Wednesday, December 05, 2007
I appreciate Mr. Lyman allowing me to occasionaly write on his blog, he is a good friend and an even better political operative.
So Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of the CCP readers out there. Get behind a conservative candidate in 08, you'll be glad you did!
With that I will leave you with this breaking news story about Mitt Romney.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Huckabee, a hundred pounds ago, practically begs the Arkansas legislature for a tax increase:
Friday, November 09, 2007
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan:
Salazar gives credit to brother for Musgrave work?
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave is taking a page from the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield’s playbook today saying “I don’t get no respect!”
Although Musgrave most certainly uses better grammar, her office said this afternoon they are unclear as to why Sen. Ken Salazar, failed to give her the political props – a.k.a the credit – she deserves on brokering Pinon Canyon legislation.
In a press release sent by Salazar’s office, the first-term Colorado senator passes praise onto his little brother, Rep. John Salazar, a Democrat from the Western Slope of Colorado, for his efforts to stop an army expansion of Pinon Canyon in El Paso County. The senator failed to mention Musgrave at all, even though the Fort Morgan Republican authored the legislation he was praising.
Musgrave authored a House amendment that blocked the Army from moving forward for one year on any plans to expand the Pinon Canyon site. She enlisted John Salazar as a House co-sponsor.
Colorado's two senators, Democrat Ken Salazar and Republican Wayne Allard. initially balked at supporting the amendment but later came on board when the Senate considered the issue.
I highly recommend this weekend reading.
...But if the Republican Party is full of pretenders, where does one look for Goldwater’s true heirs?
To answer that question, one has to look to the sharpest division that split the Goldwater movement of the ’60s. It wasn’t the division between libertarians and traditionalists, it was the division that separated idealistic libertarians and traditionalists alike, the campaign amateurs, from the campaign professionals. The conservative movement still pays lip service to economic liberty, social order, and military strength—but on all three points, Republicans have become hollow men who have preserved the rites of Goldwaterism but who long ago lost its spirit. That was an amateur spirit—in both the best and worst senses of the word—and it drew together in common cause traditionalists and libertarians as different as Brent Bozell and Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess.
...The conventional wisdom overvalues politics and undervalues the philosophy of the movement: it overlooks the ways in which Goldwater succeeded far beyond the electoral success of a Johnson or a Nixon—or a Bush. The Conscience of a Conservative continues to be read today because it isn’t a political tract, a soulless campaign book of the sort generated by every other modern presidential effort.
The idealism and amateurism of the Goldwater people inspired a movement in a way that political professionals never could: indeed, the cynical professionalism and win-at-all-costs mentality of today’s conservatives, best represented by Karl Rove, has had the opposite effect. Goldwater galvanized America’s youth—Young Americans for Freedom grew directly out of Youth for Goldwater. Under the professional Republicans of the past decade, on the other hand, conservatives have lost whatever momentum they had with the next generation...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Harvey was surrounded by supporters, including:
State Senator Greg Brophy
State Senator Mike Kopp
State Senator Josh Penry
State Senator Scott Renfroe
State Senator Dave Schultheis
State Rep. Cory Gardner
State Rep. Kent Lambert
State Rep. Kevin Lundberg
State Rep. Mike May (House Minority Leader)
State Rep. Frank McNulty
State Rep. Ken Summers
UPDATE: Here is Harvey's announcement press release:
Senator Conservative Republican State Ted Harvey Announces Candidacy for 6th Congressional District
In announcing his candidacy, Senator Harvey touted his conservative experience on issues important to the district. “As an elected legislator for the past 6 years, I’ve worked hard to reduce taxes, shrink government, as well as pass legislation to protect life and crack down on illegal immigration,” said Harvey. “As a Member of Congress, voters know they can count on me to continue my proven record of conservative leadership on the issues most important to them.”
Senator Harvey was joined by several Republican State Representatives and Senators at the event. Already, the Ted Harvey for Congress campaign has earned support from half the Republican delegation in both the State House and State Senate as well as numerous county officials from across the district.
Initial support for
Rep. Rob Witwer (R) Sen. Mike Kopp (R)
Rep. Ken Summers (R) Sen. Scott Renfroe (R)
Rep. Steve King (R) Sen. Josh Penry (R)
Rep. Jim Kerr (R) Sen. Greg Brophy (R)
Rep. Mike May (R) Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
Rep. Ray Rose (R) Sen. Dave Schultheis (R)
Rep. Cory Gardner (R) Sen. Ken Kester (R)
Rep. Kent Lambert (R) Rep. Frank McNulty (R)
Rep. Kevin Lundberg (R) Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R)Rep. Amy Stephens (R)
“I’m proud to have the support of so many of my colleagues and grassroots leaders because they know I will work hard to champion conservative values in Congress like Tom Tancredo has,” Concluded Senator Harvey.
From his press release:
Colorado state Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle Rock, announced today that he will seek re-election to a second term in the Colorado State Senate and will not be a candidate for the sixth congressional seat being vacated by retiring Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
"I believe I can have a more positive impact on the future of Colorado by continuing to serve in the State Senate than by being a member of Congress," Wiens said. "This has become even more clear to me given the events of the last several days in which we have seen our Democrat governor practicing government by fiat, ignoring the best interests of the people and bypassing the entire legislative process. Governor Ritter is clearly placing the interests of his political benefactors above the interests of the people."
Wiens said Gov. Bill Ritter's controversial executive order last Friday, granting labor unions bargaining power over state employees, will increase the costs of government in Colorado and reduce its efficiency and our competitiveness as a state. He went on to say, tax payers expect real and tangible results from their state government "Instead, we are now are in an environment where special interests are the only ones getting results."
