many people say they are not happy with Bush’s performance, it is because he has not been strong enough, tough enough, been better at explaining what he is doing and why, has not been better at dealing with the yapping ankle-biters. This has been pointed out over and over again, yet Diana and her ilk continue to pretend that dissatisfaction with Bush’s performance is really a wish for more Lefties in government.

  Dream on…..

  BTW, if you want to test my theory, just have your guys run as Liberals, openly and proudly.

• 9. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

  So it is no surprise that more and more are not identifying themselves as Republicans. But Diana misses the most important point—they are NOT shifting over to Liberalism.
  The opposite is true. They are moving away from, as she calls it, the “Republican brand” but they are hardly doing so because they intend to vote for Leftist candidates. No, they are protesting that the GOP is not conservative enough.

  Interesting perspective there. Do you feel that Senator John McCain is conservative enough to appease the disenfranchised Conservative Republicans?

• 10. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  Once again, excellent post, Almiranta!

  BTW, DP, I’m thrilled a dictator, who continually silences his opposition, doesn’t want McCain, but would rather have Clinton or Obama as POTUS. I wouldn’t want his endorsement!

• 11. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

  BTW, DP, I’m thrilled a dictator, who continually silences his opposition, doesn’t want McCain, but would rather have Clinton or Obama as POTUS. I wouldn’t want his endorsement!

  kimberly4victory,

  Who is the dictator you are referring to in the above post?

• 12. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  Chavez (post #5 by SEW). I hope you can agree he is a terrible leader. Closing down television stations and newspapers because they don’t support his views … and a whole list of other things I just don’t have time to list!

• 13. eric  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  Rev. Wright = racist.

  “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”

  http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html

• 14. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  Eric: It sadly does not shock me anymore what comes out Wright’s mouth. Why is this man a preacher of God? Why do they call Trinity a “church”? He isn’t and it isn’t.

  Did anyone believe the “retirement” of Rev Wright would change things at Trinity? Nope. The new preacher’s sermon on Easter was “How to Avoid Public Lynching”.

• 15. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  Do you have a link to Chavez’s endorsement of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

  I’d like to see what he has to say about that. Why does he not like Senator John McCain or has he not addressed this candidate?

  Do I agree he is a terrible leader? Can’t really say. I don’t feel I have enough information on the guy. But I also don’t usually base my opinions of presidential candidates based on what other countries leaders have to say about them.

• 16. eric  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  Kim,
  Clearly, Rev. Wright is not a true man of God. He uses his “religion” as a shelter from which he can spew his disgusting rhetoric.

• 17. Wallace  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  I believe most Americans are appalled and feel helpless when considering what course to take in dealing with the havoc the Bush administration has wrought.

  Our V.P.’s recent, “SO?” remark continues to slap the faces of the majority who desire change.

  Our positon in the world has fallen dramatically during the Bush years.

  This is one example of many across the world.

  A close friend of 40+ years, a Swiss investment banker with Credit Suisse who lives in Zurich, but travels to the US both for personal visits and because he has American clients he visits from time to time, asked me recently why the US is the source of such financial trouble. I quipped that it is because idiots are in charge (it is a quip that I am becoming more and more inclined to think is not hyperbolic).

  This is a person with very deep fondness for America. He did his banking internship in New York in the mid-60s, and was one of my roommates when I was working at the World’s Fair before starting graduate school at the College of New Jersey. As an American, he would have been a Rockefeller Republican. He and his family are all hoping Obama is the next president, because he is deeply troubled by how the United States has fallen so low in the eyes of the rest of the world because of the Bush administration. His wife will not come here until Bush is no longer president, and we are not talking about radical people - we are talking about very even-keeled Swiss. Americans really don’t know what a pariah we have become under Bush/Cheney, even for centrist Europeans.

  I thank God the Bush years are at an end. Someday, may God be willing, he and his minion Cheney will reap the tortuous end they so deserve.

