GOP Catholics

Mike Huckabee Goes To Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:06:00 +0000

Mike Huckabee's recent trip to Iowa to campaign for gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has taken the mediasphere by great surprise. Cognisant of the fact that well-known politicians like Huckabee never simply "drop by" their (first in the nation primary) state without ulterior motives at heart, the Des Moines Register (nevertheless) says that "Huckabee shows no sign of running for President."

Daivd Kochel, a consultant for Vander Plaats's primary opponent, former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad is naturally far more cynical than the Register about events, even going so far as to say that Huckabee has hurt his chances in the 2012 Republican primaries by his recent foray into the Hawkeye state.

This analysis seems to be based on Huckabee raising money for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a seemingly normal activity for a Republican Presidential candidate, but an apparent no-no in Kochel's mind due to the fact that the Iowa Family Policy Center has refused to support Branstad which, in that case, makes Kochel seem like well......a sore loser.

Brown Paves Way For Rubio, Stutzman, and Lee

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:05:00 +0000

Thanks to the theatrics of Scott Brown's succesful Senate campaign, the doldrum days of early winter have passed by in a swirl of rapid-fire hysteria political hysteria as we Republicans-nay, we tea-partiers helped to install a new tenant in a Senate seat that has been missing from the GOP fold for an un-Godly period of nearly 60 years. However, as much as we enjoyed watching Mr. Brown of Massachusetts tramping across America's hallowed birthplace of political activism (happy 236th birthday Boston Tea Party!), erasing a double-digit deficit in a matter of mere weeks whilst his opponent took a vacation, of all things, we must confront the double-sided realities that his election has brought us.

Despite his opposition to the Obama administration's health-care "reform," which did much to endear him amongst conservatives, one must not that Brown is still a liberal Republican at heart. One sees this manifested in his recent vote in favor the Obama administration's "jobs" bill, yet another of the White House's never-ending series of efforts to save the ever-eroding
economy and which according to Brown will "help put people back to work." (wasn't the first 'stimulus' supposed to do that?). Whether or not Brown will be Ted Kennedy reborn in Republican form remains to be seen, but as we see in more than one Senate race across the country, it is highly unlikely that he will be joined in the Republican caucus next January by any more of his liberal compatriots.

In a race not unlike Brown's recent triumph former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio has overcome a more than 30 point deficit against 'moderate' Governor Charlie Crist. Crist, as one might remember, enthusiastically 'hugged' President Obama at an event held in Fort Myers on February 10, 2009 to promote the wonders of the President's first 'stimulus' bill. The fact that his embrace (no pun intended) of the President's effort to spend us into an economic recovery (with money we do not have) does not see to have not made a dent in Crist who claimed this week that there is "no way" he will lose to the upstart Rubio, while, according to Republican blogster, Redstate, he is laying off staff members at the same time.

Thanks, in part, to the inspiring efforts of Marco Rubio the traditional Republican states of Utah and Indiana will also be home to contested primary races this season. In Utah, incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett is now reaping the rewards he has sown for himself by his support for federal gay-'marriage' benefits and by his insistence that tax dollars be used to pay for abortions. Bennett is being challenged by State Senator (and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito) Mike Lee, who is running on a platform of "restricting government to its proper size and scope," which, unlike Senator Bennett's view, do not involve using my proverbial hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize abortion purveyors.

Due to the retirement of Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, former Republican Senator Dan Coats has come running back to reclaim his old job. However, Indiana Republican will soon get to choose whether they want to re-instate Senator Coats, who, after retiring from the Senate for the first ran-not walked through the "revolving door" of politics and private life to take up a new job as a lobbyist. Nevertheless, for reasons quite obvious, not all Indianans are especially keen to be represented in Washington by a lobbyist (wonder why). State legislator Marlin Stutzman is running against Coats on a platform that includes two wonderfully novel ideas, that is, to say, of cutting taxes and spending, while also providing tax credits to homeschoolers (yee gawds) and other such persons not especially eager to have their children be subjected to public education.

Nevertheless, for the short-term (or at least until November) one must be content with Massachusetts moderate, Scott Brown, who, to be fair, ran a campaign that will always be remembered and who, as the "Brown for Prez" foolhardiness that occupied our attention for a few short weeks in January and early February told us, might have become......well what's the point on shoulda woulda coulda?

Lack of Confidence

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:38:00 +0000

"We will rebuild. We will recover, and the United States of America will emerge
stronger than before,"

----Presidential address before Cognress 2/24/09

When you realize that the "stimulus" bill added up to almost $800 billion dollars yet only contained $13 dollars a week for American families the whole "recovery" schtick that our President sputed last night rings a bit hollow to say the least.

Are You a Kennedy?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:37:00 +0000

The gushing media has reported this week that Caroline Kennedy "wants" Hillary Clinton's old Senate seat, which, in keeping with modern demise of the American political system, seems to have become a mere commodity to be handed down from one wealthy family to another.

For what qualification does Caroline Kennedy deserve to be appointed as the newest Federal representative from New York? Apparently, as was shown with Mrs. Clinton, it does not matter if one is qualified to be Senator from the Empire State if there other extenuating circumstances involved.

According to the mayor of New York City, Caroline must be given the Senate seat because she "can do anything," and if one has read a single newspaper narrative over the last two weeks, one would know that since Caroline's uncle Bobby was a Senator, she is eminently qualified to be one herself.

The Constitution outlawed "titles of nobility" precisely to eliminate this type of situation, so that people in this country would be judged on their own achievements, not by their last name and famous relatives.

The fact that the Governor of New York, Daivd Paterson, is even considering Caroline Kennedy for the open Senate seat while passing over scores of more-qualified individuals, serves to show that he is incompetent to hold office and must be thrown out in 2010 by the voters of New York. Like Hillary Clinton before her, Caroline Kennedy has no experience in government whatsoever and we, the beleaguered people of New York do not deserve to have another unqualified Senator thrust upon us who requires on the job training.

If Caroline is indeed appointed to the Senate which, considering the incompetency of our Governor, is more than likely to happen, she will face a tremendous hurdle in two years when she must run for election, most probably against my own Congressman, The Honorable Peter King, who, as usual in New York politics, has been a lone voice of level-headedness, pointing out that Caroline has no "hereditary right to a senate seat from New York State" and will not be warmly received by voters tired of politicians using New York Senate seats solely for their own personal gain.

The Dream is Shattered

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:30:00 +0000

Happy Birthday Blago!!!

Like most of the media, ABC News is now pining for those winsome days of old when their responsibility to the public was nil and they could stand "starry-eyed" and "transfixed," admiring the great and majestic Obama alongside the rest of us.

Therefore, the "little anticipated" arrest of Governor Rod R. Blagojevich came as a great shock to the media who, as good as feigning shock as anyone, is mortified at how their modern-day "Camelot" has been tarnished with the unseemly arrest of someone so politically close to Barack Obama, the media's lord and saviour.

Governor Rod R. Blagojevich has a history of being investigated by the Feds starting in 2005 with the Illinois Tollway Oasis scandal, which was followed by the corrupt hiring practices investigation of 2006. Apparently, Blagojevich should have quit while he was ahead, for when one is under multiple investigations by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, laying off the corruption for a while is a highly advisable move to make.

Beyond the bad publicity taking the shine of the surface of his formerly squeaky clean media image, the impact "is far from certain," according to the Associated Press. If nothing else, it will throw him off message, derailing an agenda that had already been doomed by the re-election of Senator Saxby Chambliss in Georgia.

However, it is still not certain that any of Obama's advisers may not be involved in this scandal, which would not do much to help bring about the "change" that Obama so often proclaims.

More court documents are expected to follow shortly.