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The Greeley Tribune announced their endorsements for Greeley City Council spots. Of course we all know that our community has waited with bated breath to know the unsearchable mind of the all-wise Tribunal staff, because after all, this is the election season and we need them to think for us.
In Ward 1, their adulation goes to candidate Denise Hall. In their words, she is an impressive candidate...one who is “smart, articulate, and thoughtful. She brings diversity to the council personally and professionally.” In short, the Tribune think tank believes that Hall is best qualified to grasp the issues and articulate change, which is needed on city council.
However, as reported on www.greeleyreport.com, what they fail to detail is Hall’s history and alternative lifestyle…one which undoubtedly serves as a foundation for her political agenda waiting to be imposed on Greeley if elected. You see, Hall is a proud and radical lesbian with a history of activism in the gay pride movement. In 1994, while assisting with the organization of an interfaith service for the annual gay pride parade in Oklahoma City, she apparently sought out input from the queer pagans group but was not able to find their organization. In her own words, “I was unable to locate the queer pagans group. Unfortunately, I had to plan the service without their input”.
Yet despite her adherence to moral views that many find to be perverse rather than diverse, according to the Tribune, this is the missing ingredient needed on our city council, and Denise Hall is the answer we’ve all been looking for. But it makes many stop and wonder this: If Denise Hall IS the answer, are we even asking intelligent questions? Perhaps the missing ingredient in our annual 4th of July parade is an appearance by the queer pagans group along with our veterans and Christian organizations which do so much to build family values rather than attack them.
Or perhaps, maybe what’s missing is a news source in Greeley that is fair and balanced…one which won’t omit relevant facts in order to promote its own agenda.
The only city we will have is the one we build, and if we find that we’re riding a dead horse, logic dictates that at some point we should dismount.If we want Greeley to be a 1st rate city, it’s incumbent upon the voters to choose their candidates wisely. Prosperous cities don’t just “happen” by chance, they’re built by good decisions and principled leaders…something we desperately need in Greeley.
Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.
Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."
Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.
"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.
The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.
Monday, November 05, 2007
From the Loveland Reporter-Herald:
Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani will stump in Loveland and Windsor next week. He’ll spend the night in a Loveland hotel room on Friday night, then sip his Saturday morning coffee in a Loveland cafe shortly before meeting with local supporters at a Windsor country club.
State Rep. Don Marostica — a staunch supporter of the presidential bid of the former New York City mayor — said he had to make the commitment to host Giuliani’s campaign here on short notice. “They called me last Friday (and) said you have 11 minutes to make a decision, or else we’re going to take him to Lincoln, Neb.,” Marostica said. ...
The big spenders are mostly business people who will want to discuss business issues, Marostica said.
The Colorado representative expects to far exceed the $60,000 minimum required by the fundraising committee. “I don’t want to say it was easy,” he said, “but it was pretty easy.”
Despite the bitter wailing and gnashing of teeth from of axe-grinding liberals like Jim Spencer and Jason Bane (who attempt to masquerade as journalists for ColoradoPols.com and Colorado Confidential.com) the Post's editorial is spot on.
The piece attacks both the means and the ends of Ritter plan.
When Coloradans elected Bill Ritter as governor, they thought they were getting a modern-day version of Roy Romer, a pro-business Democrat. Instead, they got Jimmy Hoffa.
Ritter campaigned under the guise of a moderate "new Democrat" but now we know he's simply a toady to labor bosses and the old vestiges of his party — a bag man for unions and special interests.
The governor on Friday unveiled his plan to drive up the cost of doing business in Colorado by forcing collective bargaining on thousands of state employees.
We're concerned this may be the beginning of the end of Ritter as governor.
By pandering to unions, and the ever-shrinking 7.7 percent of the electorate that belong to unions, he's broken his "Colorado Promise" to voters. His promise to usher in a new era of collaborative government — where business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, would all be at the table — was nothing more than a sham.
It's unconscionable for the governor of a state that's limped through lean budget years to knowingly drive up the cost of government. And for what? Political payback to unions?
He's even doing an end-run on the legislature, controlled by his own party. Instead of introducing a bill in the legislature that could be debated and fine-tuned — the collaborative process he promised — Ritter junked what has worked for Colorado for decades with the flick of a pen. He didn't even have the guts to stand before the public and announce his plan. Instead, he sent out a press release late Friday afternoon when he hoped no one was looking.
It's government by fiat.
Ritter sailed into office with an unusual but strong coalition of business and labor backing his bid. But he has now corrupted that relationship with business, and the bulk of his agenda is at risk. He also has damaged his party, which enjoys power in Colorado partly because of that moderate face they painted for themselves in recent years.
Without business in his corner, we fear Ritter won't be able to effectively shepherd a comprehensive health care solution through the statehouse. And any plans he may have for a new revenue stream for higher education are dangling by a thread, too.
Perhaps more importantly, we're concerned he's lost whatever business support he had to reform Colorado's budget process. And that could very well doom his governorship. Gov. Bill Owens was able to pass Referendum C, which freed up money for five years from the state's tight revenue caps, because he had a strong coalition of business leaders helping to win support from GOP voters, who happen to be the largest block of Colorado voters.
Ritter will be rudderless if he tries to convince voters to approve an extension of Referendum C.
Experts say collective bargaining can add as much as 30 percent to the cost of doing business. Tell us, how does that make sense for a state that can hardly pay its bills and plans to come to voters as soon as 2009 with its hand out?