• 18. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  I seem to note that the logo for this site proudly (it is pride, isn’t it, guys) puts the letter R in parentheses. Now, if this were Blogs For Conservatism, I would accept the premise, however, it’s not and that’s why the increasing number of Republicans in Congress who are retiring, the paucity of top-tier Republican candidates for Congress to replace them and the decreasing number of Americans who claim the label of Republican are relevant here.

  It’s perfectly true that not all conservatives support the current authoritarianism espoused by so many faux-conservatives today. Former Congressman Bob Barr is a perfect example of a conservative who doesn’t cower in fear and think that civil liberties should be tossed out the window for the sake of the ever-elastic term “national security” (http://www.checksbalances.org/). However, among those who figure largely in national politics, he is not the type of “conservative” one sees.

  As the Pew Center polling shows, there are a greater number of independents who are currently leaning Democratic than are leaning Republican and that does (and should) worry Republicans. There’s no Independent Party or Conservative Party so if more independents vote for Democrats then Democrats will do better. It’s not that hard.

• 19. Almiranta  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  SteaM, you say “Do you feel that Senator John McCain is conservative enough to appease the disenfranchised Conservative Republicans?”

  Where to start. I guess the most obvious place is to point out that NO conservatives, or anyone else for example, have been “disenfranchised”. We can all vote, if we are citizens, if we are not felons, and if we register and make the effort. The rabid Left has tossed this word around so much, it has become a catchphrase for anything.

  If you had been paying attnetion, you would have seen that a lot of people who identify themselves as conservatives were not, and still are not, as happy with McCain as our candidate as we would have been with someone with better conservative credentials.

  But as we have said, we will still vote for him. The options are just too grim to consider.

  Actually, I said that in the post you referenced. Let me go back to that part: “So they will still vote Republican, because the options are just too radically Leftist.”

  I think I already mentioned ‘paying attention’.

  McCain doesn’t HAVE to “appease” conservatives. That is a uniquely Leftist view of politics. All McCain has to do is follow his own inner moral compass, and do what he truly believes is best for the country. Some of us will think he is on the right track, some will not. And eventually, we will all decide how to cast our votes, and that decision will be made on an overall perspective of who is going to do the best job of leading the county—or in too many cases, who makes their legs tingle.

• 20. Michael  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

  It is interesting that as the Dems continue their bloody war between two candidates and can see no way out of the impending train wreck at the convention which will cause a loss of 20 percent of their voters’ support (by a poll- natch), they keep try the magician’s trick of misdirection. Their world is coming apart in slow motion and they just turn their eyes away and try things like denial, putting on a smug and happy face, or trotting out their BDS talking points thinking it will somehow change the reality they seek to ignore. Even today we have Obama getting after Hillary’s lie about Bosnia while Hillary is slamming Obama about his “uncle” Jerimiah Wright. Democrat financial donors are threatening to take their donations back, and party hacks all see a disaster ahead. Meanwhile the Dem minions continue to say how inevitable victory is for them. I am not convinced. I know, lets take a poll.

• 21. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  My personal view is that the conservative’s party, the Republicans, has been hijacked by some very corrupt people. I have to wonder though, as Almiranta mentioned today, why these conservatives want to keep voting for these types just because the alternative is to either: 1. not vote, or 2. vote for a liberal.

  By continueing to support these republicans which conservatives disagree with don’t they encourage the policies which they do not agree with?

  If I were in that situation, my party was moving away from the principles that it is supposed to embrace, I would want to call them on every corrupt thing they do. I would want people to be aware of their failed policies and I would support only conservative candidates who are going to be “conservative enough”.

  Instead I see conservative republicans allowing these things to continue since doing anything different would make them seem like they are against their own party. I hate to use this word but that does seem to be a bit “cowardly” and dangerous as it creates a vicious circle whereas progress is never made. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe a newer and smarted generation of conservatives will appear and actually be good honest players in our government.

