More Liberal Than a Clinton!

I can't say that I was totally shocked by this news, but if you had asked me to name Senators more liberal than Hillary Clinton back in 2007, I would have been stumped (outside of Ted Kennedy, that is). Lucky for people like me, the National Journal has the facts:

"Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted; Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect, pulled down a notch by the only conservative vote that he cast in the ratings, on a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut off for U.S. troops in harm's way. The Senate passed the resolution 82-16 with the support of both Obama and Clinton. The 16 opponents included mostly liberals, such as Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Sanders. "

Obama's "composite liberal score" was 95.5, compared to Clinton's 82.8. That seems like a pretty sizeable difference to me. So I wanted to compare it to a few Republicans - unfortunately, data was limited (either the candidate wasn't in the Congress - such as Romney - or wasn't present for enough votes to qualify for the composite score - such as McCain). So I was able to look over the "lifetime" scores for McCain (71.8), Chuck Hagel (71.5), and Ron Paul (51.7)... although, truth be told, over the last 5 years McCain is 57.9 and Paul is 41.9, which are solid Conservative figures.

Obama's score indicated that he was the most liberal Congressman in 2007. Anybody remember that embarrasment of a Presidential candidate named John Kerry? He was the most liberal Congressman in 2003 - apparently, in order to run for President as a Democrat, you have to run hard to the left before the primaries. Good thing they don't cater to extremists over there.

What did I conclude? First, that Obama scares the living heck out of me with his liberal voting record. Second, why wasn't McCain around to cast enough votes to qualify for the ranking? Third (and finally), I am praying for a repeat of 2004, when America stiff-armed the most liberal Congressman and forced him to retreat home (to his multi-millionaire wife, cushy Senate job, and all of the other liberal "thought leaders").

To think that Hillary was only the 16th most liberal person in Congress in 2007... wow.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

I Miss Him Already

I recorded President Bush's last State of the Union address last night. I transferred it to a DVD, labeled it "George W. Bush, POTUS, State of the Union, January 28, 2008, " and put it in a safe place. This will provide comfort to me in the event that a President Obama or a President Clinton is giving the State of the Union in two years.

I have liked George W. Bush since I first encountered, observed and heard him. He was my candidate since 1999, long before he won South Carolina in 2000. And his seven years of presidency has not changed my opinion.

While, I am familiar with his shortcomings - his accomplishments and his character have more than outweighed all of them.

He recognized the true nature of the threat of Islamic Terrorism, while others were trying to justify the 9/11 attacks as isolated events. While this threat has been with us since Jimmy Carter watched the hostile takeover of Iran and the year-long hostage crisis, the attempt to kill fifty thousand people was taking terrorism to a new level - and the president needed to respond.

President Bush responded with changes to our government agencies and their rules of engagement, laws regarding financial transactions and, most importantly, he sent the military after the two most dangerous exporters of terror...Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a fledgling democracy in both of these countries today.

Since 9/11/2001, the country has not been attacked once...despite the regular cadence of terrorist attacks under the presidency of Bill Clinton.

President Bush presided over an economy which has been a job growth engine, outpacing by orders of magnitude anything in the European Union. The stock market rise and the economic growth numbers of the past seven years would be the envy of any president. Had he been a Democrat, the New York Times would have gushed each time the quarterly numbers were reported.

He has appointed conservative justices.

He has nixed human cloning and federal research on human embryos.

He has been a moral leader and, despite a constant barrage of mind-numbing reports, has been the most honest president of the last hundred years.

He has appointed minorities and females to the highest levels of his cabinet including the first black secretary of state and the first black female secretary of state.

He has pushed education funding and reform despite steady criticism from his own party

He was not perfect, no one ever is. He held fast to his beliefs and that alone distinguishes him from 98 out of 100 members of our government. He has treated his friends and his enemies with respect.

While not a good politician nor an eloquent speaker, he can boast that he has never lost an election. In fact, he won four and three of them very tough. He beat a popular Ann Richards, incumbent V.P. Al Gore and the anti-war John Kerry...and he started all of three of these by trailing in the polls by double digits.

