Politics: Fayette County, Georgia & Beyond

Secretary Handel Reminds Citizens to Register to Vote for July 15 General Primary

2008-06-12T11:50:00.000-05:00

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel today reminded voters that the deadline to register to vote to be eligible to cast a ballot in the July 15, 2008 General Primary is Monday, June 16, 2008.

To register to vote in Georgia, you must be a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of Georgia and of the county in which you plan to vote, and at least 18 years old by Election Day. You may not register to vote if you are currently serving any sentence imposed by the conviction of a felony or judicially determined to be mentally incompetent.

Citizens who are not registered to vote in the county in which they reside must submit a voter registration application by the deadline in order to vote in the General Primary. Citizens that are registered to vote at a former address within the county where they reside are encouraged to submit a change of address card to their county registrar. Voters who are currently registered at the correct address do not need to submit a new voter registration application.

You can download and complete a voter registration application by visiting the 2008 Elections Center on the Secretary of State’s website: http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/ElectionCenter08.htm.

You can also contact your local county registrars' office, public library, public assistance office, recruitment office, schools and other government offices for a mail-in registration form. Voter registration is offered when renewing or applying for a driver's license at any Georgia Department of Driver Services office. College students can obtain Georgia voter registration forms from their school registrar's office or from the office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs.

Secretary Handel also reminds voters that Georgia law requires registered voters to show photo identification when voting in person. This photo identification requirement applies in the July 15 General Primary and all future elections. When voting absentee by mail, photo identification is not required.

Voters casting ballots in person, either through advance voting or on Election Day, will be required to show one of the following forms of acceptable photo ID when they vote:

· A Georgia driver’s license, even if expired;

· Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a free Voter ID Card issued by your county registrar or Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS);

· Valid U.S. passport;

· Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;

· Valid U.S. military photo ID; or

· Valid tribal photo ID.

Voters who do not have a form of identification listed above are eligible to receive a free Georgia Voter ID from their county elections office. Voters who have questions are encouraged to call the Georgia Secretary of State’s Voter ID Hotline at (877) 725-9797 or visit our website at www.GaPhotoID.com.

Governor Perdue Signs Bill Into Law

2008-03-26T09:24:00.002-05:00

Today (3/25/08) Governor Sonny Perdue announced that the following legislation has been signed into law. For more information on this legislation, please visit www.legis.state.ga.us.
SB 82

First Reader Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend an Act providing appropriations for the State Fiscal Year 2006-2007 known as the "General Appropriations Act," approved May 8, 2006 (Ga. L. 2006, Volume One, Book Two), so as to change certain appropriations for the State Fiscal Year 2006-2007; to make language and other changes; to reallocate certain funds; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

Note: Just checked and the text for the bill has not yet been released. Hopefully by the time your read this the bill will be available on-line. The First Reader Summary is all that's out there at the moment. I suppose there's probably some chatter on the Internet somewhere if you're really curious.

Interesting...

2008-03-20T13:05:00.001-05:00

Prominent Black Minister Launches Campaign to Counter the Statements of Jeremiah Wright and Express Concern that Media are Smearing Black Preachers and Churches with the Implication that Wright's Distorted Views Represent Black Christianity

CHESAPEAKE, Virg., March 20 /Standard Newswire/ -- Black minister and graduate of Harvard Law School, Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., has begun a campaign to make clear that Jeremiah Wright does not represent black preachers or what is being taught in black churches across America.

Says Bishop Jackson, "This kind of virulent Anti-American bigotry is anathema to the black church experience where we focus on love, forgiveness, personal responsibility and a healthy dose of patriotism and prayer for our country."

Bishop Jackson also objects to the Anti-Israel bias which Jeremiah Wright expresses. "We include prayer and support for the nation of Israel in our mission statement," says Bishop Jackson. "It is a Biblical mandate for any Bible believing Christian."

Jackson spoke to his congregation and indicated that Obama cannot credibly claim that he did not know or agree with Wright's remarks or separate himself from a mentor or spiritual guide who admires and honors Louis Farrakhan. "I believe we are finally learning about the real Barak Obama, and it is sad. We cannot help but wonder if this is the influence which caused Obama to decline to wear the American flag on his lapel," said the Bishop.

According to Bishop Jackson, a pastor and spiritual leader of several congregations for the last 25 years who also studied at Harvard Divinity School, Rev. Wright represents a radical liberation theology which in many ways is heretical.

"That is not classic, Biblical Christianity", says Bishop Jackson. "It is quite something else, and easier to understand when seen as an aberration from Christian teaching. I am speaking everywhere I can to get that message out."