Ritter's two Democratic predecessors, Dick Lamm and Romer, were able to govern for 24 years, collectively, without introducing collective bargaining.
State employees are paid well, and treated well. In fact, by one estimate, they already earn 25 percent more than workers in surrounding states and their pay is 9 percent higher than the national average. We're ninth best in the country in paying our state employees, but not long ago we were 49th in the nation in K-12 spending as a percentage of personal income. Strange priorities, indeed.
Had Ritter thought employees were somehow getting a raw deal, he could have waved his magic wand and changed all that. He is the governor, after all. Instead, he's decided to prop up unions.
Now, he runs the risk of becoming Colorado's first one-term governor since Walter Johnson in 1950.
Coloradans bought the Colorado Promise, but may end up with a trail of broken promises.
A governor with such early promise has squandered his future in order to keep his backroom promises to a few union bosses.
And Colorado is the loser.
The Denver Post's editorial board operates independently of the paper's news coverage.
TheGreeleyReport.com has the story:
Alliance for a Better Greeley spokesman John Hagen earlier today expressed outrage regarding Greeley’s gang-related percentage of homicides and methamphetamine distribution, declaring that the city’s policies - and its current mayor – “have put out the welcome mat” regarding gangs and crime, which hurts economic prosperity.
“Tom Selders went to D.C. and put Greeley on the map in front of the nation as a city that’s lax on law and order. Greeley’s citizens must now spring into action to save the city from continued crime, deteriorating quality of life, and economic decline,” said Hagen. “Gangs victimize cities perceived as weak on crime and law enforcement.”
“The housing revenue boom is over, and criminal gangs are consolidating in cities like Greeley. It’s vital every opponent of gangs & crime turn up the heat on elected officials in Greeley.”
The group stands behind the charges it made in a previous mailing, and on Saturday, a large wave of the same postcards were received by residents across Greeley.
Friday, November 02, 2007
We know the seat is hopeless for Democrats, but couldn’t they find someone without a criminal record to run in this race?
From the Fort Collins Coloradoan:
Democratic state House challenger Crusificio “Cross” Gambino pleaded guilty to class 5 felony theft charges last year stemming from check fraud and was sentenced to three years probation, according to court records.
Gambino, 30, who Tuesday announced his intention to run for House District 51 - which covers north Loveland and the southern edge of Fort Collins - could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Phone numbers for Gambino obtained by Coloradoan public records searches were not active, and knocks on the door of his Fort Collins-based marketing firm, Gambino and Associates, were not answered.
Gambino would face Republican incumbent Rep. Don Marostica in 2008 if he runs for the seat.
According to court records, Gambino pleaded guilty to class 5 felony theft charges Jan. 12, 2006, and was sentenced to three years probation March 3 the same year.
Gambino can still run for the office with a felony conviction, a spokesman for the state Secretary of State’s Office said Wednesday.
“If you are a felon serving a prison sentence or on parole, you cannot vote,” spokesman Richard Coolidge said. “As it relates to a candidate for an office, if you’re on probation, there is nothing that would (preclude) you from running.”
Gambino said Tuesday he has been a longtime supporter of the Democratic Party. A check of voter registration records showed Gambino as a registered unaffiliated voter in Weld County.
Calls to Larimer County Democratic Chairman Adam Bowen and a late afternoon call to Marostica were not answered.
So-called "political genius," and state party Chair Dick Wadhams publicly insulted a sitting member of Congress from his own party.
From The Politico.com:
“The most lethal charge against Doug [Lamborn] is that he just doesn’t have the personal and intellectual strength to be the congressman for the 5th District.”
If Wadhams truly wanted to stay out of the CO-5 primary, he would have sat on his hands and said nothing. Given Wadhams willingness to push around Wayne Wolf, Bob Schaffer's primary opponent, he has shown he IS willing to support primary candidates.
Wadhams is wrong to publicly attack a conservative member of congress.
Shame on Dick Wadhams, shame on the state party.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
"Well, I'm a Republican mayor, but I"m really not. I'm the mayor of New York City. I ran as a Republican, I ran as a Liberal — which really confuses all kinds of people — and I ran as an Independent, as part of the Independent Party, which actually is now the party that's supporting Ross Perot. So I ran a fusion candidacy, like my predecessor Fiorello LaGuardia. So I'm not the most partisan of Republicans."
You can read the full WSJ article here.
Money quote from Phyllis Schlafly:
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."
RINO Bill Owens piles on:
Governors who served with him praise Mr. Huckabee for his ability to work with others, but say he was clearly a moderate. "He fought my efforts to reform the National Governors Association and always took fiscal positions to my left," former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a supporter of Mitt Romney, told me.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Representative Tom Tancredo has announced that he will announce his decision on whether to run for Colorado's Sixth Congressional District the day after the World Series ends. While Tancredo could go either way with his decision, many fear that he will decide not to seek another term in Congress. That being the case, is there a way we can convince Rockies skipper Clint Hurdle to not win the final series clinching game until after the November 2008 election?
Yes, it would be the longest game in World Series history. A game that lasted over a year and if my math is correct would be somewhere around 26,208 innings long. We're talking about the Rockies though, they can get an RBI whenever they want and defensively speaking Troy Tulowitzki could probably handle the fielding by himself.
It is possible.
It also would also be well worth it to keep a conservative hero like Tom Tancredo in office. Tom has single handedly brought the issue of immigration to the forefront of politics. With the exception of perhaps Ron Paul no other representative sparks enthusiasm among hard line conservatives the way Tom Tancredo does. You name the issue and I guarantee you Tancredo is on the right side of it.