Even Dan Rather has to respect that.

What is most appealing about President Bush is that he has never let any of the negative coverage of him and his presidency get him down. He has not changed. He remains upbeat, optimistic and as patriotic as ever. His legacy is intact and he will be remembered as a decisive and moral leader. He will be missed. I miss him already.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Flip Flopping toward Romney

Last week, Hillary looked stoppable. Obama was surging. And Bill Clinton was playing the part he plays so well; a man whose actions and demeanor are beneath that of a president - or ex-president (according to Tom Daschle). There is still turmoil among the Democrats - both Obama and Hillary are stepping all over themselves to outdue each other in redistributing more wealth from those in high-income brackets to those who vote for Hillary and Obama. We'll have to wait this one out.

In the meantime, the Republican turmoil, albeit more civil, has caused me to rethink my first choice and second choice for president. It is not that the candidates are not good. They all have their strengths and experience and all are 'head and shoulders' above the populist ranters on the Democrat ballot. Vote for Race (Obama). Vote for Gender (Hillary). Vote for Class Warfare (Edwards). Vote for good ideas and experience (well, you need to go to the Republican ballot for that).

As of yesterday, I ordered a few dozen Romney Bumper stickers for my truck, my car and for my friends. While Romney faces the real challenge of a general election, especially through the contiguous-red-state coalition in Dixie, his fresh face, his energy, his ideas... coupled with his experience make him the best option for a conservative ticket this year. In fact, they make him a pretty darn good candidate. He is a supply-sider with a moderate to conservative social perspective (and will govern as a conservative). He intends to continue to prosecute the war on terror - as opposed to run from it. And, by all indications, he is a patriotic and moral family man.

He'll have to solve the electibility issue, maybe through his choice for Veep...but in the meantime, I am planning to head to the Fire House down the road on Super Tuesday to help make Mitt the candidate.

As someone told me yesterday..."Mitt, he fits like a glove."

(and, as always, I will support any of these guys from Rudy to Paul, against their "tax and spend" "soft on terror" "soft on crime" "socialist" "citizenize the illegals" challengers)

Submitted by D.B. Jackson.

"Romney's Turn !!!!" The Real Story

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4139301&page=1

The Base turns out for Romney. Economics the issue?

The story in Michigan was a landslide, in favor of Mitt Romney - at least when you look at the core Republican base (especially at the conservative wing). The conservatives don't like McCain (no wonder)

"Sixty-eight percent of voters were Republican regulars, and they supported Romney by 41-27 percent over McCain, with 17 percent for Huckabee. McCain won independents by 6 points, but they accounted for just 25 percent of voters, vs. 35 percent in 2000. He also prevailed by 8 points among Democratic crossover voters. But there were fewer of them, too; suggestions that they'd vote in the Republican race given the lack of a real Democratic contest were not borne out. Just 7 percent of GOP voters were Democrats, down from 17 percent in 2000."

The base comes through for Mitt.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

She's Baaaack !!!

If someone told Obama two weeks ago that he would be within three percentage points of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire...he would have done a happy dance and everyone would be talking about Hillary's vulnerability and spending levels. Instead, the media and the pollsters have given her the exhiliarition of Limbergh landing in France. Damn those Pundits.

If the win wasn't depressing enough, listen to what Clinton flack Terry McAuliffe said about the 'bounce:'

Terry McAuliffe, national campaign chairman for Clinton, said the New Hampshire comeback had spurred nearly $750,000 in donations to her campaign overnight and sparked more than 500 hits per minute on her Web site.

"It was a big, big win for this campaign. I cannot tell you how excited we are as we move forward," he said.

Well...better luck to Mr. Obama in S.C.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Victim of the VRC??

Blaming her husbands problems with Monica, Perjury and Stained Dresses on a 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' that was dogging poor Bill Clinton for his entire presidency was a stretch, to say the least.

She later claimed that the 2002 election was also influenced by the VRC. Accusing the right wing of jamming phones, closing roads and suppressing the black vote, she credited the VRC with the Congressional mid-term pickups. Investigations proved that all the fraud and election tampering was in favor of the Democrats.