Bishop Jackson was formerly a high level official in the Christian Coalition and was instrumental in raising funds for churches victimized by arson in the late 1990's. He left the Coalition to start a church in Chesapeake, Virginia and continue his work independently. His Church does not endorse candidates or parties.

"My job", says Bishop Jackson, "is to help Christians view life - which includes politics and public policy - from a Biblical worldview and to discern the truth. They can draw their own conclusions about how to vote."

Barack Obama’s Judgment

2008-03-19T14:14:00.002-05:00

A few days ago, after the numerous videos of Reverend Jeremiah Wright speaking from the pulpit hit the media, Obama said he had never heard the controversial comments of Wright while sitting in the pews. It was fairly easy to spot the lawyer-speak in his initial comments. I would guess he was still trying to figure out the best way to handle the situation and possibly hoping it would blow over.

The pundits are busy attacking, dissecting, parsing and responding to his comments. I’ll leave the tough stuff to all the news commentators and radio talk show hosts.

For me the crux of the matter is Obama’s judgment.

I wondered how he could have been in a church for 20 years and not understood the tone. Generally it takes me one visit, maybe two, to figure out the flavor of a church. I’m going to talk to members, read the literature if they have any, maybe check out the website if I see the need to know more. Obama’s church has cleansed their website of anything controversial during the past few days. I managed to get over there before they wiped it clean. The info was clear as to the message that was going to be preached from the pulpit.

How did Obama expect us to believe he was totally in the dark, as he led us to believe initially, regarding the focus of the church, the message being preached and the mission of the church? If he’s unable to figure out what his own church is doing, how’s he going to figure out what the country is doing? If he lied when he said he didn’t know about it, how can I trust him? If he was a member strictly because it was the politically expedient thing to do, how can I respect him?

What does it say about the man if he can sit Sunday after Sunday in a church, sit and talk for hours on end with the minister, make friends with the people in the church, probably eat with the minister and other church members and not have a clue how his preacher feels?

Today he did an about face with his speech. Today he said he was aware but he basically chose to overlook that side of his preacher. He likened his relationship with Wright to that of the one with his bigoted grandmother. It hurts but ya gotta love ‘em and stick with ‘em. Except, you don’t get to choose who your grandparents are, they come with Mama and Daddy. You choose your church. You can leave your church. These days there’s a choice on every street corner and practically every other house in-between.

Reverend Wright built the church. He WAS the church. The divisive talk portrayed on the videos wasn’t an aberration. He didn’t just look out on the congregation, check to see if Barack was in the pews and then spew. There are too many of these videos floating around from many, many sermons to have any right minded person believing Obama missed how his minister felt about Jews, September 11th, rich whites, rich blacks, Bill Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, and the list goes on.

Even if somehow he managed to miss every single sermon where Reverend Wright spoke about those things Obama now says he condemns, how does he get around the enthusiasm church members showed when Wright spoke? I’ve been in many, many churches, black, white, Pentecostal, Catholic, and everything in between. I have never been in one where a minister could have gotten away with damning America. I can guarantee that no matter how enthusiastic the congregation, if any minister said that the noise and clapping would have stopped. There would have been dead silence, or even possibly a shocked gasp.

No folks, that is not the kind of message a Christian expects to hear when they walk into their church to hear the word of God.

Barack Obama made a judgment call when he chose that church for his family. He made a judgment call every Sunday that he sat in those pews.

What does it say about Barack’s judgment that he would raise his children in this church? They probably went to Sunday School. They probably spent time with Wright. They heard the messages being preached. They soaked in the tenor of the minister’s beliefs and those of the congregation.

Obama might not agree with the overall mission and message of the church, yet he still chose to raise those little impressionable girls in that environment. What have they learned? What about all the other children who have been indoctrinated by Wright’s hate-speech?

If Barack Obama disagreed as vehemently as he’s leading us to believe, wouldn’t he have spoken out BEFORE it became a political hot potato? Wouldn’t he have kept his children away from that divisive message?

Wouldn’t he have spoken out if he were a man of integrity?

My grandmother was a product of the South. She grew up believing that someday there would be an all-out war between blacks and whites. She wanted to pull me out of school when she saw me holding hands with a black schoolmate during a game. She changed over the years. Her children and grandchildren preached at her, scolded her and worked at showing her how wrong she was in a loving way. While she never entirely let go of some remnants of her early beliefs, she opened her arms wide when my sister brought home two beautiful black children for adoption.