  I also would like to see people relying less on conservative media (like rush, hannity, orielly, malkin, etc) for their views or if they are to listen to these people make sure they fact-check and be very sceptical.

  I guess what i am saying is… if you think your party is not staying true and is not conservative enough then why do you allow it to continue? Those media people I mentioned would have you believe that you are wrong. That th republican party is not the problem. They are conservative enough! It’s the “liberals” who are evil. Continue to listen to these media people.. but if you want to have you party back make sure you don’t turn a blind eye to their actions. No matter what people tell you… you must seek out this information and fact-check everything.

• 22. Eric T  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  Diane-

  Regardless of your poll.
  When people take a good look at
  Hillary and Obama. They will see, real tax hikers. Do you think people can really afford a bunch of new taxes with all the inflation we have now. Both Hillary and Obama have a very shameful record on guns and 2nd Amendment issues. Neither of them have any leadership experience. Their stance on foreign policy changes with the wind. They are out of touch with the American people on issues like gay marriage and abortion. They are too extreme. Why do you think either of these two would make a good president?

• 23. Wallace  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  I find Almirantas snide remark:

  I think I already mentioned ‘paying attention’.

  and

  I think I already mentioned ‘paying attention’.

  snarky, patronizing and condescending.

  These remarks were uncalled for and are intended to be inflammatory.

  I would like to see this type of rhetoric stopped.

• 24. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  “disenfranchised” is not the word I was thinking of.

  Who is the candidate that you think would be the best “conservative”?

• 25. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  This is the kind of “crap” that should not be allowed on this blog …

  “I thank God the Bush years are at an end. Someday, may God be willing, he and his minion Cheney will reap the tortuous end they so deserve.”

  SteaM: I agree. I could care less what other leaders or people from other countries think about our candidates. They’re not voting!

  So, what do you think of Chavez shutting down tv stations and newspapers? Throwing people in jail because they don’t agree with him? Using oil revenues to line his pockets but not to improve the living of the poor?

• 26. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

  Even Senators with “(R)” after their names aren’t fired up about the Republican brand:
  

  Republican senators with millions of dollars in their campaign accounts have given little or nothing to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), despite its desperate pleas for cash funds.

  Fewer than 10 Senate Republicans met goals they received for an NRSC fundraiser with President Bush in McLean, Va., Tuesday evening. GOP senators were asked to contribute $100,000 from their campaign accounts or recruit four major donors for the event.
  __________
  Source: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/stingy-senators-stiff-gop-2008-03-25.html

• 27. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

  “So, what do you think of Chavez shutting down tv stations and newspapers?”

  I do not agree with this. I think freedom of the press is crucial to a free society. I think his people should protest and do what they can to get him to reverse this decision. I do realize, however, that they did protest it.

  “Throwing people in jail because they don’t agree with him?”

  Again, I disagree with this and think it’s an abuse of power.

  “Using oil revenues to line his pockets but not to improve the living of the poor?”

  He should not line his pockets because that money should go to improving their people’s lives. It’s the people’s money.

• 28. SEW  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. Go big [D].

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

• 29. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  How does John McCain flip-flop? Let us count the ways. Waterboarding is torture? Flip-flop. “The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are…They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country?” Flip-flop. Campaign finance reform? Flip-flop.

  On August 13, 2007, when his campaign was running out of money and was all but written off, Senator McCain applied for matching funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This put a $56,757,500 limit on how much he could spend in his primary campaign and he entered into a binding agreement with the FEC to abide by that limit. In the campaign’s filing to the FEC of March 20, 2008, Senator McCain reports that he has now spent $56,916,682 which exceeds the limit he agreed to by $159,182.