While those in line to fill the 6th would make great members of Congress, it will be abit disheartening to see someone like Tancredo leave us(at least for the time being).
Congressman Tancredo we salute you and while we are eager for the Rockies to bring home that World Series trophy, I for one would be willing to wait just abit longer to get it.
From Roll Call (only those with subscriptions can view the article online)
He’ll Reveal Re-election Plans at the Conclusion of the World Series
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff
Play Ball! While most of Colorado surely is preoccupied with the Colorado Rockies’ first World Series appearance, a subset of fans located in the Centennial State’s 6th district probably is anticipating Major League Baseball’s main event for another reason.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R), who is in the midst of a long-shot presidential bid, will announce the day after the Series ends whether he will run for re-election to his House seat. His retirement could ignite a heated GOP primary in the solidly Republican 6th district between state Sens. Ted Harvey and Tom Wiens and small-business man Wil Armstrong, the son of former Sen. Bill Armstrong (R-Colo.).
Tancredo spokesman T.Q. Houlton confirmed this week that his boss would reveal his 2008 plans the day after the last Rockies game. That could come as soon as Monday, should either the Rockies or the Boston Red Sox sweep the best-of-seven series, which was scheduled to begin Wednesday night after Roll Call went to press.
The first two games were scheduled to be played in Boston, with games three and four scheduled for Saturday and Sunday in Denver.
“People very close to him don’t think he’s going to run,” said one knowledgeable Colorado Republican. “But I still have a hard time thinking he’s going to walk away from everything.”
While stoking his White House ambitions for the past several months, Tancredo has long eyed the 2010 Senate race and a potential matchup against Sen. Ken Salazar (D). Many Colorado insiders have speculated that Tancredo will run for Senate in 2010, retaining his House seat until then.
The younger Armstrong said Wednesday that he is giving serious consideration to running for the 6th district GOP nomination in 2008 — but only if Tancredo retires at the end of his current term, his fifth in the House.
“I care what’s going on in our district and our state and our country, and if he chooses not to run again I will think very hard about it. I’m leaning that way,” Armstrong said. “But frankly, if he stays as my Congressman, I’d be thrilled. He’s done a great job and I have lot of admiration for him.”
Armstrong, Harvey and Wiens each would make a strong candidate, according to Republican strategists, although each has a potential downside. Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R) also is seen as a formidable candidate, but GOP activists would prefer he hold off running until 2010, as Gov. Bill Ritter (D) presumably would appoint a Democrat to replace him if he ran for Congress next year and won.
Tancredo mostly is known for his ardent opposition to illegal immigration and his work in Congress to overhaul federal immigration law. Tancredo’s outspokenness on the matter has helped him build a national public profile, and his supporters credit him for the fact that addressing illegal immigration has become a major campaign issue in the presidential race and in many Congressional contests.
Strident remarks Tancredo has made on other subjects — including that dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca in Saudi Arabia should be a military option in the war on terror — have added to his run of national publicity.
However, Colorado Republicans note that he remains beloved in his district, and they contend that he is known for more than illegal immigration back home. Republicans there say his support for education reform and his opposition to wasteful government spending has earned him a reputation for being a reliable conservative on issues important to Republican voters.
Like Armstrong, Harvey is interested in running for Congress if Tancredo retires. Harvey said most political activists in the district place the odds of Tancredo running again at 50-50, although they are beginning to believe more and more that he will seek a sixth term.
If Tancredo does retire, Harvey predicted a crowded and competitive GOP primary to replace him, as the district leans heavily Republican and the winner of the intraparty contest likely would cruise to victory in the general election. Tancredo’s worst performance since ascending to the House in 1998 occurred in 2000, when he won re-election with 54 percent of the vote.
President Bush won the suburban Denver 6th district with 60 percent of the vote in 2000 and 2004.
“I think the primary will be a highly contested race,” Harvey said.
Harvey said he would wait for Tancredo’s decision before figuring out his own plans. The state Senator has two young children, ages 7 and 10, and he said that definitely would factor into his decision.
Wiens could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
The state Senate districts held by Harvey and Wiens include separate though significant chunks of the 6th Congressional district. That could give each of them an advantage over other potential primary candidates, although their support does not extend outside of their legislative seats.
Armstrong’s father, the former Senator, is still revered by Colorado Republicans, and that could help the small-business man should he run for Congress. However, he would have to overcome the notion that he is trying to win a political office on his father’s coattails.
“Ted [Harvey] and Tom [Wiens] both are very serious, legitimate candidates,” the knowledgeable Colorado Republican said. “But I think Wil [Armstrong] is the intriguing wild card that could surprise a lot of people. I don’t think there’s a frontrunner in it.”
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Right Brain or Left Brain?
When I looked at it this morning I swear it was moving counterclockwise now it is definately moving clockwise and I am having a hard time forcing myself to see it otherwise.
(Hat tip to former Colorado political operative, turned VA GOP spokesman, Shaun Kenney for the link)
From Roll Call (Unfortunately the only way you can only access the actual article is if you have a subscription to Roll Call)
By Stuart Rothenberg
October 22, 2007
If there is anything that points out the difference between most Republicans and most Democrats, it is Congress’ effort to pass a resolution that labels Turkey’s slaughter of Armenians almost a century ago as “genocide.”
The White House has opposed the action, which has been pushed by House Democrats. While some Republicans have been supporting the measure (and supported previous attempts to please Armenian-Americans by embarrassing Turkey), the current resolution is primarily a Democratic initiative on Capitol Hill.