The Money Hole

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:27:00 +0000

As it stands right now, the great change "change" so often promised by our next president seems to be merely a continuation of the central principle of the Bush administration: if something doesn't work, the only thing to do is to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at it in hope that some of them might stick.

Announced in his weekly radio address on saturday morning, Obama's grand plan to rescue America from joblessness and economic decline is a massive "public works" bill. As could be expected, Obama did not give a price tag for this bill, but adorned it with the usual verbal superlatices such as "investing" and helping our children "compete." Obama did put a number on one aspect of the bill, claiming it will create "2.5 million jobs."

One wonders how lasting these jobs will be. For when the federal funding runs out, the people who are employed by this bill will again be out of work. The economy will not be resurrected simply because the federal employs people to repair highways and screw in brighter lightbulbs in school buildings for a few months.

America's economy was built on agriculture and manufacturing, not pot-hole fillers and lightbulb-changers. America's workers need real jobs with a steady paycheck, not glorified federal allowance money.

However, they are unlikely to get them with Obama's plan to increase taxes on employers and the upper-middle class--in other words, people who own companies and make investments. For in Obama's world, we do not emplyers and entrepeneurs to invest in our economy and start businesses when we can all instead be employed driving a dumptruck on the interstate for $5.00 dollars an hour filling potholes for Uncle Sam.

We will not here any talk from Obama about cutting the size of government and eliminating the public debt. For such actions would lead to people and companies being able to actually keep most of what they earn, allowing that money to be invested in further economic growth. Obama wants a society of dependants rather than a society of independents, a society of people who depend not on the fruits of their own labors, but rather on a little green check mailed to them every two weeks by a government printing machine, buried deep in the bowels of the ever-expanding federal bureaucracy.

Saxby Seals It

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:59:00 +0000

I like to think of the GOP as a family, firmly committed to taking care of its members, whether they be politicians, or your average ordinary constituent. For when one member of a family is in trouble--anyone of the other members can be next.

It was most heartening, then, to see Saxby Chambliss properly dispose of Democrat Jim Marton 58 percent to 42 percent in the Georgia Senate runoff on tuesday night, thus insuring a filibuster-worthy Republican minority in the Senate.

Much can be gleaned from this victory.

Besides proclaiming a clear simple message, instead of engaging in the usual trash-talking with his opponent that so many politicians often stoop down to, Saxby received enthusiastic campaign assistance from 2012 presidential frontrunner Mike Huckabee, plus the obligatory stumping form the temporarily re-formed McCain/Palin duo.

Contrast this with Jim Martin's campaign, which received little to no assistance from Democratic heavyweights, (paging Barack Obama!), even though we are told every day by the vainglorious odd couple of Pelosi and Reid that the Democrats really really want that supermajority.

Perhaps the Democrats did not send one of their stars to campaign in Georgia because they realize the backlash that would have occurred. After all, Democrats only get elected when the Republicans fail to do their job, not because voters wake up on election day and decide that they just gotta' have a donkey in the White House and in Congress.

The Republicans know this, of course, and after shedding some deadweight in the last two elections (Lincoln Chafee? Ted Stevens?) they are in the process of becoming the lean mean opposition that will be needed to insure a swift and painful death to the socialism that is soon to come from the White House.

The Next Time: Huckabee's Book Tour

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:25:00 +0000

Perhaps the reason for some of the negative headlines about Huckabee's new book, Do The Right Thing, has to do with a simple fact.

The GOP leadership knows Huckabee is the biggest threat to insider politicians like Mitt Romney for 2012 and wants to stop him before the nomination literally starts falling Huckabee's way.

The leaders of the social conservative movement who helped nominate the closet liberal John McCain by refusing to help one of their own in Mike Huckabee, have realized their mistake of presuming to know who was "viable" and who was "not."

This time around, the conservatives in the party will know whom to support and avoid the fracturing which almost destroyed them during the last primaries. We must show out in force for Mike Huckabee's upcoming national book tour and show the GOP leadership and the media whom we the people want as our next nominee.

For those of you living in Iowa, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Texas, and North Carolina and South Carolina, I would especially urge you to come out and show your support for Huckabee in these very important primary states.

Alabama
Birmingham, AL
Monday, 12/112:00-1:00 PM
Books A Million / Brockwood Village757 Brockwood VillageBirmingham, AL 35209
(205)870-0213

Alabama
Dothan, AL
Saturday, 11/298:00-9:00 AM
Books A MillionNorthside Mall3489 Ross Clark Circle #54Dothan, AL 36303
(334)712-1341

Arkansas
Bentonville, AR
Friday, 11/217:00-9:00 PM
Sam's Club** Free Pass3500 Southeast Club BlvdBentonville, AR 72712
(479)621-5537

Arkansas
El Dorado, AR
Tuesday, 11/258:00-9:00 PM
Walmart Supercenter2730 Northwest AveEl Dorado, AR 71730
(870)862-2128

Arkansas
Ft. Smith, AR
Wednesday, 11/2612:00-1:00 PM
Books A Million (Pavilions Store)4145 Phoenix AveFt. Smith, AR 72903
(479)484-5833

Arkansas
Little Rock, AR
Wednesday, 11/266:00-8:00 PM
Barnes & Noble11500 Financial Ctr Pkwy Little Rock, AR 72211
(501)954-7646

Florida
Brandon, FL
Sunday, 12/7Church Signing
Bell Shoals Baptist Church2102 Bell Shoals RdBrandon, FL 33511
(813)689-4229

Florida
Orlando, FL
Monday, 12/812:00-1:00 PM
Barnes & NobleColonial Plaza Market Center2418 East Colonial DriveOrlando, FL 32803
(407)894-6024

Florida
Panama City, FL
Friday, 11/285:00-6:00 PM
Borders Super Store15575 Starfish DrPanama City Beach, FL 32413
(850)636-3181

Florida
Pensacola, FL
Friday, 11/288:00-9:00 PM
Barnes & NobleThe Cordova Crossing1200 Airport BlvdPensacola, FL 32504
(850)969-9554

Florida
Sarasota, FL
Friday, 11/287:00-8:00 AM
Books A MillionGulf Gate Mall6591 S. Tamiami TrialSarasota, FL 34231
(941)922-7804

Florida
Southwest Ranches, FL
Sunday, 12/7Church Signing
Abundant Living Ministries14221 SW 72nd StSouthwest Ranches, FL 33330
Phone TK

Florida
Tampa, FL
Friday, 11/289:00-10:00 AM
Inkwood Books216 S Armenia AveTampa, FL 33609
(813)253-2638

Florida
The Villages, FL
Friday, 11/2811:30 AM-12:30 PM
Barnes & NobleLake Sumter Market Square1055 Old Camp RdThe Villages, FL 32162
(352)430-3029

Georgia
Albany, GA
Saturday, 11/2912:00-1:00 PM
Books A MillionAlbany Mall2601 Dawson Rd, Ste 3Albany, GA 31707
(229)889-0507

Georgia
Macon, GA
Saturday, 11/29/083:00-4:00 PM
Barnes & NobleThe Shoppes at River Crossing5080 Riverside Dr.Macon, GA 31210
(478)474-0161

Georgia
Norcross, GA / Atlanta, GA
Sunday, 11/30Church Signing
Victory World Church5905 Brook Hollow ParkwayNorcross, GA 30071
(770)849-9400

Iowa
Cedar Rapids, IA
Thursday, 11/2012:00-1:00 PM
Barnes & NobleNorthland Square SC333 Collins Rd NE, Bldg 1Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
(319)393-4800

Iowa
Des Moines, IA
Thursday, 11/206:00-8:00 PM
Sam's Club ** Free Pass1101 73rd StDes Moines, IA 50311
(515)255-2252