  Now, when his candidacy came back to life, Senator McCain tried to pull out of that agreement in a letter on February 6, 2008 in which his lawyer points out that the FEC never gave the campaign any money. The chairman of the FEC responded on February 19th that the Senator could not unilaterally withdraw from the agreement absent a ruling by the FEC. There is no such ruling because the FEC currently has no ability to have a quorum for a vote.

  Regardless, the McCain campaign did use the pending matching funds from the FEC as collateral for a line of credit of $4,000,000 from a Maryland bank. So, a prima facie case exists that Senator John McCain has violated the very campaign finance law that bears his name.

• 30. Joe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  Almiranta, regarding your post #4…

  Why the heck do you people think talking with enemies are so bad? I’ve asked this before and nobody answers other than… there must be pre-conditions.

  Seriously… the theory of strictly talking to allies and only allies is just baffling. The whole point of TALKING to enemies is to try and find common ground to, I don’t know, maybe be LESS of enemies? Maybe find something to work towards??

• 31. Joe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  Speaking of McCain and that “flip-flop word”…

  WASHINGTON - Ten years ago, Senator John McCain took on the tobacco industry, saying he would never back down from legislation to regulate the industry. He also supported a $1.10-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund programs to cut underage smoking. “I still regret we did not succeed,” he said as recently as last October.
  …
  Now, McCain’s longtime effort to crack down on tobacco is being put to a new test. Within weeks, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. McCain agreed months ago to cosponsor the current bill with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, but McCain’s policy adviser said the senator won’t commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation.
  …
  McCain’s decade of work on tobacco, one of the most significant efforts of his congressional career, has earned him enmity from the industry and from some fellow Republicans over the years. At the same time, public-health advocates have celebrated his support of tobacco regulation. But now, some antismoking activists are disappointed that the presumptive Republican nominee for president has backed off from the tobacco tax, which they consider key to improving public health.
  …
  When asked during a policy forum in October why he opposed the tobacco tax for the children’s health program, McCain seemed to reject the logic that taxing tobacco would reduce its use, and instead suggested the government would be profiting from a dangerous practice.
  …
  The two Democratic contenders, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are supporting the current proposal for a 61-cents-per-pack tobacco tax to expand the children’s healthcare program, a tax increase McCain opposes, making it likely that the matter will become an issue in the campaign this fall.

  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/26/mccains_stand_on_tobacco_is_put_to_test/?page=2

• 32. Kurt Diekelman  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  Diana,

  Todays Gallup Poll shows the trouble your little lightweights Obama and Clinton are in for if nominated. You like polls? Go to Gallup and cry yourself a river.scott

• 33. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Joe,

  I agree with you. I think that we as a nation should distance ourselves from the concept of not talking to our enemies. I think we should talk to them and, of course, make sure we have a good translator there as well

• 34. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  OK, let’s talk with them. But … the question is should we believe anything they say? It’s been shown repeatedly that they say one thing and do another. North Korea is a good example of this.

• 35. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  SteaM: Chavez endorses Obama:

  http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TGTPK6OGKPT24NI6F

  Chavez’s brother (sorry, not Chavez … I guess he can’t endorse both!) endorsed Clinton.

  Of course, I agreed it doesn’t matter if another leader endorses a candidate. They can’t vote! But you asked for the link …

• 36. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  Oops. Wrong link! Let me look for it again.

• 37. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  Now, everybody laugh with me on my major faux pax! Wrong Chavez! LOL. I should have known I’d screw something up today as I am finding it more and more difficult to make out the captcha letters below!

  Maybe I should back to bed ….

• 38. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  kimberly4victory,

  Am I missing something? There’s only a headline and no article.

  Ok, so you actually made a mistake in saying that Chavez endorses Clinton when he does not, it’s his brother. I’m glad you admit that mistake and are willing to correct it. Rumors get started easily these days.

  I still really don’t have any opinion about Chavez endorsing Obama. More information would be needed.

  As for talking to our enemies. Of course they will say one thing and sometimes mean another, or go back on their word. We do it also. So why should anyone trust us either?