But if you cut through all of the politicking and even put aside the specifics of the current controversy, you see that fundamentally, the issue is this: For Republicans, politics is never having to say you’re sorry. For Democrats, politics primarily is about an endless number of apologies and condolences, and a feeling of unquenchable guilt, though it tends to be institutional, not personal.
Republicans apparently figure that what’s past is past, so you might as well forget about it. You got a problem? Deal with it. As a party, the GOP isn’t big on apologies, reparations or public assertions of sympathy.
It’s not that Republicans never experience guilt. Actually, they are drowning in it. But it’s personal guilt, some of it apparently coming from original sin (except for Rep. Eric Cantor [Va.] and Sens. Arlen Specter [Pa.] and Norm Coleman [Minn.], no doubt).
As former President Bill Clinton proved, Democrats are much better at publicly feeling people’s pain, even if it occurred more than 100 years ago and all of the people actually involved in the incident are long gone. It doesn’t even matter whether the United States was involved. Democrats pretty much are ready to apologize or commiserate for anything, anyplace and anytime.
Luckily for Democrats, we’ve had centuries of people oppressing people around the world, so there is almost an endless supply of brutalities and injustices deserving of attention, classification, condemnation and apology.
In fact, so many unfortunate things have happened over the past few centuries that the next Democratic Congress can spend pretty much all of its time, if it wants to, apologizing to groups and demanding that other people apologize, too. Democrats have only begun to scratch the surface on groups they want to apologize to.
The problem for the Democrats is that the controversy over Congress’ steps to assert that Turkey was guilty of a policy of genocide isn’t a laughing matter — at least it isn’t to the Turks. Instead, it is the first truly dumb thing that Democrats may have done since the party won both chambers of Congress last year.
It now looks as if House Democrats may put the Armenian genocide measure in the deep freeze, hoping that everyone forgets about it. But while that may limit the damage that the party could cause itself, burying the measure wouldn’t inoculate Democrats completely from the fallout caused by their initial efforts to pass the resolution.
I recently asked a couple of Democrats — an incumbent Member of Congress from a Democratic-leaning district who is on record supporting the measure and a long-shot Congressional challenger in a Republican district — whether they now favored the genocide resolution, and both acted as if the measure were infected with botulism.
The resolution has strained U.S.-Turkish relations at exactly the worst time, when a Turkish incursion into Iraq could complicate the already complicated American military and political mission in Iraq.
“Democrats are harming the future of the United States and are encouraging anti-American sentiments,” Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan asserted about 10 days ago.
Democrats, of course, have been criticizing President Bush for years for allegedly contributing to an increase in anti-Americanism around the world, so Erdogan’s comment gives Republicans ammunition to use against Democrats.
If Turkey’s military forces cross into Iraq to attack Kurdish guerillas, Republicans could well try to change the subject of Iraq by blaming Democrats for antagonizing the government of Turkey and undermining the U.S. effort in Iraq.
Democrats have been successful for the past few years by keeping the focus on GOP failures and by criticizing Bush administration policies. But the House leadership’s miscalculations on the “genocide” resolution points out both that making policy is more difficult than criticizing and that House Democrats are likely to make their share of problems when they become more ambitious.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
October 18th, 2007
Greeley City Clerk
Attn: Betsy Holder
Greeley City Clerk’s Office
100 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Open Records Act Request
Dear Ms Holder:
Please consider this letter to be a request for records pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201 et seq. (the “Act”).
Our organization is seeking records pertaining to the “contingency plan” concerning revised departmental budgets as presented or discussed by City Manager Roy Otto in the spring of 2007. Of course, we will pay reasonable costs for such information. This would include any paper or electronic communication that the Greeley Tribune recently referred to as involving “Greeley City Council proposing to cut…the police budget. Police Chief Jerry Garner and City Manager Roy Otto said…that all city departments had to have a contingency plan -- which included some cuts -- if city revenue dropped much more.”
Again, any communication pertaining to the “contingency plan”. We have also served this request upon the City of Greeley IT department to prevent any electronic communication from being deleted, as that would violate the intent and letter of the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201.
A copy of this request has been forwarded to all parties named herein, the State Attorney General, the local and state media, and likewise forwarded to our counsel. As the nature of this request goes to the heart of certain issues that Greeley residents may consider important in the short term, time is of the essence.
Please forward the information or contact me for any questions/clarification via the number(s) below as soon as possible.
Thanks very much.
CASA has been attacking liberal Greeley mayor Tom Selders over his weak stance on illegal immigration.
You can keep up to date on all the goings on in Greeley at the new blog the Greeley Report.
The Grand Junction Sentinel reports the Zakhem gave $400 to Rep. Bernie Buescher. Additionally, former GOP state representative Gayle Berry also gave money to Buescher.
From the report:
In his campaign finance filings, Buescher reported receiving $400 from John Zakhem, a Denver-based, Republican lawyer and former attorney for the Trailhead Group, a political campaign committee that targeted Buescher last year.
“(Zakhem) is perhaps as prominent a Republican as there is out there, and I was very pleased,” Buescher said. “I think that is demonstrative of the fact that I’ve been able to reach across the aisle and work with members of both parties.”
More than 30 percent of Buescher’s contributions, $1,150, came from lobbyists, including $100 from former Grand Junction Republican Rep. Gayle Berry, the documents show.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Senator Ron May is expect to announce his retirement, paving the way for Rep. Bill Cadman to take over his senate seat, via vacancy committee.
It is widely believed that Doug Bruce, author of TABOR, will full Cadman's house seat.