Obama compared Wright to a ‘crazy uncle in the attic’ on Friday when he first spoke to Fox News about the story. He chose to go to a church and listen to someone he thought should be locked in the attic? Huh? You don’t lock someone you love in the attic. But I stretch the point and digress.

I listened to Obama’s speech today. Flowery, moving, sounded great. Sorry, it didn’t change the facts nor did it explain away 20 years of church attendance. Best case? He joined one of the largest black churches in Chicago for political reasons and tolerated the talk.

Last thoughts. Barack may not have been listening, but his wife must have been taking in the message. If Mama hasn’t been proud of her country until recently, what has she been teaching her children about this great country?

So many thought provoking articles...

2008-03-13T13:03:00.002-05:00

Found this site earlier today (http://newsbusters.org/) and while I doubt I'm gonna agree with everything, I love the way some of the writers pick apart things. I subscribed via RSS, will be watching and reading. I don't happen to have tons of time to read articles, but I headline hop a wide assortment of opposing and similar news sites each day. Too much to read, too little time to digest! The Internet is overwhelming at times isn't it?

This article caught my attention:

Network News Ratings Tumble Among Viewers Aged 18-34
According to Media Life Magazine, the three big network evening news broadcasts have slipped badly in the key 18 to 34 age bracket. At the same time, though, the Cable news nets have picked up among that same demographic. All three network newscasts have lost numbers since last year, with Katie Couric having the worst slide of the three.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/13/network-news-ratings-tumble-among-viewers-aged-18-34

ABC Finally IDs Spitzer as Democrat, NBC Fails to for Third Night

2008-03-13T09:18:00.001-05:00

For the third evening in a row Wednesday, the NBC Nightly News refused to identify Eliot Spitzer as a Democrat, but after ABC's World News failed to cite his party affiliation on Monday and Tuesday night when Elizabeth Vargas anchored, on Wednesday evening substitute anchor George Stephanopoulos finally properly tagged him: “The Democrat resigned today just two days after reports that he patronized a high-priced prostitution service.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/13/abc-finally-ids-spitzer-democrat-nbc-fails-third-night

Spitzer

2008-03-12T07:27:00.002-05:00

Just a few random thoughts on Governor Spitzer...

Hillary Clinton must have screamed and banged her head on the wall when the stuff with Spitzer came out. Another Democrat caught in a sex scandal while his woman stands by her man... Of course the jokesters are going to reference Clinton & Monica, again, again and again. Even if they don't, there are those who will tie the two together and bring up images Hillary can't be liking.

On how bad Spitzer's deeds are... Doesn't matter. He broke the law. It's about as simple as it can get. He was a District Attorney sworn to uphold the law, he is a Governor, sworn to uphold and support the law of the land. Hiring and using prostitutes is against the law. Period. It doesn't matter whether someone, anyone, thinks it's a good law, bad law or stupid law. Spitzer put people behind bars for prostitution.

How IS that woman standing by her man? I gotta tell you, my man would probably be holding his conference in front of his new apartment 'cause he wouldn't be living with me after he broke that bit of news. If I heard about it before he told me, by the time he got home locks would be changed and his belongings would be sitting on the curb waiting for him. And I might have even called the press to make sure they caught it on film.

Hate it for the kids. Possibly hate it for his wife. I don't know what kind of marriage arrangement they happen to have. Could be she sent him off to the land of prostitutes years ago and her only beef is that he got caught. Could be she stood by his side in exchange for a bigger settlement. Who knows what their private life is like. However, any which way they made or make their peace, there are three children who are going to be the butt of jokes, who's lives have just been turned upside down. One day their father was the governor of a huge state, the next he's being ridiculed and hounded.

When parents are making horrendous decisions, why don't they ever take their kids into the equation when and if they think about consequences? What selfishness on the part of this man to be willing to subject his family to such humiliation!

Power corrupts. These guys have smoke blown up their behinds from the minute they're elected. Do they sooner or later start to believe they're invincible?

What's with the press coverage? USA Today did a story, talked about all these Democrats who did rotten things like this, not once did they say "Democrat" when referring to the elected officials they names. Until they got to Larry Craig. Then it was "Republican Larry Craig". Hmmm...

That's it for Spitzer for the moment.

Tidbits of interest across the state & country...