Kansas
Kansas City, MO
Friday, 11/2112:00-1:00 PM
Rainy Day BooksUnity Temple On The Plaza707 W. 47th StreetKansas City, MO 64112
(913)384-3126

Kentucky
Lexington, KY
Tuesday, 12/22:00-1:00 PM
Joseph Beth161 Lexington Green Circle #BLexington, KY 40503
(859)273-2911

Louisiana
Bossier City, LA / Shreveport, LA
Tuesday, 11/2512:00-1:00 PM
Walmart Supercenter2536 Airline DrBossier City, LA 71111
(318)747-0173

Michigan
Birmingham, MI / Detroit, MI
Wednesday, 12/312:00-1:00 PM
Borders34300 WoodwardBirmingham, MI 48009
(248)203-0005

Michigan
Grand Rapids, MI
Wednesday, 12/37:30-8:30 PM
Schuler Books (Grand Rapids)2660 28th St SEGrand Rapids, MI 49512
(616)942-2561

Michigan
Lansing, MI
Wednesday, 12/35:00-6:00 PM
Schuler Books (Eastwood)Eastwood Towne Center2820 Towne Center BlvdLansing, MI 48912
(517)316-7495

Mississippi
Oxford, MS
Monday, 12/15:00-6:00 PM
Square Books160 Courthouse SquareOxford, MS 38655
(662)236-2262

Missouri
Springfield, MO
Friday, 11/214:00-5:00 PM
Barnes & Noble3055 South GlenstoneSpringfield, MO 65804
(417)885-0026

Ohio
Cincinnati, OH
Tuesday, 12/25:00-6:00 PM
Joseph Beth2692 Madison RdCincinnati, OH 45208
(513)396-8960

Ohio
Columbus, OH
Tuesday, 12/28:00-9:00 PM
Barnes & NobleEaston Town Center4005 Townsfair Way,Columbus, OH 43219
(614)476-8480

Oklahoma
Edmond, OK / Oklahoma City, OK
Saturday, 11/2211:00 AM-12:00 PM
Best of BooksKickingbird Sq1313 E Danforth RdEdmond, OK 73034
(405)340-9202

Oklahoma
Tulsa, OK
Saturday, 11/227:00-8:00 AM
Barnes & NobleSouthroads Shopping Center5231 East 41st StTulsa, OK 74135
(918)665-4580

South Carolina
Aiken, SC
Saturday, 12/61:00-2:00 PM
Walmart Supercenter2035 Whiskey RdAiken, SC 29803
(803)648-9197

South Carolina
Columbia, SC
Saturday, 12/63:00-4:00 PM
Books A MillionHarbison Shopping Center275-1 Harbison BlvdColumbia, SC 29212
(803)749-9378

South Carolina
Greenville, SC
Friday, 12/56:00-7:30 PM
Costco1021 Woodruff RdGreenville, SC 29607
(864)297-2560

South Carolina
Rock Hill, SC
Saturday, 12/69:00-10:00 AM
Books A Million Manchester Village 540 John Ross ParkwayRock Hill, SC 29730
(803)985-5362

South Carolina
Spartanburg, SC
Friday, 12/58:00-9:00 PM
Sam's Club** Free Pass200 Peachwood Centre DrSpartanburg, SC 29301
(864)574-3480

Tennessee
Chattanooga, TN
Sunday, 11/303:00-4:00 PM
Books A MillionHamilton Village2020 Gunbarrel Rd, Ste 205-AChattanooga, TN 37421
(423)894-1690

Tennessee
Memphis, TN
Monday, 12/18:00-9:00 PM
Davis Kidd387 Perkins Road Extended Memphis, TN 38117
(901)683-9801

Tennessee
Nashville, TN
Sunday, 11/306:00-7:00 PM
Davis Kidd The Mall at Green Hills 2121 Green Hills Village Dr, Ste 281Nashville, TN 37215
(615)385-2645

Texas
Amarillo, TX
Sunday, 11/23Church Service
Address TK
Phone TK

Texas
Arlington, TX
Saturday, 11/225:00-6:00 PM
Costco600 West Arbrook BlvdArlington, TX, 76014
(817)417-1603

Texas
College Station, TX
Monday, 11/2412:00-1:00 PM
Barnes & NobleLone-Star Pavilion711 Texas AveCollege Station, TX 77840
(979)764-8955

Texas
Dallas, TX
Saturday, 11/227:00-8:00 PM
Borders10720 Preston RdDallas, TX 75230
(214)363-1977

Texas
Houston, TX
Monday, 11/248:00-9:00 PM
Books a Million (Pavilions Store)1201 Main StHouston, TX 77002
(713)353-5496

Texas
Killeen, TX
Sunday, 11/236:00-7:00 PM
Hastings Books2200 E Veterans MemorialKilleen, TX, 76549
(254)680-5313

Texas
Lubbock, TX
Sunday, 11/232:00-3:00 PM
Barnes & Noble6707 Slide RdLubbock, TX 79424
(806)798-8990

Texas
San Antonio, TX
Thursday, 12/112:00-3:00 PM
Barnes & Noble18030 HWY 281N, Ste #140San Antonio, TX 78232
(210)490-0411

Texas
Texarkana, TX
Tuesday, 11/255:00-6:00 PM
Books A MillionCentral Mall3501 Mall DrTexarkana, TX 75503
(903)838-3848

Texas
The Woodlands, TX
Monday, 11/245:00-6:00 PM
Barnes & NobleThe Woodlands Mall1201 Lake Woodlands Dr, #3008The Woodlands, TX 77381
(281)465-8744

Virginia
Arlington, VA / Washington, DC
Wednesday, 11/1912:00-1:00 PM
Costco, Pentagon City1200 South Fern StArlington, VA 22202
(703)413-2324

Virginia
Bristol, VA
Friday, 12/512:00-1:00 PM
Books a Million16700 Highlands Center BlvdBristol, VA 24202
(276)669-2115

Virginia
Lynchburg, VA
Thursday, 12/45:30-6:30 PM
Barnes & NobleWards Crossing4024-C Wards RdLynchburg, VA 24502
(434)239-8688

Virginia
Roanoke, VA
Thursday, 12/48:00-9:00 PM
Books a MillionCross Roads Mall1515 Hershberger RdRoanoke, VA 24012
(540)366-6682

West Virginia
Charleston, WV
Thursday, 12/412:00-1:00 PM
Books a MillionDudley Farms Plaza212 RHL BlvdCharleston, WV 25309
(304)746-2984

"Not The Future"

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:35:00 +0000

As could be expected, the Republican Governor's meeting was more disappointing than not,
merely an elaborate forum for presidential wannabees Perry, Palin, Crist, and Pawlenty to fight over media attention.

No one was able to offer any real explanation for John McCain's recent destruction. Governor Rick Perry of Texas blaimed it on earmarks. Governor Crist of Florida blamed it on those "divisive" social issues, and Governor Pawlenty, true to form, said it was all the fault of global warming.

However, some good did come out of the meeting, as the GOP governors refused to gather around Sarah Palin as the party's next leader, even if only to keep their own prospects alive.

As inexperienced and unsubstantial on the issues as she may be, Sarah Palin is still gearing up to make a run for 2012 and gaining the support of the GOP leadership would have been highly beneficial to locking up her wannabe status as the "heir" to John McCain.

Much of what Sarah Palin supporters cite as the reasons for voting for her President has little or nothing to do with sustantive issues. I do not feel compelled to vote for someone whose main qualifications, according to her backers, seem to be that she is woman and that she did not have an abortion.

This may be because her qualifications are so severly lacking.

Being governor of a state of 600,000 residents for less than two years does not qualify one to be President, much less the party nominee. Other than Governor, the only other job in which Sarah Palin served was as mayor of a town of 6,000!