I hope Mrs. Clinton blames the VRC one more time. Is it too early to write her off in NH, SC and all the way to Super Tuesday? Probably. But if she blames the VRC this time, she'd still be wrong...but at least there is some evidence to back it up.

Sean Hannity calls his radio show the 'Stop Hillary' express. Mark Levin and Monica Crowley have devoted 80% of their respective radio show to comparing (accurately, I might add) Hillary's policies with that of Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin. (note: she shares clothiers with Mao).

Of course, if the VRC exists, it has had little to do with Hillary's 'New York Mets' style collapse. It is the left wings own doing. The left has created a monster and the monster has turned on it. The electoral process has increasingly favored the extreme ends of both parties, but over the last six years, the democratic base has reinvented itself. Don't think Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy or Joseph Lieberman, think Cindy Sheehan, George Soros and MoveOn.org.

The Democrats have fanned the flames of the wildest theories to hit mainstream politics in a hundred years. They have filled the minds of their new base with ideas about stolen elections, an innocent Iraq minding its own business, U.S. troops committing rape and genocide, the president tapping our phone lines and on and on and on.

Why is Mrs. Clinton surprised to find that this base found her too mainstream to get her vote? Why is she surprised to see them turn to the eloquent newcomer, who more accurately projects their view for change?

As I have always said, the VRC doesn't exist. If it did exist, I'd be the leader...

But if the VRC does exist, they have very little say on how the lunatic fringe in Iowa and New Hampshire vote. I seriously doubt that Sean Hannity sent a single Clinton supporter to Barack Obama.

In the meantime, I am hoping that Mr. Obama helps us rid ourselves of the Clintons forever. I hope Mrs. Clinton hangs in for a long time...and eventually withdraws and blames her favorite scapegoat.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Now the Fun Begins?

As the reverberation of the stunning Iowa results slowly fades and attention turns to the Granite State, we see that the world of politics has changed dramatically over the past few months. The seeming Obama surge and Clinton slide was very real…painfully real for the Clintons. Clinton’s distant third place finish behind Obama (and Edwards though by a small margin) was the worst possible result for her. It totally shatters her already cracked image of “inevitability” and transforms her into a politician desperately in need of a win.

Clinton always had high negatives among the public which put questions in many Democrats minds of whether she could be elected or not. Despite those questions, many Dems supported her because they thought she stood the best chance of delivering the victory in November that they want so badly. Most Dems liked Obama much better but really did not think he could pull it all off. The Iowa debacle was devastating on both fronts for Clinton. First, it exacerbates the latent feelings that she is unelectable. If she could not win in Iowa where she had the organization and had unleashed her secret weapon (the Bill bomb), can she win in the general election. Secondly, Obama’s victory in vanilla-white Iowa demonstrated an across-the-board appeal that many Dems thought he lacked.

All of this translates into New Hampshire being an almost must-win for Clinton. If she loses there, she faces the prospect of going into South Carolina, where the primary electorate is about 50 percent black, with an 0-2 record. In that case, a South Carolina loss to Obama would almost certainly finish her candidacy. Clinton would not drop out and has the money to continue to make a fight of it but Obama should cruise to victory.

The Clinton camp faces a Hobson’s Choice. They can continue to do things as they are doing them and hope that her razor-thin lead in the New Hampshire polls holds out…not a good prospect for victory in view of the momentum that Obama will surely gain with his victory…or they can go negative, hoping to bring down Obama’s favorable ratings by direct challenges to his honestly, electability, and experience. The second route is surely the one the Clintons will take because it holds the best prospects for success though it also risks raising her negatives even higher and giving the nomination to Obama. The Clintons’ have never been the types to leave things to chance so they will definitely roll the dice for the big gains with the hopes that their allies in the media will cover for them. It is a risky option but probably the only one open to them now.

Like Hillary said, “Now the fun begins.”

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The Grand Old Patriots have been pointing out for months now that we don't see any viable Presidential candidates in the Democratic Party, not because we don't think that they're good people (some are, reportedly), but because we don't think that they're good people to be running the most powerful country in the world.

It's nice to see that we're not alone.