  It’s all politics. I just think that we should talk to our enemies keeping in mind that they might be lying to us. Not doing so and just bombing them is still worse. Especially since the innocent civilians in these nations will never take our side and work to change their leadership if we are killing them… albiet accidentally.

  We should lead by example in the world.

• 39. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  …oh, I see, sorry. haha

• 40. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

  Kurt,

  Already saw it. I agree that it’s not a good sign for the Democratic presidential nominee, whoever that may ultimately be. However, it’s hardly reason to “cry”.

  The worse case scenario is that a President McCain finds a Congress with increased Democratic majorities in both houses. His pseudo-Bush third term, which features four more years of the American military fighting and dying in Iraq and his post-election flip-flopping back to “liberal” positions that Republicans have already complained about, poison both Republicans and independents thus setting up a Democrat taking the oath of office on January 20, 2013.

  That’s the roll of the dice for better-him-than-a-Democrat McCain supporters. The man is a serial flip-flopper who, only months ago, was causing conservatives to vow to vote for Hillary Clinton instead. Now, voting for Senator McCain runs the risk of electing the old pre-pander John McCain that irritated the Republican base. Which Senator John McCain do you plan to vote for? Just remember, the one you vote for is not necessarily the one who will serve.

• 41. Joe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  k4v,
  can we believe anything they say? I can’t answer that, but what could it hurt. At least then if we come to an “agreement” on something and they break that agreement, then you have something to stand on and others would back you on it.

  If you don’t talk to anyone and they tick you off by doing something, what right do you have to punish them with sanctions or worse?

  You’ll never know if you can trust someone until you give it a chance, right? Not talking to Cuba certainly hasn’t worked for the last 50 yrs. We did talk to the Soviets and that seemed to work pretty well.

  Now the theory of pre-conditions is another thing that baffles me. Why are we forcing someone to give us something… just to talk to us????

• 42. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  Eric T,

  I missed your questions. I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama will be a “tax-hiker”. Why? Because no U. S. President, not even President George H. W. Bush or President Ronald Reagan who both “raised taxes” does that. The Congress of the United States passes the various parts of the budget which seldom are precisely what the White House proposes. Hence, the constant outcry for a line-item veto.

  In addition, a “tax hike” is not always a tax hike. The Republican Party would like for everyone to believe that allowing those tax rate cuts championed by the current President Bush to expire is the same as raising taxes. Does it have the effect of raising taxes? Yes. Does it constitute a new tax, which, I would argue, is the real idea trying to be promulgated by the use of the term “tax hike”? I would argue that it is not, but it’s clearly a matter of individual perspective. If allowing the tax cuts to expire doesn’t change the income tax rate for middle-income Jane Taxpayer is she going to see it as a “tax hike”?

  While I’m sure you’re very passionate about the issues of guns and the Second Amendment, that does not mean that voters at large see that as very important. The same would apply to abortion and gay marriage. A President’s only possible role in those issues is the possibility that they will be nominating a justice to the Supreme Court and there’s no guarantee that doing that will result in any particular ruling in any particular case. So, if Senator McCain wanted to spend his time over the next few months doing stump speeches about guns, gays and abortion, he’s certainly free to do so but at the same time I believe he will find himself looking rather disconnected with the day-to-day concerns of the majority of American voters.

  By contrast, both Democratic candidates can be clearly delineated from Senator McCain on an issue that Americans are very focused on - our continued occupation of Iraq. The war is seen as a mistake and has been seen as a mistake by the majority of Americans for years now. Senator McCain has made it clear (even for a serial flip-flopper) that he doesn’t care how long we remain in Iraq and has clownishly aligned himself with the “bomb, bomb Iran” war-mongering crowd. I know that those here who obsess over perceived “strength” and “weakness” see that as lovable, but the clear majority of Americans do not favor military action against Iran (18% favored military action to “get Iran to shut down its nuclear program” in a Gallup poll from last November as opposed to 73% who preferred economic/diplomatic efforts). If he wants to campaign as the next so-called “war president” I’m afraid he may find himself sitting home next January 20th.