No voter should feel confident in such an inexperienced person being chief-executive of one of the largest countries on earth.

Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for almost 11 years besides being Lieutenant-Governor for two years, also. He is, by far, the most experienced of the 2012 Republican candidates and is just the man to run against the inexperienced and untested Obama. Fighting an unqualified president with an unqualified candidate such as Sarah Palin will not achieve the results that our party needs in 2012.

Saltsman For RNC Chair!

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:36:00 +0000

Mike Huckabee is wasting no time in starting his 2012 Presidential campaign. He will be traveling to Iowa next week to promote his latest book, as was mentioned today in the Des Moines Register.

Huckabee is also taking time to promote his former campaign manager, Chip Saltsman, for RNC Chairman, above such luminaries as Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele.

If the GOP is to be succesful in defeating Barack Obama the next time around we need new leadership and not someone who would give us the same stolid results as Bush cronies Ken Mehlman and Mike Duncan.

Saltsman was able to turn a candidate (Mike Huckabee) with no money and even less national recognition into a force to be reckoned with in the 2008 Republican primaries, defeating multi-millionare Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus.

Perhaps the reason Huckabee was ultimately unsuccesful in his attempt to win the nomination, though, was the fact that his campaign was largely ignored by the institutional leadership of the GOP, in favor of the continual cascade of frontrunners like Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain.

We know how they all fared.

Instead of admitting its mistakes and gathering around Mike Huckabee to prepare for 2012, the RNC is whipping itself up into a frenzy over newcomers Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal and even Mitt Romney--everybody except Mike Huckabee.

Does the GOP want to defeat Obama or does it want to keep on losing???

Retaining leaders from the past will not bring our party new (and better) results.

The RNC needs Chip Saltsman!

New Party

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:05:00 +0000

A website affiliated with a number of GOP internet activists called RebuildtheParty.com has been started up, according to Rep. Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. In a sign of things to come, the website's mission statement actually credits the web presence of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul's presidential campaigns as the only bright spots in what was a dismal election cycle for Repubicans.

However, the GOP must not focus on web presence to the exclusion of all else. It is true, though, that headlines of John McCain's computer illiteracy contrasted with those of Obama's blatant love-affair with his blackberry, did little to help our party this election cycle. But, in the arena of ideas, where McCain had an easy opportunity to skewer the hard-core leftist Obama, he could find little else to talk about than Joe the Plumber and the need for us to bail out irresponsible corporate executives.

Thankfully, when George W. Bush leaves office, our party will be free of its greatest liability, who, along with McCain, has led the GOP down the path of big government and irresponsible foreign adventures for the last eight years, a massive departure from the conservatism that they both had previously espoused.

"It's All Mental"

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:41:00 +0000

In case any of you were wondering whether presidential candidate Bob Barr would turn out to be just another quixotic third party carrot-chaser, I encourage you to look at the recent 50 state polling data from Zogby.

These are the states in which Barr is polling over 5%, reflecting the growing disenchantment among voters with the failed big government policies of John McCain.

New Hampshire - 10%

Oklahoma - 9%

New Mexico - 9%

Nevada - 9%

Georgia - 8%

Colorado - 8%

Minnesota - 8%

Iowa - 8%

Arizona - 7%

Ohio - 7%

Indiana - 7%

Tennessee - 7%

Texas - 6%

Florida - 6%

Missouri - 6%

Oregon - 6%

Michigan - 6%

Maryland - 6%

South Carolina - 6%

The presidential race may be turning you off with its two excrutiatingly boring major candidates, but the imperative issue of foreign policy has once again raised its head, showing how we must be ever active in our support of a real conservative candidate.

After the alleged "missile tests," by Iran, American rhetoric towards them will start to heat up intensely. Naturally, John McCain will be more than happy to drag us into a war if he elected, with Obama likely to do the same in order not to be called a sissy by the war-lovers in the GOP and in the press releases of AIPAC.

If we were to start a war with Iran--a certain possibility if McCain or Obama is elected, we would dragged into another another Middle-east quicksand bog, with no defined mission and no way out, in other words, a situation just like Iraq.

The term "draft" has not been mentioned by either major candidate, obviously because it is the least popular idea since the income tax. However, with the U.S. military already fighting two wars in the Middle east already, there would be a profound need for more bodies if war was started with Iran.

Even if they do not mention directly, McCain and Obama have made their feelings about the draft known, although in very discreet ways. Only two days ago, Barack Obama outlined his plan, which would force high schoolers and college kids to perform mandatory "government service."

John McCain has not spoken out against Obama's plan for mass-conscription of American kids because he is in complete agreement with Obama's "call to service," requiring America's kids "to ease the burden on our troops."

We need to support a candidate who will focus on serious issues such as the energy crisis and massive government instead of militarizing the nation for more war. Bob Barr has observed that “The Founders displayed great genius when the framed the Constitution, because they limited the federal government to national problems while preserving state and local authority over such issues as education, including youth service [the draft].”

Americans are more than willing to volunteer to defend their country when it is threatened, but are hardly interested in fighting wars which have no point and purpose.

American Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:41:00 +0000

Congressman Ron Paul realizes that America's problems will not be solved by continuing the endless wars and massive government of George W. Bush, but rather, by pursuing a far different course.

If you have not visited the website for The Campaign For Liberty, (Ron Paul's New Political Action Committee), then I would highly encourage you to do so.

Congressman Paul has established this campaign primarily to elect like-minded constitutionalist candidates to Congress. A fine outgrowth of this effort is "Freedom Slate," a website set up by a Paul supporter where you can donate to any of the 2 dozen or so candidates running for Congress under a "small government" platform, such as what Ronald Reagan ran on in 1980.

The two major party candidates running for President are louses who do not care and will do not anything to solve the problems our country. Instead of bemoaning our country's situation, we must be doing all we can to fight it---for complacency must be "shattered," as an old Russian writer once said, in order for us to accomplish the goal we have at hand.

Small Government

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:20:00 +0000

As I have pointed out earlier, Barack Obama is starting to open up big leads in in Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Minnesota--in other words, states John McCain really needs to win.

The GOP has responded in its usual way--by blaming everyone except themselves. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate has been especially targeted by GOP mouthpiece Newt Gingrich as the cause of McCain's current troubles. Gingrich claims that Barr is taking away votes from McCain, causing him to fall behind against Obama in states that the GOP would ordinarily win.

Gingrich stated in an interview last week that all "reasonable conservatives" should vote for McCain, because, as he claimed, a vote for Bob Barr is "a vote for Barack Obama."

Such shennanigans are beginning to get a little tiresome coming from the GOP--the party of big government and policing the world. If John McCain were a real conservative who believed in a Constitutional government and foreign policy, he would have plenty of people to vote for him and would not have to worry about third party challengers.

However, McCain is not a conservative and must therefore try and blackmail conservatives into voting for him through use of helpful hacks like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, as I mentioned before, is mainly trying to keep conservatives from voting for Bob Barr, who told the Washington Post last week:

“With regard to domestic policy, Sen. McCain really has put forward nothing that would indicate he believes in dramatically shrinking the size and cost of the government. He does talk a great game about doing away with earmarks, but that really does not get near to the heart of the matter of the massive federal spending, the massive federal debt and the deficits we’re running.”

Such talk really gets to the heart of why I, and millions of other Republicans will not be voting for our nominee, who has shown absolutely no inclination to follow the path of Reagan, and has, instead, decided to take the party back to the misbegotten "moderate" days of Jerry Ford and Nelson "Rocky" Rockefeller.

There is a fine Republican running for Congress in North Carolina who says "There is no substitute for reducing the size and expense of our federal government," precisely the kind of talk that the GOP needs--although John McCain is working hard to avoid it.