From Senator Joe Lieberman, (Ind/Dem - CT, 12/18/07):
''I think (McCain)'s got this extra dimension and proven record of working across party lines to get things done. We're not gonna solve our problems -- healthcare, education, environment, the economy -- unless we start working with one another.'

''You're not even going to have a chance to try to solve domestic problems unless the American people have confidence that you will protect them in a dangerous world. And I worry that the Democratic candidates in the primary have been drawn so far left that in the general election it's going to be hard to convince a lot of people in the middle that they're able to support a strong defense.''

From Massachusetts (Boston Herald, 12/21/07):
"And so this newspaper too will break with its decades-old tradition of endorsing candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. In doing so we also address our words particularly to those millions of independent voters here, in New Hampshire and around the nation who can choose to cast their ballot in either party primary.

The choice this year is indeed clear. John McCain should be the next President of the United States and the Boston Herald is proud to endorse his candidacy."

From the Granite State (New Hampshire Union Leader, 12/31/07):
"IT IS OUR HOPE every four years to recommend a candidate in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. This year, we have opted to endorse only one: Sen. John McCain.
In this race, our most important consideration is electing the candidate most likely to bring American victory in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the greater war on Islamic extremists in general, and keep America's enemies and rivals in check. John McCain is that man. None of the Democrats approaches McCain's experience and vision on that subject."

It's a shame that the Donkey Party is only able to wheel out asses (er, donkeys) for candidates in 2008.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

The Ron Paul Revolution (aka Isolationism)

Happy New Year!

With the new year upon us, I figured it was time to espouse my feelings about the Ron Paul candidacy (the Ron Paul Revolution is upon us!). While I agree with some of his positions, there's just been something about his candidacy that leaves me feeling uneasy. No, not uneasy...queasy. And while I was gathering my thoughts (these days, that takes a lot longer than it used to), I stumbled upon this editorial from October 2007 that I think captures many of my reservations about the Revolutionaries.

From the New Hampshire Union Leader (Oct 5, 2007)
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian darling running for the Republican nomination for President, seems to think that the only national security threat America faces is from a direct military assault on our soil. Nothing else -- Chinese expansion, Iranian nuclear development, Russian imperial ambitions -- is any concern of ours.

In a Wednesday interview, Rep. Paul suggested closing most of our overseas military bases. The military exists to protect our national security, not our economic interests, he said. Asked if the United States did not have national security interests in containing Chinese or Russian or Iranian or North Korean ambitions, he said no. "Nobody would attack us militarily," he said.

Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by "diplomacy." But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan's military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union.

Asked if we should let Iran obtain nuclear weapons, he shrugged and said, "Well, that's not the end of the world." Iran is no threat to us, he said, because it can't invade us. He never acknowledged that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, and a nuclear Iran could one day supply terrorists with nuclear technology or weaponry.

Paul's repeated insistence that "There would be no risk of somebody invading us" is just what the isolationist Republicans of the 1930s believed -- right up until Pearl Harbor. Paul's idea that we can maintain peace by halting our projection of military strength has been proven wrong by history. But Rep. Paul is not about to let historical reality get in the way of his ideologically pure position.

So there you have it, in a verse well better choreographed than this writer could put to paper (or blog). The leader that I support must understand that the world of 2008 requires participation in world affairs, including military participation where the security of US citizens is concerned - threats that are real both today and tomorrow. Reagan understood this, and strengthened both our military and military presence in order to win the Cold War.

Count me out of the Ron Paul Revolution.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Case for McCain

I took a second and third look at John McCain. If I had to vote in the NY Primary today, I would vote for him.

McCain is not without his detriments. My most serious concerns are with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act and with his seemed antagonism of every republican offensive initiative (He calls it being a maverick). In 2006 and 2007, he has taken some questionable positions regarding immigration - though he has backed off of them some as he takes to the campaign trail. These are serious and important concerns.

As serious as they are, McCain has been a loyal Republican and conservative as long as I can remember. A good friend to Ronald Reagan and to the movement that Reagan launched. He has been pro-life and a strong supporter of the judicial nominees of Reagan, Bush and Bush. He believes firmly in the conservative principle that lower taxes and smaller government is the best way to job growth and prosperity.