• 43. Typical White Person  |  March 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  I would like to see this type of rhetoric stopped.

  Wally, you wish a tortuous end on Bush/Cheney, and you want rhetoric stopped? Are you an idiot?
  Don’t answer; you’re a LIbEral. That says it all…

• 44. Typical White Person  |  March 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

  Hillary experienced racism while playing intramural soccer in middle school, yet there was no intramural soccer when she was in middle school.

  Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, yet she was born some six or seven years prior to his historic ascent.

  Hillary was worried about Chelsea on 9/11, yet Chelsea was nowhere near the WTC when the attacks occurred.

  Hillary helped broker the peace in Northern Ireland, yet a prominent official in the NI government totally debunked this.

  Hillary was the first First Lady to visit a war zone since Mrs. FDR? What about Pat Nixon?

  Hillary dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, yet she was filmed receiving flowers from a little girl on the tarmac.

  Looks like a lot of misspeaking to me.

  Two new entries for the LIbEral dictionary:

  lie - to misspeak
  sniper fire - getting flowers from a little girl

• 45. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

  A “good ol farm boy” from western Oklahoma writes a column like this each week.

  Howdy friends and neighbors. Come on first Tuesday in November! I have already had about all of the Presidential election I can stand. Surely, somewhere out there in this great nation is a “good ol’ boy or gal,” that is worth voting for. You know, someone that has actually done something, not just talked about what they think they have done.

  It’s only the first quarter in the game between the R’s and the D’s. Both sides keep talking about time for change. Just what are they going to change? They obviously haven’t changed the game of politics. Billary and Bama Lama Ding Dong boost the word “change” every time I see the media put their face on my boob tube.

  The first place they could start changing things would be on the Senate floor that they’re already on. Just go and look at their voting records for the last several months and you will find they aren’t showing up to vote. You know, the job they campaigned so hard to get by promising “change,” but they just don’t have the time. McCain isn’t immune from this either.

  Let’s talk “change.” What in the world do these hot air compressors think they are going to change and why? Again, I’m just a professional bovine relocation specialist (it’s the 21st century, we used to call them cowboys). But the way I see it from Sunny Point, Oklahoma, how are they going to change the greatest nation in the world?

  All of the candidates are demanding we must change! OK. I wake up a free man every morning and I’m free to do anything that is morally right or I can do nothing. If I choose to do something productive that day, well I can whistle at my dog, start up my ol’ tan feed truck that I bought with the help of a free enterprising banking system I chose to use. Plus, there’s the fact that other free Americans assembled this truck, and the companies that bought, sold and hauled parts and supplies to make that pickup possible. As I turn the key, ol’ tans fires up on diesel fuel that a mean, nasty, big oil company conveniently made very accessible and affordable to me.

  I turn out of my land that I can freely own, onto a county maintained road that leads to any point in North America I would choose to go to that day. Also, in this country, I am free to own livestock and free to care for them so that the livestock will return a profit so I can repay my bank, buy my feed and fuel, and provide for my family.

  On Sunday Morning (or any other day that ends in “Y”) my family is free to drive from our house on a ribbon of roads that lead to the Church of our choice and worship the real owner of all things we know, God. We can give praise to Him for all and especially for Jesus.

  Why can’t these hopefuls for the highest-ranking governmental seat see that it is just that simple? Provide me infrastructure and protect me from these knot-headed whacks that think they can take away our freedom.

  Billary, Bama Mama or McNobrain aren’t going to change anything. The foundations of this great country can’t be changed by one person, no matter how much they think they can. As Americans, we have the right to succeed or fail and try again as we please. As a free man, I’m getting good at failing but I get smarter when I try again.