2008-03-08T22:50:00.002-05:00

Guns on College Campuses, Immigration Legislation Affects Workplace and States Take Action to Control Prison Populations
Guns on College Campuses --2008 Legislation
Ten states currently have active legislation that would permit individuals to have guns on campus. Specifically, they would need concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits to carry a weapon on a university, college or higher-education campuses. Looking at such legislation are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington. Mississippi, South Dakota and Virginia proposed similar measures, but they were defeated in all three states. Arizona and Washington have legislation introduced that would prohibit individuals with CCW permits from carrying a gun on university campuses.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/ci030808.htm

Illinois Democrat Wins Former Hastert House Seat
Illinois Democrat Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis in a special election Saturday in Illinois’ 14th U.S. House District — a stunning defeat and embarrassment to the Republican Party in a race that carried outsized symbolism because it had been held by former GOP Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.
Foster, a scientist and a first-time candidate, led Oberweis by 52 percent to 48 percent in nearly complete returns after a contentious and expensive race in which the national political party organizations were active participants and both candidates spent heavily from their deep pockets.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002684379

House Sets Adjournment Calendar to Day 38:
Tuesday March 11th will be Day 30, or Crossover Day
The rest of the scheduled days are as follows: Mar. 12 is Day 31; Mar. 13 is Day 32; Adjourned, Fri. Mar. 14 through Mon. Mar. 17; Mar. 18 is Day 33; Mar. 19 is Day 34; Mar. 20 is Day 35. Adjourned Fri. Mar. 21 through Mon. March 24 (easter Weekend),. Tue. Mar. 25 is Day 36; Mar. 26 is Day 37; and Mar. 27 is Day 38. This schedule is subject to change by another resolution.

State Budget: FY 2008 Amended and FY 2009
The FY 2008 Amended Budget and the FY 2009 Budget are working their way through the committee process. The FY 2008 Amended Budget was passed by the House on February 8th and by the Senate on February 21st. A Conference Committee is meeting.
Major differences between the House and Senate versions include:
The Senate eliminated the Governor's proposal to add funding for K-12 technology infrastructure upgrades ($40.8 million).
The Senate eliminated the Governor's proposal to add funding for new school busses ($25.0 million).
The Senate eliminated the proposal by the House to pre-fund FY 09 shortfall in Education Equalization Grants ($30.7 million).
The Senate added funds to the FY 2008 debt service in order to free up funds in the FY 2009 budget to reduce the QBE austerity cut in FY 2009 ($78.7 million).
The FY 2009 budget will not be taken up by the full House Appropriations Committee until there is a Conference Committee agreement on the FY 2008 Amended Budget.
For highlights of the Governor's budget proposals, click here.

Fiscal and Tax Policy
HR 900 (The "GREAT" Plan) and HR 1246 replaced with scaled down version, SR 796. The constitutional amendment and its companion legislation HB 979 would:
1. Eliminate motor vehicle tag taxes for cars registered to an individual, reimburse local governments for the lost revenues, and implement a $10 vehicle fee on all vehicles, which would go to trauma care.
2. Freeze property assessments at 2008 levels and allow them to increase by no more than 2 percent (residential) and 3 percent (nonresidential) annually.
3. Create property tax revenue caps for cities, counties, and schools, so that revenues could exceed previous year property revenue by no more than government inflation.
SR 796 passed the Senate, but only included the assessment cap provisions at that time. The House Rules Committee added in the car tax reduction and revenue caps. Upon full implementation,SR 796 and HB 979 would have caused an estimated $672 million decrease in state revenues,according to the official fiscal note. The resolution failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote needed on a constitutional amendment on Wednesday. For GBPI overview, click here and for fact sheets, click here and here.

Assessment Caps - SR 686 and HR 3 would impose an assessment cap on property values. SR 686, which passed the Senate, freezes assessed values on residential property at 2008 levels and allows them to increase by no more than inflation annually. HR 3 restricts assessed value growth to 9 percent for every three-year period. Both resolutions are in the House Ways and Means Committee. For GBPI analysis, click here. .
Spending Limits and Restrictions - SR 20 and HR 956 would place a cap on state revenues of population growth and government inflation. SR 20 passed the Senate last year and is now in the House Ways and Means Committee, as is HR 956. SR 965 and HR 1216 require that surplus revenues are spent on only the following three items and in this order: 1) education enrollment increases, 2) Revenue Shortfall Reserve, and 3) increases in personal exemptions within the state income tax. The resolutions also change the maximum RSR from 10 percent of prior year spending to 8 percent and restrict the use of reserve funds for one-time expenses, rather than on-going programs. SR 965 is in the Senate Finance Committee, and HR 1216 is in the Tax Reform subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. For GBPI resources, click here.

