Blogs For Victory

According to this Senate report, over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims this year.

From the introduction:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been using the politics of fear to increase regulations of all kinds in the name of the environment, like banning incandescent light bulbs.

FOX News reports that Tom Tancredo is about to drop out of the presidential race.

UPDATE: Endorses Romney…

Tom Tancredo dropped out of the Republican field for president today and backed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“At this point in time, (Romney) is the best hope for our cause,” Tancredo said during a news conference in downtown Des Moines.

The cause that vaulted the Colorado congressman into the race –– illegal immigration –– also motivated him to abandon his pursuit of the nomination, Tancredo said.

His continued presence in an election he could not win, he said, may have helped the campaigns of Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. John McCain –– candidates Tancredo says are soft on immigration.

Dianne Bystrom, an Iowa State University political science professor, said Tancredo’s exit and endorsement of Romney could shake up the volatile Republican field.

Tonight, I’d like to introduce our readers to Blogs For Victory’s first grassroots blogs.

Princella Smith and Leo Pusateri, who have been guest blogging with since we were at Blogs for Bush, are each heading up a grassroots blog here at Blogs For Victory. Princella is blogging at Blogs For Mike Huckabee’s Victory, and Leo is blogging at Blogs for Fred Thompson’s Victory.

If you are interested in joining Princella or Leo on either blog, or if you’re interested in blogging for another GOP presidential candidate, feel free to contact me.

UPDATE: A new one blooms… Blogs for Rudy Giuliani’s Victory.

Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, are trying to strong-arm President Bush by refusing to clear a slate of appointees to the Federal Election Commission.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just announced that the Senate will not clear four new appointees for the Federal Election Commission, meaning the panel that acts as a watchdog on political campaigns cannot function during the critical election-year period.

Reid is blaming the White House for refusing to withdraw to allow a majority vote on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the commission. Republicans want von Spakovsky approved as part of a slate of four FEC nominees or they will refuse to consider any of the nominees.

Von Spakovsky was recess appointed by President Bush to the FEC, but his term expires at the end of the year. Democrats have refused to allow his nomination to move forward, arguing that his actions while at the Justice Department disqualified him for the post. Bush, though has not backed down, and the matter has been at an impasse for the last four months.

Now, with the Senate moving toward adjournment until mid-January, Reid signalled that Democrats will not move any FEC nominations if they include von Spakovsky, meaning the commission will only have two of its required six members. Reid said he offered the GOP a straight majority vote on all the FEC nominees, including von Spakovsky, but the White House refused to accept that offer.

How convenient that the FEC could be effectively shutdown during a presidential election year. Is this merely a case of Democrats trying to flex their muscles and appease their extreme liberal base, or is it also a way to protect Democrat candidates in an election year?

Funny isn’t it, just the other day Harry Reid was complaining about Republican obstruction…

I didn’t see all of the interview, but I did catch the part where Ron Paul advocated abolishing the IRS. And wasn’t impressed with Ron Paul’s response.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ohglJS3ltM 350 350]

Hey, the idea sounds great to me. But, as I was watching, I was struck by the fact that when Beck asked Ron Paul what would replace the IRS — a flat tax, a national sales tax, or something else — Ron Paul really had no answer. He basically said he didn’t want it replaced with something else or with more spending. Here’s the video:

His response to “What is your proposal?” was weak. Paul basically said he had no proposal. “Anything would be better.” Well, that’s great, but that doesn’t solve the problem, or answer the question about how the federal government would get tax revenues to pay for the things it’s suppose to.

Michael Illions over at Polipundit noted that Ron Paul looked uncomfortable at this point, and I have to agree, but I’m not sure whether it was because Glenn Beck was fawning over his desire to abolish the IRS, or if it was because he had no plan to explain what he believes the federal government should do to generate revenue to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.

This clip of Paul on Fox – he says the following regarding Huckabee’s “Merry Christmas” ad:

…reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis said, “when fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”. I don’t know if that if a fair assessment or not but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly.

This is the statement of a man who doesn’t want my vote. This is a blanket insult to all Christians – that we are, somehow, on a track to fascism because we want to say “Merry Christmas” and are unafraid to proclaim our faith in the public square. Its also a stupid statement – stupid from Lewis who originally made it, and stupid for Paul to repeat it: fascism is anethema to Christianity. The two are entirely incompatible. Fascism asserts that the State may claim all – Christianity says that while we must render to Ceasar what is his, we must only render to God what belongs to God.

If there are fascists in the making out there, they are amongst the people who want to silence others with hate crimes laws and speech codes; who demand equality of result rather than of opportunity; who insist that there is a wall of separation between Church and State (actually, lefties, it is the vibrant Church which is the strongest defense against the tyranny of the State). Paul proves himself ever more to be of the rather kook fringe – whatever his good ideas are (and he has some) they are drowned out by his more bizarre beliefs.

