August 27, 2008
While the 2004 platform did not mention global warming, the draft document Republican delegates took up today in committee includes a one-page section "addressing climate change responsibly." For the first time, the platform acknowledges that human activity has contributed to global warming: "The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth."So, let's do something about that, huh? After all, the science is "settled," right? I mean, what the fuck is the GOP doing here? Sure, let's acknowledge that industrialization has led to global prosperity...and then yank the rug out from under that statement and talk like Democrats about AGW horseshit. Great.
The article goes on to say that the platform doesn't endorse the Cap and Trade schemes that McCain seems to favor. Thank God for small mercies.
But, of course, even this bone thrown toward the left isn't achieving much of anything, if the reaction of League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski is any indication:
"This sounds like more of the Bush White House plan: acknowledge the problem as real, but propose no serious solutions to deal with it," Karpinski said in a phone interview, as he attended the Democratic National Convention in Denver.Gee, a little socialism isn't enough to convince a Barack supporter like Gene? Too bad. Well, I'm sure it won't piss off conservatives suspicious of government schemes to curtail a problem that seems to be based on shaky "science" and MSM hysteria enough to keep them from turning out to vote, right? Right?
I've been one of those foax who have been saying that a bite of the turd sandwich would at least be better than at least four years of Jimmah Carter redux, but Zombie Reagan and Cthulhu are looking like better and better write-in votes every day. How's about you don't help elect the most liberal candidate evah, GOP? Is that too much to ask for?
August 26, 2008
The downsides are—as I've noted many times before—he doesn't have much in the way of national security credentials and has a big seriousness gap, obviously not trifling matters.
How about his obnoxious demagoguery against business, his squishy big government pro-taxation stance, all the "Shi'ite Republican" nonsense, his demagoguing Mitt Romney and teh gheys, and his desire to turn the government into a mission church, remember? I can't even believe Lowry would embarrass himself by uttering this kind of stupidity in public(Okay, I can, but Huck? Weak, dude).
You want the rest of the conservative movement to walk, do what Lowry says, just remember who runs the political machinery and who pays the bills. Let me assure you, if it's Huck, there's no way in Hell I'd EVER vote for McCain, EVER, and I wouldn't be alone.
You know what, if you need a quick reminder why the Hucktard should never be in a position of power, here it is,
August 25, 2008
"But you know what, in my heart I knew he was right," he said of his pork barrel ways. That's no way to do business, we shouldn't be doing all that earmarking -- it got completely out of control.Good to know you finally saw the light, immediately after it was no longer politically inconvenient. What a twat. Oh, and shame on Mississippi for reelecting this corrupt scumbag election cycle after election cycle. Surely they could have found an Andy Harris to defeat the corrupt Lott in Mississippi.
"It got out of control with Republicans and that's why we are being punished a little bit," he added. "Because we forgot how we got there, what we believed in, the principles that after 30 years put us in the majority, gave us the White House, the congress, the senate, the house. And then we ran out of ideas... "
August 21, 2008
I did a quick search and Joe isn't the only one to get one, and I'll bet more reports of this idiotic RNC stunt will come out as the day rolls on. Good grief, the RNC leadership must have to carry 'em in baskets. Who came up with this brilliant idea? The GOP leadership has been nothing but a bunch of fuckups for years, and now they have the audacity to act like they're owed money?
That takes balls. Big fucking brass ones. Seriously, these PAST DUE envelopes are damned incompetent, even by GOP leadership standards. If the RNC had any sense, the idiot who came up with this half baked idea would be put in stocks and pelted with rotten produce and eggs. Instead, they'll probably become Chairman, if they aren't Chair already.
Well, if he becomes GOP vice presidential nominee Tim Pawlenty, that is:
I missed this, but Chris Cilizza caught it: After Pawlenty attacked Obama for standing by his opposition to the surge, Bayh responded incredulously: "Tim, you opposed the surge....I read about it in your hometown newspaper." Pawlenty was rocked back on his heels, noting that he had said at the time that he was "skeptical" of the surge.
There have been some people on the right recently noting* that Evan Bayh's nomination would be problematic for Obama, as Bayh voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq. How much worse would it be for McCain to choose someone who didn't support the surge?
*I know I've seen statements to that effect on more than one blog, but I can't find any of them for the life of me. If you know what I'm thinking of, feel free to drop it in the comments and I'll add it.
August 19, 2008
Beyond that, you have a lot of people who are Christian Democrat types like Huckabee, who might be sympathetic to Obama's socialist vision because it reflects their own desire to turn the government into a mission church, but things like the life issue keep them GOP. There are also a number of Catholics who fall into a similar camp.
There are also a lot of evangelicals nervous that they're going to get screwed by the GOP like the rest of us in the conservative movement, and they may be willing to bail and throw 2008 to the Democrats to see to it that the GOP knows that they aren't expendable, and won't be taken for granted.
I'm guessing that this is because he's considering Ridge to try and get PA. I honestly don't know that he'd deliver PA. Joe would probably be better suited to answer that question, maybe he'll drop by or post something, but I just don't think he'd be able to do it.