Sales Tax for Transportation - SR 845 would authorize each county and cities within the county to jointly levy an additional 1 cent local option sales tax to fund the construction of transportation projects and mass transit networks. The resolution would require the General Assembly to create by general law a regional alternative, so that counties and cities on a regional basis could levy the additional penny. Eighty percent of the new funds would remain in the special district for transportation purposes, and 10 percent would remain in the district for mass transit projects. The remaining 10 percent would flow to DOT. The resolution was passed by the Senate and is now in the House Transportation Committee. HR 1226 and its companion legislation HB 1139 would authorize the General Assembly to levy an additional state-wide sales tax penny for transportation projects. Ninety percent of the additional penny would remain in the regional commission area (RDC boundaries) in which it was raised, while the remaining 10 percent would flow to the DOT to be used in state-wide projects. Both pieces of legislation passed the House Transportation Committee.
SB 300 and HB 1161 (Transparency in Government Act) enact several budget and tax transparency measures. The original SB 300 included a tax expenditure report, a much needed reform that GBPI analyzed here. The tax expenditure report provisions were removed during the committee process, and the substitute bill was passed by the Senate. SB 300 is now in the House Science and Technology Committee. HB 1161 is in the House Appropriations Committee

SR 687 would authorize cities, counties, and school districts to levy an additional sales tax of up to 1 cent. The resolution passed the Senate Finance Committee. For GBPI analysis, click here.

SR 859 and HR 1120 would eliminate the state ad valorem tax, which will bring in an estimated $89 million in FY 2009. SR 859 passed the Senate and is in the Tax Reform Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. HR 1120 passed the Ways and Means Committee this week.

HB 1157 and HB 878 would raise the amount of earned income Georgia taxpayers age 62 and over can claim as part of their retirement income exclusion. Currently, seniors can exclude $35,000 of retirement income from their state income taxes, $4,000 of which can be earned income. HB 1157 would raise that earned income amount from $4,000 to $16,000, while HB 878 would raise it to $35,000. The Ways and Means Committee favorably reported HB 1157 this week, and HB 878 received a hearing in the Committee.

HB 1197 would raise the excise tax on cigarettes by $1 per pack, for a new price of $1.37. The bill is in the Tax Reform Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. For GBPI analysis, click here.

HB 1264 (The "BETTER" Plan) includes comprehensive tax reform measures, including a property tax circuit breaker and income and sales tax modernization. The bill is in the House Ways and Means Committee.
Several pieces of tax legislation passed the House this week, including a resolution establishing forest land conservation use, a bill to close a corporate tax loophole, and a bill to revise the film tax credit. All tax bills that have a fiscal note and have passed the House on the 30th day will be featured in GBPI's annual "Adding Up the Fiscal Notes" in the coming weeks.

Bill expanding townships' power makes it out of committee

2008-03-08T22:47:00.000-05:00

A new form of government aimed at giving more local control to such communities as Vinings and Dunwoody has emerged at the state Capitol, after days of being bogged down by lawmakers unable to decide how much authority townships should have.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/03/05/township_0305.html

Busy, busy political night in the U.S.!

2008-03-05T07:24:00.002-05:00

What a captivating and extremely interesting process our elections have become this cycle! Last night added a bit of a twist to things in the Democratic camp.

Hillary winning Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas... Barack getting creamed in some cases. He turned the tables in Vermont, but that's not a surprise and it's not much of a delegate win, either. Huckabee finally stepping down, McCain over the top to clinch the requisite number of delegates.

Here are a few random thoughts on last night:

The first thing that struck me is that maybe the media isn't all-powerful! Throughout this entire long Presidential process I've paid close attention to not only WHAT the media is saying, but also how and when they're peddling their views. Last night people didn't vote the way the media has been steering them to vote. Although, just in the past few days the media, in lock step, has been moving away from Obama worship, so maybe they are still leading the masses.

It's clear that reporting isn't reporting at all any more. The pick of a title can shift the emphasis of an article entirely. The tone of a question can put someone on the defensive and make them sound small, harsh or petty. The press loves Barack, he gets soft-peddled questions, gives non-answers with roaring rhetoric that deftly paints a picture of greatness and hope... but gives no substance.

We get all of his press releases at the Fayette Front Page, along with all the other candidates. He sends out plenty of words, but when I start to parse, all I see is how much it's going to cost the country and how much is going to ultimately come out of our pockets.