Rumors to this affect have been swirling around the golden dome since early this year, and it seems like now we're just waiting for May's announcement to put these balls in motion.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
October 11, 2007 (Eagle County) — Eagle County resident and political news commentator Muhammad Ali Hasan has filed as a candidate for Colorado State Senate District 8 with the Secretary of State. While a final decision on a run for the seat is not expected until January, Hasan has decided to move forward in the process to adhere to state campaign laws and to allow for more liberty in exploring his options.
“I have a deep respect for campaign laws,” Hasan said. “Since there is no provision for exploratory committees is Colorado, filing shows everyone I am serious about thoroughly evaluating a possible run. I plan to use the next few months to have conversations with residents and local party leadership before making my final decision.”
Hasan has an extensive background in political commentating for national news networks and as a political activist. Locally, Hasan was a founding member of the Eagle County Young Republicans, served as their first president, and currently serves on the Eagle County Republicans Finance Committee. Hasan holds a Masters degree and is a former public school teacher to extremely low-income, urban students.
Senate District 8, currently represented by term limited Republican Jack Taylor, includes all of Eagle, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco and Routt counties, as well as parts of Garfield county. Hasan said he believes he could bring new energy, ideas and a commitment to be an advocate for the issues that matter most in Senate District 8.
Hasan’s high energy and interest in local issues is appealing, said business owner Rick Spencer of Routt County. The two met on several occasions as Hasan traveled the district, and Spencer said Hasan “leaves an impression.”
“He is highly energetic and he seems very curious,” Spencer said. “He gets very involved in things and is really working hard to get in step with what is going on here and what matters to our counties.”
Jeannie Ford Artez of Glenwood Springs said she is also impressed by Hasan’s energy and eagerness.
“Though I haven’t decided who to endorse yet, personally I think he is a terrific young man who is very bright,” Artez said. “I have very much enjoyed meeting with him and I look forward to seeing what he is going to do.”
Sunday, October 14, 2007
From Scripps Howard News
"The most important 'traditional value' in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House," says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani's social-conservative supporters.
People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as "the social issues," excluding other traditionalist concerns.
New York's former mayor "has abandoned social conservatism," commentator Maggie Gallagher complains. He "is anathema to social conservatives," veteran columnist Robert Novak recently wrote. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has said: "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008." Dobson and a cadre of Religious Right leaders threaten to deploy a pro-life, third-party candidate should Giuliani be nominated.
This "Rudyphobia" ignores Giuliani's pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.
While Giuliani accepts a woman's right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters in August: "By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions." Among Giuliani's relevant proposals:
--"My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process." Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape prevent moms and dads from adopting some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care.
-- Giuliani wants the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.
-- He would like to make permanent the $10,000 adoption tax credit.
-- Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.
This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. On his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York. Between 1993 and 2001, Gotham's tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.
Giuliani's campaign for personal responsibility created a climate that seemingly discouraged abortion. Moving 58 percent of recipients from welfare to work may have encouraged women and men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. New York's 57 percent overall-crime reduction and 67 percent homicide drop probably reinforced such self-control.
Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent.
-- Giuliani also proposed eliminating the city's $2,000 marriage penalty. He chopped it to $400.
-- Giuliani opposed gay marriage in 1989. "My definition of family is what it is," Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. "It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition."
-- He jettisoned New York's minority and women-owned business set-aside program. Giuliani explained: "The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination."
-- Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank New York's tax burden 17 percent. This left parents more money for children's healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.
Giuliani could have governed comfortably as a pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-quota, soft-on-crime, tax-and-spend, liberal Republican. Instead, Giuliani relentlessly pushed Reaganesque socio-economic reforms through a City Council populated by seven Republicans and 44 Democrats.
These accomplishments may explain why he leads his competitors and impresses churchgoers. Among Republicans in an Oct. 3 ABC/Washington Post poll, Giuliani outran former Sen. Fred Thompson, 34 percent to 17, versus Sen. John McCain's 12 percent, and Mitt Romney's 11. As "most electable," Giuliani scored 50 percent, versus McCain's 15, Thompson's 13, and Romney's 6.
An Oct. 3 Gallup survey found Giuliani enjoying a 38 percent net-favorable rating among churchgoing Catholics, compared to McCain's 29, and Thompson's 25. Among Protestant churchgoers, Thompson edges Giuliani 26 percent to 23, with McCain at 16, and Romney at 7.
Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani's entire, socially conservative record, not just the "socially liberal" caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.
This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: "The Clintons Reconquer Washington" -- bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Liberal Left has so distorted the facts, that I thought a brief reminder of what S-CHIP really is, would be in order.
Here is some of the analysis done by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling:
H.R. 976 reauthorizes and significantly expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while increasing cigarette taxes to supposedly offset the bill’s costs. The legislation follows closely the Senate-passed version of SCHIP reauthorization, expanding the program but discarding much of the Medicare-related provisions included in the House-passed legislation. Highlights of the bill are as follows:
Cost: H.R. 976 provides $34.9 billion over five years and $71.5 billion over ten years in new mandatory spending—this spending is on top of the $25 billion over five years that would result from a straight extension of the program. The House-passed version provided $47.4 billion over five years and $128.7 billion in new SCHIP spending (as well as billions of non-SCHIP spending).
The new spending is partially offset by increasing taxes on tobacco products (see below). However, this CBO score overlooks a major gimmick which the bill employs to lower its costs. The bill dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year by 80%, from $14.25 billion in the first six months to $1.75 billion. In all likelihood, such a reduction would not actually take effect, which would make this an effort to generate unrealistic savings in order to comply with PAYGO rules. To that end, H.R. 976 is technically compliant with PAYGO.
