Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
EIGHT MORE YEARS
Friday, January 25, 2008
Click here to see McCain's conservative record, issue by issue.
Click here to see that McCain's Lifetime ranking from the American Conservative Union is 83% (2005, 80%)
Click here to see a list of conservative and Republican McCain endorsements (and others)
Click here for polls that show how McCain is the only Republican candidate who beats Clinton and Obama in head-to-head matchups. No other Republican comes within ten points.
Click here for an article about McCain's actions as part of the so-called "Gang of 14."
I won't post any more pro-McCain stuff. I promise.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Here is what the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” said about the story:
Just Some Center
"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks," the Associated Press reports:
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.
Nowhere in the entire dispatch does the AP tell us anything more about the two groups than that they are "nonprofit journalism organizations." In fact, the Center for Public Integrity is a liberal-left group that has taken money from George Soros, who has compared contemporary America to Nazi Germany. The Fund for Independence in Journalism seems to be but a spinoff; its Web site says its "primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support" for the center.
Certainly if the AP is going to report on this "study," it ought to disclose the political leanings of the groups that sponsored it. Though come to think of it, given those political leanings, it's hard to see why this is even newsworthy.”
So the two groups are really one group funded by George Soros, one of the primary financial supporters of anti-Bush 527 groups like moveon.org and any number of other organizations.
Here is the report with links to the database of “lies”:
The report begins like this: “President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.”
So the charge is not that they told 935 lies. The charge is that the Bush administration made 2 assertions, 935 times, on 532 occasions. The two assertions were 1) that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the start of the Iraq war and 2) Iraq did not have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. #1 hardly qualifies as a “lie” by any standard of what lying is. We have no way of knowing exactly what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. We know that they had them in the past and had used them in the past. We know that they had some continuing programs. We know that they still wanted WMD. We also know that the Bush administration was receiving reports of continuing WMD programs. And we know that none of that matters since Iraq was not cooperating with UN sanctions or inspections at the time, giving the impression to a reasonable observer that they in fact had something to hide. Regardless, I am not sure how any reasonable interpretation of those items could be called a lie. #2 depends on what you count as “meaningful” and what counts as “ties.” The Bush administration never asserted that Saddam was behind 9/11 in any way. But Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq (still are); Iraq was funding terrorism against Israel and the United States; and members of Al Qaeda with planning knowledge of the 9/11 attacks were in Iraq (and eventually captured there) and Saddam had no interest in turning them over to the United States.
So the report was issued by two groups that are actually one group that is biased and there weren’t 935 lies, only two assertions, repeated on 532 occasions, that weren’t lies. And it still ends up in the paper.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Much is being made – if you count the media and the talking heads – about the fact that California Republicans have barred anyone from voting in their primary who isn’t a registered member of the party.
The Governor says Republicans will lose tens of thousands of votes as a result. He may be right. The media says we are being “exclusionary.” There is even disagreement within the party itself whether this is the right thing to do.
At their core, political parties are founded on principles. The people who join these parties vote for candidates they think will defend and advance these principles as a matter of public policy.
So why, then, would we include people who don’t want to be formally identified with our party to play a role in deciding who will best represent our REPUBLICAN interests?
In my experience, people who identify themselves as Decline to State (or independents) will say they vote for the person, not the party. That would sound idyllic if it wasn’t so wishy-washy.
I can understand how a decline to state voter could get the warm-fuzzies for one candidate over another, regardless of party. But at the end of the day that candidate represents a party founded on principles – and he/she will be expected to champion them.
As REPUBLICANS, we debate among ourselves which candidate will be REPUBLICAN enough to represent us. I don’t like the idea of letting that decision be made in part by a group swayed by a fast talker with a warm handshake. (Disclaimer: These views are my own and don’t represent those of any REPUBLICAN organization.)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The most cited data to prove this point come from the Pew Political Typology survey. By 2005, it had found that so many self-described conservatives were in favor of government activism that they had to come up with a name for them. 'Running-dog liberals' apparently seemed too pejorative, so the survey went with 'pro-government conservatives,' a term that might have caused Ronald Reagan to spontaneously combust. This group makes up just under 10 percent of registered voters and something like a third of the Republican coalition. Ninety-four percent of pro-government conservatives favored raising the minimum wage, as did 79 percent of self-described social conservatives. Eight out of 10 pro-government conservatives believe that the government should do more to help the poor and slightly more than that distrust big corporations."
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Seriously, don't buy a cup of coffee today and give the McCain campaign $2.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
"The dynamic I see in the Republican race is this: Five candidates have reason, from their own points of view, to continue their candidacies and no motive to stop anytime soon:
* Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses and has some reasonable prospects in South Carolina on January 19.
* Romney, having won “the silver” in Iowa and New Hampshire and being in possession of a checkbook with $50 million in liquid funds, will contest Michigan and has no motive not to continue if he doesn’t win there.
* McCain, celebrating his win in New Hampshire, gave a speech that was in the nature of accepting the mantle of national leadership, and plausibly so.
* Fred Thompson, absent from tonight’s television but fresh from a fine appearance on Fox News’s Sunday night debate, has no motive to withdraw to private life.
* Nor does Rudy Giuliani, whose sterling policy achievements and unforgettable leadership after the September 11 attacks may still resonate as they did in the first half of 2007 but have not, at least in presidential polls, in the past two months."
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Fear, he said, is an ongoing challenge county prosecutors face in making their cases against the accused. Witnesses and victims, their families and neighbors are simply afraid of reprisals from gang members and are reluctant to testify. He said the most important person in the courtroom is a witness, and without them putting the perpetrators away is made more difficult.
In addition, police and prosecutors are not getting enough help from youth who could provide valuable information because pop culture (including rap songs) deride people who would cooperate with law enforcement.
There's no simple solution, Cline said, but one thing is clear: communities, neighborhoods and families need to rally around those people brave enough to step forward with information that puts the bad guys away.
So what we take away from the four Democratic Presidential candidates' stunning display of misinformation and false statements about the surge Saturday evening is that they have simply stopped thinking about Iraq. They seem to have concluded that opposition to the war permits them to literally not know what the U.S. or the Iraqis are doing there. As the nation commences the selection of an American President, this is a phenomenon worth noting."
Monday, January 7, 2008
There are more than 25,000 of us. That's 11,000 MORE than Democrats in the same age range.
In fact, YOUNG REPUBLICANS rule in all 11 San Joaquin Valley counties, except Sacramento (any wonder it's so screwed up?).
My point? Time to flex our muscles. Your opportunity to get involved starts here.