When Clinton tries to toss some reality into the mix she gets shot down simply because Barack can pull up a little smile that conveys more than words. I can almost see him patting her on the head and saying, "there, there, it's going to be all right Hillary", then he gives a tiny shake of his head and pounces. Nicely. He makes her look harsh, sharp, and shrill... like the big-bad parent who's going to ground the teenager.

He's been good.

But last night, in losing, his message sounded old. It was the same message he's given before, but it was... well, the same message he's given before. It lost a lot of the luster.

Obama still one-upped Hillary in one area last night. During her victory speech she talked again about the struggling mother with two children who wanted her girls to know they could grow up to be anything they wanted, so she stuffed ten dollars in an envelope with a note to Hillary, encouraging her to go on...

Obama got three dollars in an envelope from an 80-year old Nigerian immigrant (I think he said 80, the guy was older) who wanted Obama to carry on and prove something or other to do with anyone being able to do anything in this great country.

Three dollars from an old guy willing to work for Obama vs. ten dollars from a single mom with two young girls. Hmmm... maybe it's a tie.

I have to wonder how much of Hillary's victory last night came with the help of a few Republicans. Rush Limbaugh has suggested during the past few days that it might be a good idea for Republicans to help keep Hillary in the campaign a bit longer. In Texas, given the very strange way they vote, I could see Republicans possibly voting for her in the primary, but I couldn't envision them showing up at the Caucus where they have to ACT like a Democrat. Punching a ticket or pulling a lever in private is one thing. Standing around and having to talk with the "other side" isn't something most are willing to do.

When I last looked in the wee hours of the morning (yes, I'm tired) Hillary was way ahead in Texas in the vote, but behind in the Caucus portion of the voting.

Are you aware of how strange the process is in Texas on the Democratic side? First, Dems vote. Then, they have to vote AGAIN in a Caucus.

Caucus votes are weighted. If you live in the city your vote counts more than if you live in rural areas. From what I understand (based on listening to Fox and CNN analysts) that heavily favors blacks and affluent whites. Since the vast majority of Hispanics live in rural areas, their vote counts less. I've heard there are some very disgruntled Hispanics, and I'd imagine they're not alone!

Think about it. In the city it's denser, thus Caucus sites and polls are probably easier to get to... buses, taxis, etc. are readily available. In rural areas, you better own a car if you're traveling to a Caucus site. Chances are there's a longer distance involved in getting to them if they're population based, also. So they punish those who work hardest to vote?

Who came up with this crazy system?

I've been amazed as I've heard how Democrats vote across the country and how little the individual vote counts. Super delegates that can vote any way they want, negating the popular vote. Entire states with absolutely no voice at the whim of the National Party. One person's vote counting more than another person's vote. One state had an election on one day, then a month later had a Caucus to award a huge portion of the delegates.

A caucus requires having someone give up a chunk of their day (in some cases, multiple days). It can be a nasty process with lots of heated discussion or worse. There's a lot of standing around and waiting for people to make decisions, switch votes, count and recount. It's also a process that is easily corrupted. I'll save that topic for another blog. If you've even been involved in a caucus, you'll know how easy it is to manipulate the outcome.

Even though I call myself a Republican, I had still bought into the idea that somehow Democrats were fair with their votes. The picture that is painted is one of every vote counting (lord knows we heard that enough during the last two Presidential elections). But it just isn't true. It's a top down process that takes away so much of the voice of the individual voter.

I'm not saying the Republican process is perfect. After this election I've seen how the system really works across the entire country and I am less a fan of delegates than ever before.

Nuff with the random thoughts on the election. I have a million of 'em but attention spans are short and everyone has opinions. In these days of blogging anyone with the ability to type can share their opinion. With the major strides that have been made with voice recognition, pretty soon typing isn't going to be required. Scary if you think about it... it's gonna get even more crowded out here in cyberland.

Cynthia and Ralph

2008-03-02T21:54:00.003-05:00

It's going to be interesting to see if Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader's insertion into the Presidential race is going to make any difference. At the moment, I'm not seeing that they'll have any impact in November.

If I remember correctly Nader grabbed around 2% of the vote in the last election, or maybe it was in the election before? Isn't this his third try? or maybe it's his fourth.

This is Cynthia's first shot and she doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction. I'm posting a story below about the Feb. 5th Arkansas Green Party primary. She came in 2nd with 20%. Guess who came in first? Uncommitted.

Now at that time the Green Party was still courting Nader. They wanted him but didn't get him.