In addition, he has been a staunch defender of and an excellent communicator on the war on terror. He was an early advocate for the troop surge in Iraq (when the media was carping so aggressively against it) and one of two candidates that truly understands the nature of this battle. Let us not forget his outstanding speech nominating President Bush at the 2004 Republican Convention.

McCain is the most experienced of all the front-runners in both parties. He has been a U.S. Senator since 1983.

He is a veteran and a retired naval aviator...to say the least. He was shot down during his twenty-third bombing mission over Vietnam. He spent five and a half years as a Prisoner of War in the Hanoi Hilton, even being subjected to periods of isolation and torture. McCain even refused special treatment, as his father was an Admiral, and stayed with 'his men' until all were freed. He was released under the Paris Peace Accord in 1973 and retired from the U.S. Navy in 1981.

Most recently, John has been given the endorsement of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (Independent, Democrat) and The Boston Globe (sic).

All of this should compel the Republican primary and caucus goers one more look at John McCain and one more listen to the 'Straight Talk Express.'

As always, I maintain that every Republican running is 'head and shoulders' more qualified and more committed to the security and prosperity of America than any of the Democratic front-runners.

In the mean-time...if McCain wins N.H. - and it is starting to look like he might - we will have a horse race. And McCain will win it !!


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Huck's Mucked

Bob Novak, Ann Coulter, Mike Gallagher and Lorie Byrd have all chosen to dedicate their weekly column to Huckabee and his inexplicable rise in popularity (and it is inexplicable to me because I don't know a single Republican that likes him).

The gist of the columns:

1. Conservatives don't like him, the liberal media likes him. His willingness to compromise key conservative planks with the smallest prodding from Larry King or the NY Times has the liberals loving this former Baptist preacher.

2. He is not a conservative. His record in Arkansas was one of high taxes and big government. His only durable conservative principle appears to Pro-life, but his need to be liked by the N.Y. Times will surely cause this pillar to fall as well.

3. The liberal media likes him because he will be so easy to beat in the general election. His past positions on AIDS, AIDS treatment and homosexuality will be the lead stories in a general election, not his recent Larry King interview positions of 'tolerance.' (Plus, his name is Huckabee).

He appears to have some star appeal. Warm smile, soft spoken, self-deprecating...but he would be fish food in the general election.

My assessment: A vote for Huck is a vote for Hillary.


Submitted by D. B. Jackson

It's all in the O

http://www.wmur.com/politics/14826607/detail.html

Hillary is in a dead heat in NH...and losing Iowa. It is not even Dec 25th and all my hopes and dreams are coming true. Can Hillary really lose both? Can she bounce back? Sure, but not without a heavy dose of SPENDING and NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING. Bring it !!

I would also expect to see more shake up and back stabbing in the Clinton campaign. My ultimate dream is a Hillary tirade...complete with F-bombs...while some young staffer has his iPod on Record. These tirades are colorful, crass and legendary.

Go Oprah !!!

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Sunday Iowa Poll: Hillary #2 (but she still wins nom.)

Hillary is tanking...according to everything I hear and read.

It seems Obama has latched on to a new message, let me paraphrase..."No one likes her, she can't win a general election and even if she wins, she is too polarizing to get anything done."

Her missteps haven't helped: Audience Plants, Fundraising Ethics, More victimhood stuff, Bill's whining, Obama's Kindergartern papers. Oh, The Clintons; not an ethical thread between the two of the them.

Historically, Iowa is important for Democrats (meaningless for Republicans). Democrats really like this electability thing (not your classic principled voters) and if they sense she can lose Iowa, well, she can lose it all.

She will still be hard to beat. She has big bucks and a big 50 state organization in place. She will pick up governors endorsements along the way...in the end, Hillary will prevail. Her money and her org...but mostly because of the Marx Brothers running against her. John 'Two Americas' Edwards and Barack 'Oprah likes me' Obama are just plain hard to vote for.

The good news...Hillary will have to expend that warchest.