  When presidential candidates tout change, the only thing I see in this country that needs changing is them. Life in America is good and for those that don’t think so, you’re free to leave at any time, go to another country of your choice and try to change it.

• 46. Typical White Person  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  Good post, k4v–sad, but true. None of these three are gonna fix anything…

• 47. Freedom1  |  March 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  Great News!!!

  The Man Behind 6 Million Muslims Converting To Christianity–Each Year

  His name is Zakaria Botros: and though he may not be responsible for all 6 million conversions, he is a significant thorn in the side of Islamists:

  Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros [check out his website] — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

  …The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world.

• 48. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

  Wait! Wait! Republicans have a great potential nominee for the Senate from New Jersey, Andy Unanue. He’s got that business experience so highly prized by Republicans as the former chief operating officer at Goya Foods. Well, maybe not the best experience:
  

  Robert Unanue, who emerged from the court battle as Goya’s president, testified he “had information Andy was going to work drunk” and “wasn’t projecting the right image for the company.” Joseph Perez, a vice president, testified about Andy, “I’ve seen him come to the office drunk or smelling of alcohol.”

  Andy Unanue testifed he was never drunk on the job, but when asked if he was “ever hung over in the office,” he replied, “Sure. Yes.”

  He denied it was a problem, and said he and others “drank a lot” at Goya company parties. “We worked hard, we worked long hours, we wanted to celebrate that,” he testified.
  __________
  Source: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/gop_senate_hopeful_fell_from_g.html

• 49. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  Uh oh. Hungover at work! Raise your hand if you’ve never been hungover at work …

• 50. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

  “While I’m sure you’re very passionate about the issues of guns and the Second Amendment, that does not mean that voters at large see that as very important.”

  You’re right. The Constitution just isn’t that important.

  Oh my.

• 51. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  49. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  Yeah, have to say I’ve been quite guilty of that. Wearing the same clothes as the day before doesn’t help your cause much either I found. I suppose it’s one of the benefits working for a pretty laid back company in that sense.

  I actually feel bad for the man, not only did he have to put up with the hangover at work but he gets dragged into court and has to testify about it.

• 52. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

  “Wearing the same clothes as the day before doesn’t help your cause much either I found.”

  LOL!! Too funny!!

• 53. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

  I have to say the change of verbage on the blog today is really, really nice. It’s evident we can debate the issues without too much vulgarity and name calling. I hope we can all keep it up. I know I will.

  SAR: I still am laughing at your last post. Hilarious! And you’re right, poor guy … but it seems like he handled it well.

• 54. Diana Powe  |  March 26th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

  kimberly4victory,

  If the President of the United States and his enablers in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, truly were to work to preserve, protect, support and defend the Constitution, as required by their oaths, then we wouldn’t be having to deal with the USA Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, et al. As it is, the fact remains that no matter how much Eric T or you may care about the Second Amendment, it doesn’t even show up on lists of American’s most pressing concerns when polled. You may not like it, but that’s reality. In any case, even if the issue was the number one priority, the President of the United States has very little to do with it.

• 55. SteaM  |  March 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  Diana,

  That is why we need to change. One example would be to make signing statements illegal.

• 56. Eric T  |  March 27th, 2008 at 5:47 am

  Diane-

  Its not a burning issue now, because we have a president that respects freedom and the 2nd Amendment. It really won’t become an issue till extremist gun banners like the Clintons start steppin on peoples rights AGAIN. Clinton gun ban cost the democrats the 2000 election. The American people need to be reminded of the tyranny they subjected us to. Democrats need to spend more time (out of power) to reflect on the reasons they are unfit to lead the nation. There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S.A. They need to be made aware of the dangers that could come with an extremist like Hillary or Obama running the country.