He has a Hispanic VP picked. That's an unknown factor. Obama is gaining with Hispanics but according to the polls he's not high on their list of candidates to trust. With a Hispanic VP in the mix will some be enticed to vote Nader rather than Obama or Clinton?

Maybe because I lived through Cynthia in Georgia I can't see her having making much of an impression on voters across the country.

It's already been an intersting election. I don't think the surprises are over.

Results from February 5 Presidential Primary Certified
KUAR - Little Rock,AR,USA
Cynthia McKinney finished second with 20% of the vote. The official vote totals from the primaries: Democratic Party primary: Hillary Rodham Clinton, ...
---
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
---

Amnesty... just had to share these...

2008-02-26T17:28:00.003-05:00

The first video is from last year. The second one is more current. From what I've read and heard there is a 5-year "temporary" visa in the works behind the scenes in D.C. for illegal aliens. Someone got wind of it and now it's somewhat public. When you watch the Lou Dobbs video you'll see what "temporary" can become... Per the write up for the Dobbs piece this was from a few months ago.

---
http://www.fayettefrontpage.com/
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
---

Romney to endorse McCain

2008-02-14T13:39:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney is going to endorse McCain... more on that one later!

Delegate dilemma

2008-02-10T13:26:00.000-05:00

The longer I watch the more confusing the counting of delegates becomes.

I'll have to confess that as much as I think I know about the political process and as involved as I have been in past elections, I had no idea how the selection of our President actually worked.

Now, after studying it and becoming completely immersed in the "process" I still have no idea.

It makes absolutely no sense. It makes even less sense this year with all the slashing-of-delegate punishments that were handed out by the Democratic and Republican national parties to various states.

Crazy is the word that comes to mind when I think of how delegates are accrued.

In some states they have a caucus, which simply means that people trudge to the polls and their votes are counted by raising hands or something along those lines. It can be an all day or multi-day process.

Some states combine a caucus on one day, handing out a portion of the delegates based on the vote, then a primary vote on another to divvy out the remainder of the votes.

Even when it's a primary vote open to all the delegates are whacky. A portion of the delegates are divided up based on the votes. Then in some states there are super delegates who work independently of the will of the voting public. There are uncommitted delegates and those who commit to a candidate in caucus and primary states.

Some states divide up the delegates based on the percentage of the votes each candidate wins. Some states have a winner-take-all system, which means if candidate A wins 43% of the vote and candidate B wins 42%, candidate A gets them all.

In one state the winner has to reach 50% to win all the delegates. If no one reaches the 50% mark then the delegates aren't awarded. All of the delegates go to the national convention uncommitted.

The Democrats have some strange rules, too, but they seem to be a little less confusing as all are pretty much divided up proportionately. However, in some states the winner can end up with fewer delegates due to special delegates that aren't controlled by the vote.

Not to make it even harder to figure out, but... in some states even though the candidate wins the delegates, those delegates can change their mind when they get to the convention.

If you go to CNN, Fox News and other places where they're keeping up with delegates you'll probably find that they all have different totals. On CNN they have one page with delegates and when you click the link for details the numbers are completely different (or at least they were a week or so ago).

Making it stranger than the normal strange this year is the upcoming battle over the Democrat delegates in Michigan and Florida. The Democratic national party stripped both states of their delegates because they moved their primary vote earlier than Feb. 5th. Candidates were banned from campaigning in Florida until after the election.

However, Democrats turned out to vote. Clinton won both states. Easier in Michigan since she and maybe Gravel and one other little-known candidate long since dropped out, were the only ones on the ballot. No one else paid the fee to get listed.

What happens to those votes? Disenfranchised. Their vote currently doesn't count. Is the Democratic Party going to select their nominee without the input from these two huge states? I think not!

If they allow the votes to count then is it fair to the candidates who skipped the state because of their Party's rules? Or should they be divided up proportionately giving Clinton an edge?

The Republicans cut the number of delegates allotted in half for some of the states that backed up their primary. Yet, if they held a caucus, those votes counted (not a primary, different set of rules!). Thus some states, to try and "matter" in the process, held an early caucus handing out a portion of their delegates and held back the remainder for their later primary vote.

The Democrats also cut some states' delegates in half.

Somehow someone is going to bang the gong at some point and say that a candidate in each party has reached the magic number of delegates needed to be the nominee. How will they know? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm still trying to understand how Georgia divides its delegates.