Junk Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:12:00 +0000

Because he lacks any real ideas, John McCain is running a campaign of gimmicks--junky sound bites that make no sense but serve to deflect voter attention away from his utterly pathetic qualifications.

The first of these gimmicks was the "gas holiday," which was quickly discarded after people realized that it was, well...a cheap stunt that would save them a few pennies at most.

However, one persistent gimmick which McCain has put continually put forth to little or no rebuke is the strange idea that he is a "foreign policy" expert--apparently more wars really are going to make us safer in his view.

John McCain receives his regular "national security" briefings exclusively from the experts at the American Enterprise Institute, a rabidly pro-war foreign policy think-tank which propagates positions which incidentally coincide exactly with those of McCain.

For someone to call himself an expert on an issue while only taking advice on it from those he already agrees with, would be quite laughable, if it weren't actually true. However McCain's positions on campaign-finance and the economy are equally, if not even more ridiculous.

Much has been made about Barack Obama's recent decision to forgo "public financing," a move which McCain said "should be disturbing to all Americans." Actually, what should be "disturbing" is that Senator McCain will be using our hard-earned tax dollars to fund his campaign, as if he were the one who really needed the dough, and not us. Obama is a standard politician, of course, but at least he won't be using your money and mine to finance his rascally ambitions.

Our tax dollars should not be used to fund the campaigns of power-mad politicians. It is quite disgusting that McCain thinks such a thing is "good for the country."

What would be "good for the country" would be if people got to keep the money they earned instead of having McCain help himself to it in order to further his political ambitions. Thomas Jefferson remarked once:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

John McCain is living in lala-land if he thinks that the American people will be "disturbed" when a candidate decides not to use their tax dollars as his personal checkbook.

Seriously, why should you and I be "disturbed" that Barack Obama is not using our money to fund his campaign?

Nevertheless, the gimmicks keep on coming. McCain has recently touted Ebay as the cure for unemployment--ironic, as Ebay CEO Meg Whitman just happens to be one of his campaign co-chairs.

Apparently, as one of his "advisors" has put it, McCain thinks that unemployed Americans "shouldn't be obsessed with looking backwards all the time, and saying, `Gee, where did those jobs go?''

Why, in the name of heaven would someone worry about being unemployed when they can just sell their junk on Ebay? Accordingly, why should voters "be obsessed" about millions of jobs floating away to India and China when we have Ebay as a fall-back?

John McCain is showing people that he is an unfunny joke--an old rich guy competing for the voters of middle class people whose lives he can not at all relate to as he sinks further into his dreamland cocoon.

Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Barack Obama is leading McCain now in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, states which any Presidential hopeful must carry if they hope to win the general election.

It is not a surprise that Obama is winning.

The GOP is dead and John McCain stands for nothing except bigger government and more wars, and Obama, no matter what he does, will not be criticized at all by a loving media. Fox News and Sean Hannity can not save a dead product like McCain no matter how hard they try.

Americans want to vote for someone they like, not someone they have to "hold their nose" for like McCain. Obama will win because Americans dislikes him less than they dislike McCain, not because of any mass nationwide conversion to Obama's socialist ideals.

In other words, the GOP will not lose because voters suddenly find Obama's socialism appealing, but because the Republican party offered them a watered-down Democrat knockoff in McCain--instead of a real conservative alterantive.

Republicans such as Ron Paul who offer voters traditional conservative values such as Constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy, have been ridiculed by the current big-government GOP of John McCain.

Perhaps the GOP is jealous of the continuing enthusiasm that Ron Paul's campaign continues to receive even though the Republican primaries have now ended? Ron Paul's supporters in Idaho were recently able to oust their party's "moderate" state chairman, while making a number of changes to the Idaho GOP's platform at their recent state convention.

McCain's supporters are never seen making waves such as this, and besides, who could blame them for not wanting to go out and advocate for such a pathetic candidate who has absolutely no ideas worth fighting for?

Ron Paul has never had to downsize a campaign event, unlike McCain, who recently had to move a fundraiser with the President from the Phoenix convention center to a private residence after more protesters showed up than guests.

It is pitiful to see McCain, like George W. Bush, run a campaign to be President of the United States, consisting overwhelmingly of going to "townhall" meetings. "Townhall" meetings hardly ever take place in a "town," much less in a "townhall." They consist of McCain reciting his scripted stump speech to a pre-approved audience of supporters a few of whom are allowed to ask pre-screened questions if they are lucky.

Unlike Ron Paul, McCain never has to move crowded events outdoors--because he never has to worry about too many people showing up.

Now that the primaries have ended, however, Ron Paul has started "The Campaign For Liberty" as a way to continue advancing his ideas and electing like-minded Republicans to Congress. Since it was launched last week, the campaign has had almost 60,000 members join, with many more certainly to come.

One of the campaign's first activities is to help promote and organize "The Revolution March," a large peaceful demonstration set to take place in Washington D.C. this summer "in support of restoring constitutional government as the founding fathers set forth."

Ron Paul has said "Elections are short term efforts. Revolutions are long term projects. Our job now is to plan for the next phase. I don't mind playing a key role in the revolution, but it has to be more than a Ron Paul Revolution Let us all stick together in this great cause of Liberty and show the love that we all share for the country and the constitution."

The philosophy of The Campaign For Liberty, is simple: follow the Constitution. If this were done, the Federal government would be far smaller in scope and power, for, as the tenth amendment to our Constitution says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States [the Federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A smaller federal government is equatable to more personal liberty, as more decisions regarding your life would be made by you, and not the government.

Regardless of your political views, I am certain that more freedom is a goal which can heartily be shared by everyone.

Meaningless Talk

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:37:00 +0000

Paul Krugman unkowingly points out a very disturbing, but not totally unexpected fact in his op-ed today for the smashingly liberal NY Times. In examining the McCain and Obama economic "plans" (or whatever you want to call them), Krugman notes that neither of them takes into account the interests of the American people. Naturally, of course, a NY Times columnist has a different idea of what constitutes that than I do, but, for the sake of argument, let us assume "interests" means the same thing.

McCain's economic "plan" seeks to "pacify" the middle class with minimalist tax "rebates" of $1,000 dollars per family, while affording generous breaks to the business sector (which has generously financed his campaign) by lowering corporate tax rates.

Although he plans to lower the amount of money the government takes in, McCain plans no co-inciding spending cuts, but rather, he will increase spending, only further lengthening the budget deficit and weakining our currency--as more will be printed by the government to try and cope with its insatiable spending appetite.

Strange as it may seem, how can one expect McCain, a man who has run up hundreds of thousands in credit card debt (and allowed one of his children to do the same thing), to have a shred of fiscal responsibility in him? The same can naturally be said for Obama, whose economic "plan" incudes the usual collectivist drivvle of "more taxes for the rich" while, at the same time, promising nothing for the middle class escept even more new spending than McCain. Seriously, why would anybody trust a man who wants to increase the top tax rate to 52%? Why does anybody, no matter how rich they are, deserve to have to "give" more than half their income to the government?

Krugman points out in his op-ed, that even with Obama's plan for massive new tax rates, he still will not have enough money for "universal healthcare" which, for many moons, has been touted by Obama to be next great government fix--which, thankfully, will never get to see the light of day. However, in his great rush to find new alternatives to spend the government hard-stolen loot on, Obama, will only be able to set aside a tax rebate of $500 dollars "per worker," even less than McCain's rebate, although Obama would have much more available money to hand out.

Both candidates essentially offer the same thing--bigger, but not better government, for which purpose they will try and buy off the opposition of middle class voters with minimalist monetary handouts which will do nothing to improve their condition.

