January 19, 2006
Well one thing is for sure, if the right wing blogosphere is any indication of the grassroots conservative movement, then the source is all wrong. Yes, McCain is great on spending, but there's a whole lot more anger with him for CFR, and his hesitancy on tax cuts, the "Gang of 14" deal (as well as his media preening) than there is praise for him on the spending issues. Who knows, maybe it's us in the blogosphere that are in a bubble, but for some reason I don't think that's the case here.Now if McCain were to win the nomination I would certainly support him. But he's not my first, second or even third choice for that matter. I'm still wary that his desire to be loved by his buddies in the media betrays his Conservative ideals. He has a long way to go in winning me over. And he's the reason I'm a registered Republican.
We shall see.
January 18, 2006
In 1994 the GOP again took control of the Congress and, while I'm doubtful that Democrats have a real chance to take it back this year, Republicans in the House have a real opportunity to elect a new Majority Leader to bring change to an institution that is spinning out of control. That new Leader should be John Shadegg of Arizona.
Shadegg, who came in with the GOP sweep of 1994, is not only unconnected to the current political scandals but he has a real committment to the principles on which Republicans won 12 years ago. The editors of TownHall.com agree:
John Shadegg would change the way things are done on Capitol Hill. He would shed light on the insidious game of congressional earmarking by requiring members to be honest with the public about the projects that they sneak into appropriations bills. Along similar lines, Shadegg wants to require the posting of all legislation three hours before a vote so that the public can finally see what their elected representatives are up to in Washington.And Shadegg wrote an Op-Ed in OpinionJournal.com this morning making the case for his candidacy. It should be read by anyone interested in this upcoming leadership election.
He also wants to lead his caucus in an effort to get tough on immigration by among other things, building a fence along the Mexican border. He would repeal the unconstitutional provisions of McCain-Feingold. He supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he is rock-solid in his commitment to the War on Terrorism and finishing the job in Iraq.
I would urge all Republican members of the House to do right by their constituents and vote for John Shadegg for Majority Leader. Vote for integrity...for a change.
January 14, 2006
January 08, 2006
Shortly after the 1998 election, the party decided that having Newt Gingrich continue as the Majority Leader was not helping, so after a lot of internal pressure, Gingrich stepped down and Denny Hastert picked up the gavel. The result: the Democrats lost a target to lob their attacks against. Hastert's integrity was beyond approach.
Today, the GOP has a similar opportunity. And in the uncertainty of the Abramoff case - which will taint all of Congress, across party lines - they need to put forth a Majority Leader whose career isn't synonymous with the lobbying corruption of "K Street" and take the higher ground away from Democrats, who will try to claim it for themselves.
Red State makes the case for Mike Pence.
At a time when Democrats are trying to paint Republicans as unethical greedy crooks in the pockets of Jack Abramoff and his ilk, Republicans in Congress should look to one who is willing to work for the party, but who is not willing to give up the fight for the conservative base. Republicans need to start looking for a "do as I do" Republican and not continue on with hypocrits of power.As of now, the leading candidates are Roy Blunt of MO and John Boehner of OH - each is a candidate that is exactly what the party DOESN'T need right now. Hopefully, the Republican Caucus in the House do some serious reflection over the next few weeks and, if a special election is called to fill the post, create enough of a groundswell to draft Pence as the new Majority Leader.
Right now the House Republicans need Mike Pence. He's done wonders revitalizing the Republican Study Committee. It has become an effective organization. There are others there like Jeb Hensarling, who can keep it going. There are not many in the Republican ranks who can revitalize Republican leadership in the House as a whole. Mike Pence can and Mike Pence should be given the opportunity.
December 09, 2005
Watch the hooting and howling from Dems on this one. Bless their hearts. They give us so much material to work with.
September 28, 2005
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying whether he's guilty or not. I haven't seen any evidence. Nor has anyone else outside of the indictment, either. And all those hypocritical Dems who defended Bill Clinton up and down over charges of perjury and obstruction of justice won't be giving DeLay that same benefit of the doubt.
I know most of those on the Right considered Clinton guilty as sin and weren't shy about saying so. I'm not defending that either (and by the way, I was a Democrat back then, so spare me the ad hominem charges of "hypocrisy"). And I don't think I need to point out that he was, in fact, found guilty of those charges. So it's not hypocritical to rip him a new one now.
Here's my point: if Democrats want to be the party that champions the cause of those charged with a crime before they get a fair trial, then you'd think they'd try to be consistent about it, wouldn't you?
But then why should they start now?
Update: Michelle Malkin has a thorough round-up.
Update II: It didn't take Mad Howard very long, and yes he's painting with a broad stroke as he always does:
Tom DeLay is neither the beginning nor the end of the Washington Republicans' ethical problems."The part where he says he hates those rich, white Republican Christians must not have made the final edit.
h/t: The Corner
Well, sure enough McCain did have a meeting with her, during which she allegedly insulted his service in Vietnam:
Sheehan said Tuesday that McCain told her then that her son's death was "like his buddies in Vietnam" and that he feared their deaths were "for nothing." McCain, however, denied he made such a statement.On top of that, she called him a "warmonger" in an interview afterwards. McCain went on to tell reporters that the only reason he agreed to meet with her is that he was "misled" into thinking some of his Arizona constituents would be part of her delegation.
Captain Ed weighes in:
Does anyone believe that? McCain's entire career shows him as a rank opportunist, and with his recent moves to establish himself for a run at the 2008 Presidential nomination, he figured he could score a twofer: he could embarrass George Bush and make himself a media darling by getting some friendly face time with Sheehan. Instead, she winds up, predictably, talking about him in shrill tones while he mumbles some excuse about thinking that he would meet an Arizona representative among her staff. In the end, he proved Bush's wisdom in declining a second meeting with the poster woman for the radical Left.I have mixed feelings about McCain. While he is the primary reason I registered as a Republican five years ago, he consistently says and does things that really piss me off. This little stunt is just one more on that list.
If CQ readers want to see how badly this worked out for John McCain, by the way, read through the print editions of the Washington Post and New York Times. Neither one of them carried a word about this meeting, despite the meeting taking place well before deadline. This AP report appears on the web editions of both newspapers as a wire-service story, which means that McCain's office waited a long time before talking about this meeting to reporters. How ... convenient.
114 queries taking 0.0583 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.