• 57. Diana Powe  |  March 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  Eric T,

  I’m assuming you’re responding to me and not Diane Tomlinson, whose name is spelled differently. I’ll just let the ludicrous assertion that Democrats (it’s capitalized because it’s a proper noun) lost the election in 2000 because everyone thought they were going to have their guns taken away. So, explain to me, other than paranoid delusions about “extremist gun banners”, how you think any President of the United States has any significant direct impact on gun ownership in this country.

• 58. Diana Powe  |  March 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  Hooray for the Global War on Terror ™ and the Bush Administration’s commitment to war-profiteering (oops, I mean, private enterprise)! We’ve been supplying the Afghan Army and police with outdated (and possibly illegal, as in Chinese) ammunition by giving a pair of 20-something dudes, one of whom was convicted of having a fake ID so he could drink alcohol, a contract worth nearly $300 million. Kewl!:
  

  But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

  With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.

  Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.

  In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking.
  __________
  Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

  Heck of a job, Bush Administration!

• 59. Eric T  |  March 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  Diane.

  I have read many of your posts, take a look at these. You asked in #57. Watch the video on the Clinton Gun Ban. These are prime reasons to stay away from Hillary or Obama. McCain has a decent record on guns, not perfect, but If you care about freedom. Clinton, Obama, and the democrats are definately not an option this time around.

  http://gunowners.org/pres08/clinton.htm

  http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm

  http://www.nrapvf.org/AtIssue/Default.aspx

  http://clintongunban.com/

• 60. Diana Powe  |  March 28th, 2008 at 12:01 am

  The United States has outsourced the manufacturing of its electronic passports to overseas companies — including one in Thailand that was victimized by Chinese espionage — raising concerns that cost savings are being put ahead of national security, an investigation by The Washington Times has found.
  __________
  Source: http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NATION/840186493/0/BUSINESS

  Heck of a job, Bush Administration. You even have the Washington Times after you on this fiasco.

• 61. Eric T  |  March 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am

  #60 Diane-

  That is a good article.

• 62. penis enlargement  |  April 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 am

  Penis enlargement products at guaranteed cheap price!

  penis enlargement pills, penis enlargement patches, penis enlargement devices, penis enlargement exercises, penis enlargement gel, and penis enlargement treatments with FDA approroved guaranteed. www.gordoniihoodia.net

• 63. penis enlargement  |  May 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  Penis enlargement treatments, solutions and natural herbal medicines to enlarge your penis naturally like 2-3 inches gain in penis size without any hesitation, worries and side effects for making your life more pleasureable and excited. www.penissizeenlargement.net

• 64. Car Loan&hellip  |  May 30th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

  Car Loan

  Apply for bad credit car loans to have a chance to purchase a fabulous Jaguar in 5 hours using a incomparable group!

• 65. Buy Viagra  |  June 6th, 2008 at 2:44 am

  Buyaviagra.net - viagra is used to treat impotence in men. Viagra increases the body’s ability to achieve and maintain an erection during sexual stimulation. Viagra does not protect you from getting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Boost your Sexual night with long lasting sex with VIAGRA. www.buyaviagra.net

• 66. Acomplia  |  June 26th, 2008 at 8:00 am

  Acomplia (rimonabant) is an anti-obesity drug. It was approved for marketing in the European Union in June 2006. Rimonabant is not yet approved for use in the United States, where it is known as Zimulti. www.acompliaonline.com

• 67. Best Buy Cheap Software C&hellip  |  July 14th, 2008 at 10:53 am

  Best Buy Cheap Software Cheap Cruises

  I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me

• 68. penis enlargement  |  July 27th, 2008 at 4:32 am

  American largest natural herbal health care products reviews for men and women health, general and sexual health, skin care and weight loss and much much more at free shipping in america with lowest price ever! www.gordoniihoodia.net

• 69. Acomplia  |  August 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

  Generic Acomplia is an Anti Obesity Drug that is Best Weight loss product in UK and Europe. www.genericacomplia.us

Leave a Comment

Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Matt Margolis on Twitter