It is not surprising that the two major party candidates will not talk about the about cutting the size of government, offering voters the non-choice of big government or even bigger government.

The only candidate to talk of such things is the libertarian presidential nominee, Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman who left the party over his correct concerns that it is slowly morphing into the mirror likeness of the Democrats--an image which John McCain does nothing to disprove.

Barr says "What we need to be doing is tackling government spending. That is the root of all evil, so to speak." Government can not solve America's economic problems by giving itself even more power and control. A Republican president once said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Even though they were rarely able to act on such beliefs, Republicans were, at one time, able to express them, in order to at least give some attention to the interests of ordinary Americans in the public forum.

Bush Flaunts Rule of Law

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:47:00 +0000

The United States Supreme Court does not bother itself much with what is Constitutional, or else its rulings in the past would have better reflected that concern. Therefore, it came as a great surprise to me to see the court's recent ruling regarding the treatment of prisoners taken by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For a number of years before this ruling, those captured by our military in battle have been labeled "enemy combatants," and not "prisoners of war," as had previously been done. This was done by the Bush administration in order that our prisoners need not be given the protections traditionally accorded by us to "prisoners of war," since they were not called by that name.

In the view of Bush and his advisors, giving the name of "enemy combatants" to those who the U.S. military captured, justified treating those prisoners as non-persons who could be indefinitely held in our prisons and be subjected to any type of inhumane treatment--all in the name of "national security," of course.

Such lawyer's logic as this, where a prisoner of war's personhood magically disappears by calling him an "enemy combatant," was used to justify an even more egregious violation of rights. The most disturbing part of Bush's "enemy combatant" policy was that it did not make any distinctions between American citizens and non-citizens.

This was no surprise considering that once our President started taking away human rights from prisoners of war, what was to stop him from taking Constitutional rights away from American citizens? In fact, what was to stop him from doing anything he wanted if it was merely done in the name of "national security?"

Jose Padilla was an American citizen who was arrested in 2002 on allegations that he planned to commit "acts of terror." Mr. Padilla was not afforded his Constitutional rights and afforded "due process" of the law, nor was he "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him as the sixth amendment, but was instead classified as an "enemy combatant" at the request of President Bush and subsequently sent to a Navy brig in South Carolina.

Padilla was held there for three and a half years before finally receiving access to a trial--hardly a "speedy trial" as is required in the Bill of Rights, which was written to prevent the type of travesty which I have just described.

However, Mr. Padilla was lucky not to appear before a "military tribunal" the type of venue which most "enemy combatants" who are tried, appear at. Detainees tried at a "tribunal" are not allowed to see the charges against them, and evidence extracted from them by torture and coercion is allowed. It is not surprising that our military tribunals never have any acquittals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has done a great service to our Constitution by striking down such treatment of "enemy combatants." Nevertheless, our "conservative" Chief Justice, John Roberts, in his dissent, ruled in favor of letting our President arbitrarily take away the rights of citizens and prisoners of war, because the "generous" protections that are in place--as if having one's rights taken away is at all a "generous" practice.

Our Constitution was written to be followed, not nullified at George W. Bush's "generous" discretion. Likewise, the Geneva Convention was agreed to by the United States and many other nations in order that prisoners of war would be treated humanely and not as non-persons.

The fact that the United States has reached a point in time where human rights are being taken away from our citizens and our prisoners of war just because the President "says" that it is required for our "national security," shows that we are getting hopelessly lost in our own hysteria and self-righteousness.

The Presidency was established to make sure that our Constitution is protected and our laws are followed. The President, in essence, is supposed to be a caretaker--a guardian of the Constitution, which written to codify our rights in order that they are protected. Our Declaration of Independence--the first building block of our great nation, was written upon the belief that all man are created "equal" and born with inherent natural rights from their creator--which no man has the right to arbitrarily take away.

The Constitution also requires the President to make sure that the treaties which our nation signs and the Senate passes, such as the Geneva Convention, are followed--and not abrogated by made-up technicalities such as labeling prisoners of war as "enemy combatants," in order not to give them the very protections that we promised them when we signed the Geneva Convention and ratified it in the first place.

Our President is supposed to be the chief executive of our nation, not "the decider," as he seems to think he is. His position requires him to defend our nation by following our laws as they are written, not to "decide what is best.'' If we were, indeed, ruled by the President's opinion, there would be no need for laws--or the Constitution, for that matter. In fact, George W. Bush's view of presidential power sounds eerily like the ruler (also named George), whose disdain for the rule of law caused this country to be started in the first place.

Who's The Enemy?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:41:00 +0000

For those who do not believe that starting a war with Iran would be a very productive thing to do, then last week certainly did not bring much good news. Naturally, of course, the "question" of whether to attack Iran or not is being framed entirely by the GOP over which choice is better for Israel, and not whether such an attack would have anything to do with defending the security of the United States.

Why such a concern for Israel, you might ask? Well, all one must do to find the answer to that is to look at where John McCain spoke at on Monday June 2. On that day, McCain chose to speak at a gathering of AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), a very powerful pro-Israeli lobbying group which has lots and lots of money.

Such groups as these do much to influence the U.S. government's policy towards nations in the Middle east (such as Iran) by a skillful combination of lobbying pressure and well-placed campaign donations.

In fact, the power of AIPAC is so great that former Senator Fritz Hollings said before he retired that in all matters which concern Israel in any way, "You can't have [anything] other than what AIPAC gives you around here," such is the influence that the organization wields in Washington.

As McCain denounced Iran before AIPAC for merely pursuing what the U.S. and many other nations (such as China) already do, that is, a nuclear program, I noticed something quite peculiar about his premise.

Why is it that John McCain is taken seriously when he says that a nation like the U.S., with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons should be deathly afraid of, and make war with Iran, a country who can not even keep the lights on in its own capital city, let alone produce even one nuclear weapon?

McCain told AIPAC that even dialogue should be taken off the table with Iran, for that would mean "appeasing" a sponsor of terror who is "meddling" in our occupation of Iraq.

Forgetting the fact that we occupy both of Iran's next-door neighbors, something I am sure John McCain would not like Iran to do to us, let us consider the following.

In the past year, McCain's friend President Bush has sent diplomatic teams to negotiate with Iranian representatives, while the prime minister of Iraq, whom McCain supports unwaveringly, welcomed the President of Iran on his recent trip to Iraq, embracing him before the media, and kissing him on both cheeks.

Now, why would John McCain support these two men, but then go to AIPAC and denouce their very actions? Such is the power of the Israeli lobby.

Perhaps the most troubling part of this matter, is that McCain's whole basis for attacking Iran is because Iran has disobeyed regulations set forth by international "authorities," and threatened Israel. Never has McCain said how any of these actions threaten the national security of the United States in any way, which is what the Constitution says the president must defend first and foremost----not the security of Israel and the United Nations.

However, the Constitution is not a vested money interest, which gives the Washington creature McCain no cause to obey its dictates. He professes to be a friend of Israel, yet refuses to allow it to act like a sovereign nation and defend itself, insisting that the U.S. must take responsibility for such things instead.

At a Presidential debate last year, McCain called anti-war candidate Ron Paul an "isolationist," yet it is McCain who refuses to even talk with those he disagrees with, which, although, not pleasant, is a fact of life which even George W. Bush acknowledges at times.

Israel is a sovereign nation with hundreds of nuclear weapons and is more than capable of defending itself against wannabe tough guys such as the president of Iran.

The U.S. should stop treating Israel as if it were a poor, helpless child with no way or means of defending itself. John McCain says that Iran is creating "disorder" in the Middle east, as it is now the biggest power in the region.

Due to the fact that we took out Saddam in 2003, a power vacuum was created, which Iran promptly filled, making itself the next cool guy on the block.