If I can use a monopoly example....she has landed on Baltic Ave In Iowa...with a hotel. It will cost her, but in the end, she has two hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place. Jon and Barack can't go around the board too many more times.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2007/12/06/hillary_is_losing_it

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

HillaryCare 2008 Redux

Here we go again!

According to the Associated Press, "(i)nsurance companies should face the same kind of federal regulation as firms that sell stocks and bonds" -- attributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton

Probable Clinton solutions:
Health insurance problems? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!
Medicare funding problems? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!
Social security funding problems? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!
Your favorite sports team didn't win the championship this year? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!

Is there a pattern here?
Government regulation and higher taxes... Just Being A HillBilly
Capitalism, competitive marketplace, and reduced taxes... Reagan must have been wrong!!

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Lott to be Thankful For

It's widely expected that Senator Trent Lott (MS) will announce his impending retirement today, effective at the end of the year. Lott has been through many challenges during his time in the Senate, and few (if any) Senators today have earned the level of respect that Lott has gained during this time. He will be missed.

As if we didn't remember, 2008 is an election year. While the 2008 Presidential election is garnering most of the attention, let's not forget that there are numerous Senate and House seats up for election as well. Today, we'll focus on the Senate. As we know, the Democrats hold a majority (51-49) today. Tomorrow...this majority could grow. How? Let's look at the numbers.

Facts about 2008 Senate Elections:
35 seats up for election (including the remaining 4 years of Lott's term)
-- 23 seats currently held by Republicans
-- 12 seats currently held by Democrats

According to a state-by-state review done by some experts, the Democrats could gain 3 seats (Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado) to strenghten their hold on the Senate.

If the House, as expected, also maintains a Democrat plurality, the importance of the 2008 Presidential race is amplified. "Remember the Maine!" rallying cry will more likely be transformed into a slogan to remember the last two times that the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the Presidency concurrently: "Remember Bill & Jimmy!"

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Who Are You?

A couple of quizzes for some amusement today.

The first link is to the 2005 Political Typology website. A good summary of what "type" you are, in case you have any questions about where you may stand with regards to your hot button issues.
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

The second website link is provided by Kamber & O'Leary. It's a bit dated (1995), but it's at least amusing. I especially like the "standards" listed with their scores. I wonder where all of today's candidates would fall...

http://madrabbit.net/webrabbit/quizshow.html

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Case for Giuliani

Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani on Wednesday came as a surprise to many. Although Robertson does not have the clout that he once had with evangelicals, his endorsement of a candidate, whose main shortcoming appears to be his credentials as a social conservative, is very curious. Certainly, Brownback and Huckabee would make a better choice for an evangelical preacher.

Robertson's selection of Giuliani makes sense in several ways. First, Robertson is being pragmatic. Giuliani has a much better chance of getting the nomination and beating the democratic nominee than any of the also-ran social conservatives. Second, Giuliani, despite his socially leftward leanings, has promised constructionist judges of the Alito, Thomas and Roberts ilk. Third, Robertson would have some influence with the man 'who would be king' if he participates in his victory.

On the issue of judges, which is really what it is all about, conservatives must be realistic. It is futile to speculate about a pro-life president establishing anti-abortion laws in fifty states. It is not going to happen. The biggest influence that the president can have over social issues such as abortion and gay marriage is through the courts. This does not mean appointing judges who are going to ban gay marriage and abortion - this isn't happening either - but by appointing judges who allow the electoral process to work. By allowing the states to vote on parental notification and partial-birth abortion, it returns the discussion to where it belongs.

In addition, Giuliani is not afraid of the heat. If he wants to put Ted Olsen (his good friend, political advisor and best conservative lawyer in America) on the bench, he will do it and make it stick. In fact, it would be hard to accuse Giuliani of selecting 'extremists,' given his own moderate positions.

Of course, it is not all candy and roses. The President is the leader of America and his opinions have influence. If the president for four or eight years has a staunch pro-choice position, it will impact the future of the pro-life movement and the Republican party. But of course, how much more damage would Hillary Clinton do with three or four more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs on the bench?