Mark and I have spoken privately about our predictions for Iowa, and a couple weeks ago, I said I think it could end up going Edwards, Clinton, then Obama. Mark and I have generally been at odds over how Iowa will turn out for the Democrats, but a new poll now shows Edwards on top, with Clinton and Obama not far behind makes me think that my prediction wasn’t too far out there.

Let me explain why I believe, at this point, that not only will Edwards come out on top, but that Obama will do surprisingly poor, in the same way that Howard Dean did back in 2004.

I watched some of the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, and the one thing that seemed to stick out in my mind was the common question everyone was asking: “Who can beat George W. Bush?” With no incumbent this cycle, the question I expect caucus-goers to be asking is “Who can win in the general election?” And I expect that most will not give “Barack Obama” as the answer. In 2004 Iowa Democrats made the strategic decision to bank their hopes on capturing the presidency on John Kerry. John Kerry had run a terrible campaign up to that point — and even had to loan himself a huge chunk of money to keep himself afloat at one point — but with the war on terror as the primary issue, it seemed logical to pick someone who served in Vietnam (albeit very briefly) and had a bit more experience than a governor of a small state who sealed his own records and appeals to the far light liberal bloggers.

If electability is as important to Iowa Democrats in 2008 as it was in 2004, then I wouldn’t count on Obama coming out on top. Obama’s inexperience is a huge problem for him. And, let’s face it, if liberals really believe that this country is racist, then how could they believe that Obama has a chance to win the General Election?

And how about Hillary? Aside from her past support for the war in Iraq, there is no one more polarizing and controversial than her. Still, I believe Democrats would consider her more electable than Barack Obama.

Democrats can claim all they want that there will be a blowout in 2008, but many factors will drive turnout on both sides, and I’m still thinking that this election will be close like the previous two.

The real thing we get out of this new poll is that Iowa is wide open. In the past few weeks and months, all of the top three Democrat contenders have come out on top of an Iowa poll. In the end, it can go either way. This latest poll strengthens my belief that Edwards can win Iowa.

So anyway, not too long ago I asked our readers for predictions about Iowa. Any revisions to past predictions? Any new predictions?

UPDATE: Strengthening the foundation for my prediction again… QandO points us to a story that says Democrats are worried about the electability of their nominee.

Sometime I wonder if Harry Reid has been auditioning for the part of Al Qaeda’s spokesman:

Tired of Republican crowing about winning on Iraq funding, the budget battle and the energy bill, Reid (D-Nev.) shot back on Tuesday afternoon.

“We hear a lot of Republicans boasting … because of their unprecedented obstruction,” Reid said.

Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.

“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”

Sounds like Harry Reid is saying Al Qaeda is winning. Of course, his comments completely contrast the assessments of generals on the ground and even some of Reid’s fellow Democrats, including Jack Murtha, who have admitted that the surge is working and significant progress is being made in Iraq.

I also can’t let this go without noting just how ridiculous Harry Reid sounds when he complains about Republican “obstruction.” Harry Reid lead his fellow Democrats in Senate in blocking many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. He even threatened Bush with a potential filibuster if he did not nominate a “consensus” judge to replace Justice O’Connor following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. The fact is, when Democrats were in the minority, they supported all sorts of obstruction, with so many of Bush’s highly qualified nominees never getting the vote the deserved. John Bolton was never given a vote when he was nominated to be ambassador to the U.N., even after his recess appointment expired, and his performance was praised by many, Democrats stood firm in their baseless, partisan obstruction.

And Democrats have no right to blame Republicans for the majority’s incompetence. As the majority party, Republicans were able to pass tax cuts and the partial birth abortion ban, (just to name a few) despite the minority party’s rabid opposition to them. The Republicans could do this because they had leadership and the support of the American people on their side.

Robert Stacy McCain posts his reaction to Raw Story’s ridiculous claim that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was last year convicted of corruption and is now serving a 7-year federal sentence, was the victim a GOP-plot orchestrated by Karl Rove.

I think we should also have Raw Story look into whether or not Karl Rove planted the $90,000 bribe money in William Jefferson‘s freezer. Maybe they should also determine if Karl Rove was behind the shady land deal between Barack Obama and Tony Rezko.

And that’s not a good thing for her…

Forty percent of Americans say they would vote to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton from winning the presidency, more than twice the total for their No. 2 “anti-” pick, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

In a new Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports survey, 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats said the candidate they most want to keep from the White House is Mrs. Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton is better known than any [other] presidential candidate on either side. She has a lot of people who love her and a lot of people who hate her,” said Scott Rasmussen, who conducted the poll.

Clearly, this is more of concern for Hillary and for Democrats if she makes it to the General Election… which I still suspect she will. However, if electability — or at least the perception of electability — is important to primary voters, Hillary may have a tough battle ahead of her to secure her party’s nomination.