What McCain proposes by making war on Iran is to compound a bad situation which we created, by creating even more problems for ourselves for us to deal with.

If we are to keep on making war with every country we find annoying, where does it end? Our military can not possibly fight all the new wars which John McCain has promised he will create, while, at the same time, keeping up with the wars that they have been given by George W. Bush.

The question of money is also raised by this predicament. How is John McCain going to pay for his plan to invade half the world? Hillary Clinton once said that, if she were president, there would be no way to pay for all the things she wanted to do, a fact which is equally applicable to John McCain. America needs us president who will follow the Constitution and defend our national security, not one who will use our soldiers and our wallets in order to beat up Israel's bullies.

What Happened?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:11:00 +0000

George W. Bush has rightly been one of, if not the most criticized presidents in our history. Amazingly so, there has been a substantial lack of criticism directed towards him from his own party.

As the GOP name continues to fall due to president Bush's ineffective leadership, Republicans in Congress, have decided to go dumpster diving after him instead of seeking desperately-needed seperation. Even the many Republicans who are retiring this year, such as Virginia moderate Tom Davis, will still not take any criticisms at the man who has so led our party down.

Although a number of high-profile figures such as Karl Rove and Don Rumsfeld have left the Bush administration, like the Republicans in Congress, they have either continued stumping for Bush in the media, or kept completely to themselves.

However, Scott McClellan, though he was effectively far lower in the food chain than the likes of Carl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, was still an integral part for many years of the once-vaunted Bush "team."

McClellan is an interesting figure, as we was a staffer way back when Bush was Governor of Texas, and after coming to the White House after the brutal 2000 campaign, he was an an assistant press secretary to Ari Fleischer.

When Fleischer resigned in 2003 for family reasons, McClellan, who was his top deputy, took over. At that time our president was at the height of popularity, and was just about to commence the Iraq war which, in his words, would bring freedom and democracy and all that to the middle east.

Then----the bottom fell out. The war did not bring freedom to Iraq, or democracy, or anything else--except more violence, that is. President Bush lost his post-9/11 poise and command and when the going got tough after he announced "victory" in May of 2003, he quickly turned into a man who would simply not acknowledge reality.

The job of presenting a good show of things fell to McClella, who was seemingly-optimistic face of an administration trying desperately to wish away the mess they created in Iraq as something entirely else.

That job involved discrediting enemies, particularily those within their own government such as former ambassador Joe Wilson. McClellan left around the time Vice-President Cheney's chief of staff was arrested for involvement in the Wilson affair.

Now, a few years later, the man who was the spokesman for all things Bush, has written a book telling why he left, after becoming disenchanted by the president whom he served for so long.

This is the first book about Bush written by an insider----that is, someone who actually was part of what happened, instead of a journalist merely reporting on what he was told.

McClellan's book has been the topic of much firestorming in the media merely because he dared to restate something that has been said all allong about our current occupation of Iraq.

On NBC McClellan said he knew the book "would spur reaction," but decided to write it in anyway in order to tell the public what he believes (and knows) really happened. This is an attempt, as he has said to make up for the way he spinned the public, as he said, from the White House Press podium.

Unlike former CIA Director George Tenet whose post-Bush administration "book" sought merely to blame others for events that he himself was partly responsible for, McClellan does not deny his complicity, but merely seeks to provide a clear account of what really happened, after previously serving as the pruveyor of so much distortion.

Vice-President Huckabee

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:14:00 +0000

As you may well know, I have been spending a lot of time talking about John McCain's repulsive liberal record, so, it may come as no surprise to you that I am going to talk about something else, that is, who will the Republican vice president nominee.

Now, the history of vice-presidents is long and somewhat interesting. Many news organizations have been speculating upon John McCain's decision to invite Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, and Charlie Crist, spend the weekend at his ranch in Arizona.

Some have brought concerns over whether Governor Jindal is "too young" to be Vice-President, or, in words, he would only further remind people that John McCain is, well----really old. Jindal is 36, so he is not exactly "old," but it is interesting to note that former Vice-President John Breckenridge was the same age when he served under President James Buchanan in the 1850's.

In the "conservative" National Review I read that John McCain should pick a non-Republican in order to create "a national-unity ticket." Naturally, of course, that would mean McCain's dear liberal friend Joe Lieberman who has endeared himself greatly to the big-war branch of the GOP with his desire to fan the flames further in the middle east by bombing Iran.

Another ridiculous choice would be Sarah Palin, who has a persistent (if miniscule) band of blogging supporters whose biggest argument in favor of her seems to be "well, she's a woman!," notwithstanding however, the fact that her only credentials are being governor of a state of 400,000 people for less than a year and a half, before which, she was a mayor of a town of 5,0000--hardly a presidential proving ground.

My expressed desire for Vice-President however, is Mike Huckabee, who seems to be actively campaigning for the job and has a strong national presence among conservative and religious-minded voters, two groups that McCain has hardly made himself fond to. Besides the gallant Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee can count himself as the last man to withdraw from the race, staying in and winning primaries, even after the media had decided that he over-stayed its welcome.

He has far more executive experience than Romney, Jindal, Crist, and Palin combined, and would be a welcome outside asset to the Washington creature McCain.

If I were a betting man, I would certainly put down a bundle that Huckabee is soon to get a new job title.

More of The Same For Best Buddies McCain and Bush

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:09:00 +0000

Lately, with the help of the RNC and shameless Republican consultants, McCain has been running as "a different kind of Republican,” according to the chairman of the RNC, albeit one who would never stray for a moment from our party's fearless leader on any matter of importance.

Due to his indistinguishability from Bush on every major issue, McCain has been trying to play up his slightly differing position on "global warming" in an effort to seem relevant to 18-30 year olds who are steadily voting against the GOP which seems to be getting older and more incompetent by the day. This further solidifies the GOP's devolution from a cause to a movement, and finally from a business and then into the racket that it has become today.

We need no further proof for this than the President's recent (failed) trip to the Middle east spending his time patting Israel on the back at the Knesset, where he found absolutely no time at all to mention the unjust Israeli occupation of Gaza, but found plenty of time to trash a long-dead Republican Senator from Idaho.

Perhaps the most-quoted part of Bush's speech was his insinuation that Obama is a terrorist-coddling wussy because he wants to "appease" (talk with) the Iranians, whose "potential" for nuclear weapons represents a devious threat to the world and more importantly, as Bush said, to Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal while Iran has exactly----none.

President said he did not believe in talking with "terrorists and radicals," and practicing "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." John McCain agreed with him, saying "Why does Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Nevertheless James Baker, who was Secretary of State for Bush's own father said once in an interview:

"You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well.
Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies
necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing.
You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

This chest-beating for a new war by Bush and McCain is just another step in the mad drive of the war-crazy GOP, including McCain, to set the Middle east ablaze with yet another conflagration. McCain, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly this month, expressed the odd fear of what he called a "second holocaust", a strange thing to fear considering that Israel has been anything but shy about defending itself when it feels threatened by its Arab neighbors in the past.

Apparently Bush and McCain believe that Israel's hundreds of nukes are so incapable of providing it an adequate defense that America must do Israel's fighting for it by getting involved in costly ground wars that Israel applauds but does not participate in at all. If America was truly a friend of Israel we would respect its sovereignty by allowing it to defend itself instead of acting as it's personal defense force, ready to blow anyone who says anything derogatory about it. Notice how McCain describes Iran here:

"a country that says--and says that Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel."

Now read the oath of military enlistment that all U.S. military recruits must take:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

Is Israel the 51st state or is somebody missing something? Israel, with its 200-500 nuclear weapons, is certainly more than capable of defending itself, especially from nations such as Iran whose nuclear weapon count is zero. If Israel was not capable of defending itself it would simply not exist. John McCain and George Bush are obsessed with defending Israeli interests far more than those interests of the United States, whose interests and relationship with the Arab world would hardly helped by starting yet another war.