John McCain Addresses CPAC

2008-02-07T21:30:00.000-05:00

John McCain Addresses CPAC

Today, February 7th, John McCain addressed CPAC with the following remarks:

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order. But, now, I again have the privilege of that distinction, and this time I would prefer to hold on to it for a while.

I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November. And I am acutely aware that I cannot succeed in that endeavor, nor can our party prevail over the challenge we will face from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, without the support of dedicated conservatives, whose convictions, creativity and energy have been indispensible to the success our party has had over the last quarter century. Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition. If not, thank you for this opportunity to make my case today.

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan's defense of America's cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton's words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn.

Those are my beliefs, and you need not examine only my past votes and speeches to assure yourselves that they are my genuine convictions. You can take added confidence from the positions I have defended during this campaign. I campaigned in Iowa in opposition to agriculture subsidies. I campaigned in New Hampshire against big government mandated health care and for a free market solution to the problem of unavailable and unaffordable health care. I campaigned in Michigan for the tax incentives and trade policies that will create new and better jobs in that economically troubled state. I campaigned in Florida against the national catastrophic insurance fund bill that passed the House of Representatives and defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program. I have argued to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to reduce the corporate tax rate and abolish the AMT. I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers. I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record. Throughout this campaign, I have defended the President's brave decision to increase troop levels in Iraq to execute a long overdue counterinsurgency that has spared us the terrible calamity of losing that war. I held these positions because I believed they were in the best interests of my party and country."

Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the ru le of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep. I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics. Then vote for or against me based on that record, my qualifications for the office, and the direction where I plainly state I intend to lead our country. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for President, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing. I will make my case to voters, no matter what state they reside in, in the same way. I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. I will stand on my convictions, my conservative convictions, and trust in the good sense of the voters, and in my confidence that conservative principles still appeal t o a majority of Americans, Republicans, Independents and Reagan Democrats.

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big thin gs, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.

I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American's. It is a deep and unwavering love. My life experiences in service to our country inform my political judgments. They are at the core of my convictions. I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you. I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and ta ke comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.

You have heard me say before that for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support. And I am grateful, very grateful, that you have given me this opportunity to ask for it.

Thank you and God bless you.

Romney's CPAC Speech

2008-02-07T14:29:00.000-05:00

Today, addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Governor Romney announced that he was suspending his presidential campaign for the sake of Republican unity and the future of our country. In 2008, Republicans must stand united if we are to prevent Senators Clinton and Obama from taking the White House. As a nation at war and facing uncertain economic times, the American people cannot afford the Democrats and their agenda for retreat and economic slowdown. With today's speech, Governor Romney outlined the significance of this election and the need for the Republican Party to remain strong.
Governor Romney's Address To CPAC (As Prepared For Delivery):

"I want to begin by saying thank you. It's great to be with you again. And I look forward to joining with you many more times in the future.
"Last year, CPAC gave me the sendoff I needed. I was in single digits in the polls, and I was facing household Republican names. As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for President, less than Senator McCain's 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with his number of delegates.
"To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.
"As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century – still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. 'First,' he said, 'I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.' The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America.
"And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.
"Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal – I guess that's redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:
"If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.
"What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity – opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves – a 'Purpose Driven Life.' And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be.
"The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960's welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven't given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug. We have got to fight it like the poison it is.
"The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography – even celebration of it – and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today's grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the Founding Fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.
"The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through Constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it.
"Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America's vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.
"The attack on our culture is not our sole challenge. We face economic competition unlike anything we have ever known before. China and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative and ambitious. If we do not change course, Asia or China will pass us by as the economic superpower, just as we passed England and France during the last century. The prosperity and security of our children and grandchildren depend on us.
"Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy secure. Oil producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion per year from our economy – that's almost what we spend annually for defense. It is past time for us to invest in energy technology, nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable sources and energy efficiency. America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad.
"And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending. Don't focus on the pork alone – even though it is indeed irritating and shameful. Look at the entitlements. They make up 60% of federal spending today. By the end of the next President's second term, they will total 70%. Any conservative plan for the future has to include entitlement reform that solves the problem, not just acknowledges it.
"Most politicians don't seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens – that it's just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector. Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.
"That's exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government. Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector? Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?
"It's high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government.
"And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy. To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.
"To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn't get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might – raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve.
"Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the Constitution. Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.
"Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign. You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today, we are a nation at war.
"And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.
"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
"This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters – many of you right here in this room – have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.
"I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism.
"It is the common task of each generation – and the burden of liberty – to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.
"To this task, accepting this burden, we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth.
"Thank you, and God bless America."