I can live with Giuliani and be happy, if he fulfills his promises on the supreme court nominees. He brings much to the table in terms of leadership and national security. He is an upbeat guy with the thickest skin of any politician that I have observed...try being a tough-on-crime, fiscally-conservative Republican in NYC.

Now, if we can just keep him out of a dress for eight years :-)


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Dennis Kucinich: A True Democrat

Dateline: Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Background:
- Emergency rule in Pakistan, one of the few countries supporting US causes in Afghanistan
- Budget proposals have not yet been passed by either House (we're already in the "emergency extension" period)
- China's decision to take investment out of the US Dollar (USD) is contributing to the NYSE falling 112 points in the first hour of trading today
- The Euro was trading above 1.47 USD per Euro, a new low for the USD
- Oil is now selling at $98 per barrel

So, what was our Congress doing yesterday (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)?
Voting on whether to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Thank you, Dennis Kucinich. I'm relieved to know that you managed to direct the US House of Representatives' attention away from these other minor issues for a few hours. After all, it's much more important to spend everyone's time on your personal vendetta against VP Cheney, rather than worrying about silly things like the value of the USD, price of oil, and political instability in the area of the world where Bin-Laden resides.

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Heritage Foundation on the Dems and Taxes

The Heritage Foundation, in its analysis of the Rangel tax bill, notes that "In the current Congress, the Rangel proposal has no chance of enactment, neither in its current form nor in any recognizable variant. Its importance is as a policy statement of the chief Democratic tax policy writer in the House of Representatives, expressed in black and white. As such, it offers a useful glimpse of where tax policy is likely to go in the next Congress if the chairman is allowed to work his will with a more sympathetic resident occupying the White House."

It is important to remember that the biggest tax hike in history was enacted by President Bill Clinton - the year before the Republicans swept congress in the historic 1994 election. The Republican House, led by Newt Gingrich, kept Bill and Hillary from enacting their extreme social policies and high taxes. This allows Bill Clinton and his party to point to his presidency as an example of conservative Democratic leadership in areas such as taxes, spending, deficits and fiscal restraint. It may have been, but it had nothing to do with Democrats. For an idea of what a democratic President (Hillary Clinton), a democratic house (Nancy Pelosi) and a democratic Senate (Harry Reid) would do...look no further than the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency. Then try to remember, why the Republicans won the House (after 46 years) in the first opportunity to do so.

Some will argue that higher taxes hurt government revenue (Laffer Curve) and some will argue that it makes no difference whether individuals or governments spend the money - the multiplier is in effect either way. I personally believe the former, but I also believe that it is not the Governments money. It belongs to the corporations and individuals who earned it legally.

The top 10% of earners pay over 90% of the taxes today. We should thank them often and keep our hands out of their pockets as much as we can.

Once we believe it is the publics money or the governments money - or that the government has an obligation to redistribute wealth, we have crossed line to socialism and beyond. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all running on the tired old platform that the wealthy do not deserve their money and it is up to them to redistribute.

In the words of George Will, "when did it become 'COMPASSIONATE' to take money from one group and give it to another."

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Here we go...again with the taxes (LINK)

Give the democrats credit...they used to run as phony tax cutters (like Clinton and Gore) and just jack up taxes once they get in. This time, they are being clear: the party of big government and big spending is the Democratic party. Thank you Charlie Rangel for that clarity.

A Tax Plan as Trial Run for ’09 Law

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — The House’s leading Democratic tax writer will propose a sweeping overhaul of the tax code on Thursday that would increase taxes on many people with incomes above $200,000 but cut them for most others.

The bill, to be introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would also overhaul corporate taxes by eliminating many major tax breaks and lowering overall tax rates.

Mr. Rangel has acknowledged that he does not expect to enact such a bill this year, and President Bush would almost certainly veto legislation that raises taxes on the wealthy.

If you feel left out...not making 200,000 per year, not to worry...we all will be impacted when economic growth slows and business are forced to lay off workers. When tax revenues fall short because earnings and wages are down...they'll come back for round 2.

Anyone interested in 'Don't Blame Me I Voted Republican' bumper stickers?


Submitted by D.B. Jackson