August 14, 2008
I was busy playing with my He-man figures and watching "ThunderCats" in the 1980s, so you'll forgive me for not following Tom Ridge's Congressional career too closely. But this shows that, even without considering abortion, Tom Ridge should have no place on any GOP vice presidential ticket (emphasis mine):
Just as most Pennsylvania Democrats are more conservative than the national party, Pennsylvania Republicans are typically more liberal. Ridge fits the mold. Between 1984 and 1988, for example, he was more likely to oppose President Reagan's position on a given issue than he was to support it, according to a Congressional Quarterly analysis. In 1987 and '88, he aligned himself with the Reagan White House only 40 percent of the time. He supported President Bush somewhat more often, but he still lagged far behind the typical House Republican. Following a minimum-wage vote on which Ridge was one of only 19 Republicans to favor a hike, a reporter asked Pennsylvania congressman Bill Goodling whether Ridge had any friends left in Congress. "On our side of the aisle, he would have none," replied Goodling.
But, again, it was a tough district. If a Republican must cast union- friendly votes to hold the seat, Republicans argued, then so be it. Better that than a Democrat who won't stand with the GOP on anything.
Except that Ridge held a number of positions that can't be explained by devotion to his blue-collar constituents. At a time when Reagan was peeling off Democrats on Cold War issues, Ridge consistently played the dove. He voted to support the nuclear freeze, abolish the MX missile, deny funding to the Nicaraguan contra rebels, and adopt Pat Schroeder's plan to bar nuclear tests above one kiloton.
Weren't we just hammering the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004 for supporting this very same legislation as it appeared in the U.S. Senate? Do we not remember Zell Miller's speech at the 2004 RNC Convention? This is a joke. In light of this, I think Tom Ridge would actually be worse than Sen. Joe Lieberman. At least he doesn't have the stain of that ridiculous color-coded terror alert or the Bush Administration ties on his record.
Oh, by the way, this article was written in summer 2000 urging Gov. George W. Bush of Texas not to choose Tom Ridge. It's as true in 2008 as it was then. Make sure to read the whole thing.
It would be nice if we could actually highlight a conservative one of these nights. We did the whole "big tent" theme last convention.
August 13, 2008
Questions for the idjits in the Senate GOP: What the hell makes most of you think you deserve our help? Also, even if the Dems don't quite make the 60, what difference would it make? There are always enough RINO and/or Klepto Republicans in the Senate to sell out to the Democrats in the name of capitulation "compromise*" or enough pork money to throw a win to the left anyway, you know, like the Gang of Ten is trying to do now.
So no, if there are Senate candidates to give to, I'll find their campaigns and donate directly. No way am I going to subsidize efforts by Lindsey Graham and those like him to sell us out, and no way am I going to subsidize efforts by those like Thad Cochran and Ted Stevens to raid the public coffers.
*And when I say compromise, I don't mean real compromise, either giving a few feet to them so we can take a mile then or later, or brokering a "you do your thing, we do ours, never shall the paths meet" thing. Compromise isn't necessarily a dirty word in itself.
However, the GOP elite version of compromise has a different meaning altogether. Compromise in the GOP elite world is defined as a willingness to let the left and Democrats win, but to delay it long enough or sell out in a way that they don't have to live to see the consequences of their selling out, Senate firewall my ass.
August 08, 2008
This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.
That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.
The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.
Gee thanks. And you know who this benefits? The Obamessiah. He is giddy and has praised their efforts. Obama can now ask why The Maverick isn't supporting bi-partisan legislation. Oh, and it helps Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is in the Gang of 10 and also considered the most vulnerable Democrat seat in the Senate.
Way to go, fellas. This is just the strategy that will prevent that filibuster-proof majority. Riiiiiiight. And for the record, none of these Republican senators are up for re-election this fall. Surprise!
August 07, 2008
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) is facing former Gov. Mark Warner in this year's U.S. Senate race in Virginia. For a variety of reasons I knew that Warner would be winning in Novmber, but I didn't realize the contrast in fundraising figures until today:
Mark Warner - $15,801,416
Jim Gilmore - $1,033,914
Cash on hand
Mark Warner - $10,214,758
Jim Gilmore - $116,769
Yikes. On a positive note, I think VA Attorney General (and fellow Regent University alumnus) Bob McDonnell will probably be elected governor in 2009.
August 05, 2008
Not surprising at all. When one of my friends last year found out I was supporting Rudy Giuliani, he said, "The thing about fiscal conservatism is that nearly everyone who runs on that platform abandons it eventually, and then you're left with someone who has few, if any conservative positions." Well, Arnold proves this statement true every time he opens his mouth:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a temporary one-cent increase in the state sales tax for the next three years in exchange for long-term fixes he believes would solve the state's perennial budget woes, several sources familiar with the negotiations said Monday.
The governor's proposal comes as he and lawmakers are 35 days into the fiscal year with no approved spending plan.
Schwarzenegger has said he opposes tax increases, but was willing to consider all options to close an estimated $15.2 billion shortfall in the $101 billion general fund.
Boy, it's a good thing California Republicans chose Arnold instead of Tom McClintock in 2003, otherwise a liberal might have won the recall election.
August 02, 2008
"I think we should be in a post-racial environment," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., a supporter of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., "I think Sen. [Barack] Obama has done an admirable job of that. I don't think he has race-baited. I think he has been very good about that."What a douche.
60 queries taking 0.1311 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.