Some of the worst parts of S-CHIP include:
Encourages Spending: H.R. 976 shortens from three to two years the amount of time a state has to spend its annual SCHIP allotment. Under current law, states are given three years to spend each year’s original allotment, and at the end of the three-year period, any unused funds are redistributed to states that have exhausted their allotment or created a “shortfall,” i.e. making commitments beyond the funding it has available. In addition, the bill establishes a process through which any unspent funds would be redistributed to any states with a shortfall. Some conservatives may be concerned that this process provides incentives both for states to spend their allotment quickly and to extend their programs beyond their regular allotments into shortfall, so as to be relieved by the unspent funds of other states or the new Contingency Fund (see above).
Expansion to Higher Incomes: Under current law, states can cover families earning up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 or those at 50% above Medicaid eligibility. However, states have been able to “disregard” income with regard to eligibility for the program, meaning they can purposefully ignore various types of income in an effort to expand eligibility. For instance,
covers up to 350% of FPL by disregarding any income from 200-350%, allowing them to cover beyond 200% with the enhanced federal matching funds that SCHIP provides. New Jersey
As of 2010, H.R. 976 increases the eligibility limit to 300% of FPL or $61,950 for a family of four but also continues the current authority for states to define and disregard income. States which extend coverage beyond 300% of FPL would receive the lower Medicaid match rate. The bill also grandfathers states with an approved state plan amendment (or a state about to submit such an amendment in compliance with state law) that already covers those above 300% of poverty. This provision is for
New Jerseyand (seeking to cover 400% of FPL or $82,600 for a family of four). In addition, Section 116 of the bill overturns CMS’ current policy of requiring states to ensure that 95% of the eligible children in their state below 250% of FPL are enrolled before expanding coverage to higher incomes. New York
Adult Coverage: Under current law, some states cover nonpregnant, childless adults—these states have received waivers in the past in an effort to expand health insurance to uninsured populations, even though the program was intended for children. H.R. 976 would prohibit any further waivers but would provide continued funding for existing coverage of such adults through FY 2008. Beginning in FY 2009, funding for nonpregnant childless adults will be capped at FY 2008 levels, but states would receive the lower Medicaid match and be limited to only covering those already enrolled.
Additionally, the bill also weakens current law regarding illegal aliens recieving S-CHIP monies, increases taxes and penalizes those with private insurance.
The bottom line is simple: the bill would expand the SCHIP program by $35 billion over five years and loosen the program’s eligibility requirements while astronomically expanding the big-government welfare state.
From Change to Win (a union political website) Huckabee says:
"The real fact is, unions are going to take a more prominent role in the future for one simple reason: A lot of American workers are finding that their wages continue to get strapped lower and lower while CEO salaries are higher and higher.
And the reality is that when you have the average CEO salary 500 times the average worker, and you have the hedge fund manager making 2,200 times that of the average worker, you're going to create a level of discontent that's going to create a huge appetite for unions.
So unions are the natural result of workers finally saying, "Look, I can't go from a $70,000 year job to a $15,000 a year job and feed my family of four." That's when unions are going to come back in roaring form."
This is the hallmark of unionism: violence against workers.
From Huffington Post:
NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights...
As mayor of New York City, Giuliani had a pro-choice record, which has come under intense scrutiny since he entered the presidential race. In the GOP debates this past May, Giuliani said "it would be okay" to repeal Roe v. Wade, before adding, "But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman's right to make a different choice." In recent weeks, a coalition of prominent Christian conservative figures has threatened to support a third-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination.
NARAL has yet to announce an endorsement in the 2008 race. But Shipp acknowledged that Giuliani is the lone Republican in the field who could potentially win the organization's support. [Emphasis added]
"I've worked hand-in-hand with numerous Democrats to address bread-and-butter issues that are relevant to my district," Musgrave said in a statement. "My bipartisan efforts to pass (emergency) agricultural disaster assistance are far more important than a procedural vote."...
"Where she has reached out to the Democratic side, it has been on issues of direct concern to Colorado," Wadhams said. "I don't think there's any suggestion that she was changing her overall mainstream philosophy as a member of Congress."
This certainly hurts his elect-ability argument.
The bottom ine:
Matchups by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:
- Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43 percent, breaking a 44 - 44 percent tie September 12;
- Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40 percent, compared to 47 - 40 percent September 6;
- Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42 percent, up from 46 - 44 percent August 23.
"The news just keeps getting better for Sen. Clinton. She has a Democratic primary lead over Sen. Obama ranging from 27 to 34 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and is widening her margin over the Republican hopefuls in each of those three critical states," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
(H/T: NRO's The Campaign Spot)
Douglas Sylva on "We need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices." The Money Quote:
The “Pro-life, Pro-family” voting contingent require a candidate who sees threats as they do — as the pervasive efforts of cultural and social elites— and who is vigilant, and active, and courageous in response to these threats...
President George W. Bush has been that champion, and his administration has proven just how much more there is for a conservative president to do to than to select judges, even Supreme Court justices.
For years now an effort has been underway at the United Nation, for instance, to reinterpret international law in the hope of creating a universal right to abortion on demand. Various forces at the U.N. also seek to redefine the family, to establish complete sexual autonomy for adolescents, to create a worldwide right to homosexual marriage, to depress world fertility rates, and to legalize cloning in order to create human embryos for medical research...
More specifically, on his very first day in office, Bush reinstated the Reagan-era “Mexico City Policy,” which restricts federal funding from non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries. His enemies erupted in anger, naming the Mexico City Policy the “Global Gag Rule,” and claiming that Bush would be responsible for killing women who would not have recourse to legal abortions....