Ron Paul: A Welcome Departure From Incompetent Government

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:27:00 +0000

This month the U.S. government will host the U.N. High Commissioner for eliminating racism. The U.N. High Commissioner of course is not an America, and since he is a U.N. Commissioner, after all, his recommendations will be published, applauded, and then forgotten by the U.S. government, never to be brought up again.

Abdicating responsibility when it comes to important issues is a practice which was recently shown for us by our fearless leader George Bush, whose response to the record fuel price increases of the last few weeks has been to theoretically debate a plan to temporarily suspend the 18 cent per gallon federal gas tax.

When the bottom fell out of the proposed "gas holiday" and exposed its utter stupidity as a viable solution, our fearless leader turned to plan b, that is, go groveling to the Saudis. After the Saudis told Bush that a substantial increase in production from the OPEC cartel wasn't going to happen, our President accepted their decision and promptly departed, acting as if there was
nothing more to do but give up and go home, and not trouble himself anymore with such a daunting and complex issue.

What is strange here, is the total absence of the traditional American can-do spirit. The same nation who came to the rescue of the inept French and British against Hitler, put a man on the moon, and beat back the Soviets without firing a shot, seems incapable of finding a way to fuel cars that does not involve Americans being fleeced by Saudi princes and corporate executives in fancy offices.

Unlike our do-nothing President, however, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), has been unwilling to sit around and blithely ignore the problems facing this country, as well as their root causes. During his presidential campaign, he was derided by the Republican media (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) who were incensed at seeing a candidate who actually spent his time talking about issues that affect Americans, instead getting into catfights with the other candidates over who supported the war in Iraq the most.

Nevertheless, the media was forced to cover Ron Paul due to the fervent support he received from people among all walks of life. After all, since when do Republicans, or any politician for that matter, receive support from a wide spectrum of people?

Not since the days of Ronald Reagan has a Republican managed to actually broaden the GOP's message, a welcome development after eight years literalily hearing nothing but "vote for me or the bad guys will get you" from George W. Bush.

If you would like to know more about Ron Paul's message, I highly encourage you to read his latest book The Revolution: A Manifesto, which has already made it to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

The GOP will have to rebuild after it is destroyed this November, but the ideas have to come from somewhere.

House Loss In Mississippi Accentuates GOP Troubles

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:07:00 +0000

Yesterday the Republicans lost a special election in Mississippi's 1st congressional district which they had previously held since 1994. In the 2004 Presidential election, George W. Bush won this district by almost 20 points. In fact, it was considered so safe that its previous representative, former Congressman Roger Wicker, had no qualms when he gave up his seat there in order to fill out the Senate term of the retiring Trent Lott.

Nevertheless, as in the two special elections this year in which they lost long-held seats in Illinois and Louisiana, the Republicans lost Sen. Wicker's former district--by eight percentage points.

This an embarassing defeat that reveals much about the GOP's current state of ineptitutde. After losing both of their congressional majorities in the 2006 midterm elections, the GOP and its companions on talk radio vowed to bring out a new agenda which spoke to the heart of the problems being faced by average Americans. Unfortunately, that agenda has never materialized and as far as one can tell, the Republicans, in the last two years, have stood for nothing beyond big government, a pointless war in Iraq, and inaction on energy.

The Republicans will be thrown out in even greater numbers this fall because voters are tired of seeing their representatives bowing down to big war and voting for blank checks to continue funding an occupation of Iraq with a point and purpose that has never been defined.

Voters are tired of paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline and seeing Republicans respond by arguing over whether to temporarily take a few pennies off the price. People in America have had enough of seeing their jobs leaving for India and China and then being scolded by the Republican presidential nominee for not appreciating the great "economic benefits" as he put it, that their newfound state of unemployment has brought them.

Americans have naturally grown weary of seeing their wages go down as the cost of living soars, while the richest Americans become richer, and the government spends more and more. People would like to be able to spend their money on things they need, such as health care and housing, instead of handing over their dollars to be wasted by a Republican government with an unquenchable appetite for money.

The Republicans could have reformed themselves after the 2006 election and started speaking to the needs and concerns of America, but, as it happened, they did not. They continued their drunken, irresponsible waste of taxpayer, as well as their war, and failed to focus on energy, even as gas prices soared.

To the Republicans, dropping bombs on slums in Iraq and firing cruise missiles at donkey sheds in Somalia was more important than addressing issues here at home. Threatening Iran became a priority and John McCain is even talking about the "next war."

Since the GOP had nothing to run on in Mississippi besides more war and government waste, they tried to run by criticizing the Democrats, instead of telling voters what they were for. The strategy didn't work, most of all because the Democrat ran as an anti-war, pro-life conservative who talked about fiscal discipline and energy alternatives, in effect, stealing the Republican playbook right from under their nose.

We need Republicans who will talk about what they are for, not what they are against. Democrats can be beat very easily, except when the Republicans stand for nothing like they've done for the past 8 years.

"New" Republican McCain No Different Than The Old

noreply@blogger.com (Peter) — Mon, 12 May 2008 03:04:00 +0000

John McCain told a crowd the other day that he is a "new" Republican, that is to say, as he and his advisors have repeatedly insisted, that John McCain is separated from George W. Bush. Such situations as these call for honesty and candor. While John McCain may differ from George W. Bush, he certainly is not different.

McCain will prove this seemingly impossible contradiction when he makes a major speech on "climate change" today. When speaking about "climate change," McCain will be following in the footsteps of Bush in talking about eveything but what is important to ordinary Americans.

Yet, on the issue of "climate change" I, with unusual confidence, must say that I am strongly behind the views of our President and his administration, whose position is directly opposite of that of McCain's.

McCain will be using his "climate" speech to speak out in support of a bill sponsored by his good buddy Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) which would seek, of all things, to place a new gasoline tax on Americans, who are about to learn that, when it comes to high gas prices, they ain't seen nothing yet.

McCain's "new" Republicanism does not seek any bold new solutions to the current energy crisis, but instead seeks to dredge up the old liberal love theory of politicizing the weather in order to justify putting an even tighter squeeze on America's families and businesses. Nowhere, in fact, is the term "energy alternatives" being used by McCain (or Obama), both of whom apparently have been the beneficaries of too much love from big oil's pocketbook.

Indeed, how foolish it would be to believe that those blessed by the financial largesse of big oil would ever do anything that could possibly put a damper on its profit line, such as seeking to find a way to spare Americans their daily shakedown at the pump.

There is, perhaps, no better way than to put the heat on those in the GOP like McCain who facilitate the tyranny of big oil (and big government) than by voting for Presidential candidates like Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin who do not take money from corporations whose profit lines come into conflict with the best interests of the American people, due to over-regulation on the part of the government.

If John McCain truly cared about the plight of Americans being faced with monstrous gas prices, he would start first by advocating for real change to fix the short-term crisis. This would entail measures such as suspending all Federal and State taxes on gasoline, which place an extra 50-75 cents on each gallon depending on which state you live in. He could then seek to overturn the regulations which place counter-productive restrictions on the building of new refineries, more of which are absolutly needed in order for the supply of gasoline to keep up with America's rapidly growing population (and consumption).

The long-term fix would require spending cuts (pork-barrel elimination anyone?) which would free up money to spend on development and incentives for the creation of viable and sustainable energy alternatives, which would therefore allow us to cut our now-total dependance on oil, allowing us to be sustained on our vast domestic sources and not be depedant on a supply from countries in volatile regions.

However, don't expect talk like this to be coming from McCain (or Obama) anytime soon.