Would Giuliani have taken any one of these important actions? Not caring much about these issues, would Giuliani have even known about the threats? It is time for Rudy to acknowledge what pro-lifers already know only too well: that they need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices. Executive-branch neutrality is not acceptable. Rudy has to tell “Pro-life, Pro-family” voters whether or not he can be this sort of president, and he can start by promising to continue George W. Bush’s fight — his entire fight for life and family — at the United Nations.
The unnecessary Bush cheering aside, I think this is spot on. And for the record, I don't believe Rudy knows about pro-life issues and frankly I don't think he cares either.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
It isn't news that the leaders of the major Christian groups didn't agree on a potential pro-life third party candidates. That was reported in the original article.
The larger point is they were all in unanimous agreement that they would not support Rudy Giuliani for President.
Additionally 27% of Republican voters say they would support a pro-life, third party candidate over Giuliani. Regardless of what Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins do or say, the natives are restless.
I will not vote, under any circumstance vote for a pro-abortion Republican for President. Enough of my fellow Christians feel the same way, that it will be next to impossible for Giuliani to win.
I highly recommend this post from RedState.com. It is a passionate response to the knuckle-heads in the Giuliani personality cult.
Money quote from Red Sox Republican:
...what my pro-Rudy friends don't seem to understand is that for guys like me, support for Rudy is a non-negotiable proposition. And it's not just (or even primarily) because he's a dirty, stinking Yankees fan. It is, of course, the abortion thing.
Now, a lot of people say that abortion is just an "issue" and that it's wrong to let a single issue dictate your whole politics. Generally, that's a sound proposition. I guess there are a wide variety of reasons that people might oppose abortion - but I oppose it because I think it's killing. And the way it's practiced in this country, it's a *lot* of killing. It's killing in numbers per annum that roughly equal the holocaust. And so I'm sorry to say that it's simply not an option for me in my conscience to pull the lever for a guy who supports the continuation of current abortion policy in the United States.
This is the point in the conversation where my pro-Rudy friends generally interject, "Yes, but, *HILLARY!!!*" And then I have to wonder whether I'm speaking clearly or something, or whether my pro-Rudy friends have somehow gotten the idea that the concept of supporting a candidate who would stand by and allow what I consider to be mass infanticide is a negotiable one. So let me just say it: it isn't. Sorry if you got the wrong impression, here, but I'm not really interested in being persuaded on this point.
I think that part of what makes this so insulting is that there's so little else about Rudy which might even make me think about at least standing aside for him, if not actively working for him. At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:
1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in Iraq
Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more, and as for #1, well, the country survived Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Bill Clinton; it will survive Hillary Clinton. And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion. Not even close. So, I mean, thanks for the effort, Rudy fans, but perhaps you'd better move on to someone else in that 27% group, because the issue is not up for negotiation here.
LAMBORN BECOMES ACTIVE MEMBER OF
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-5) became an active member of the House Armed Services Committee.
"It is an honor to have the privilege of serving as an active member of the House Armed Services Committee. Colorado’s Fifth District is the proud home of five military installations and is one of our nation’s most military-intensive congressional districts. Our strong military presence is a great source of pride for my constituency, and I am proud to represent them as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
It is critical for Congress to enact strong defense policies that ensure our servicemen and women are provided with the training, the tools, and the resources necessary to keep America safe. Serving on the House Armed Services Committee will afford me the opportunity to ensure our military interests are advanced in order to meet our national security requirements.
The loss of Congresswoman Jo Anne Davis (VA-1) is something the Davis family, friends, and Congressional community will mourn, but her life and dedication to public service will serve as an inspiration to all of us. She will be missed. I intend serve on the House Armed Services Committee with the high honor and integrity she exhibited during her tenure." – Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Evangelical leaders Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins said Wednesday it is still possible for social conservative Republican voters to find a candidate to rally behind, and painted another Clinton administration as the worst outcome of the 2008 election.
Speaking to reporters at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor in advance of next week’s Values Voter Summit, Bauer and Perkins backed away from earlier threats that Christian conservatives would consider a third-party bid if a pro-abortion rights candidate wins the GOP nomination. They both agreed that supporting such a bid next year would virtually “guarantee” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) victory.
“Politics by nature is a messy business,” Bauer said. “And you rarely find somebody who agrees with you all the time.”
Perkins agreed with that assessment, but he said social conservatives have not found a candidate who stands out on their issues.
Bauer said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the most “problematic from the standpoint of values voters.” Both men said they thought that former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) did well in his debate debut, that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney can overcome questions about his religion and — perhaps most surprisingly — that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is perceived to be good on their issues but soft on terrorism.
Perkins and Bauer said social conservatives’ fears of a Clinton win will not be enough to motivate evangelical voters, pointing to Giuliani as a candidate who might not be able to stir evangelical support.
“He gives social conservatives very little to be motivated about,” Perkins said.
But the conservative leaders acknowledged that there is a divide currently among social conservatives as to what is more important to their base, social issues or projected national security strength.
Bauer said the divide is “puzzling” to Washington-based evangelical leaders, but Perkins maintained that once social conservatives know more about Giuliani’s position on abortion, his support would weaken.
“I think it’s a stretch for Mayor Giuliani to get a majority of the social conservative vote once it’s all said and done,” Perkins said.
Perkins said Giuliani would need to experience a “road-to-Des Moines conversion,” and Bauer said Giuliani’s early stumble on federally funded abortions was akin to “sticking your fingers in both eyes” of social conservatives.
Perkins and Bauer said Giuliani has not gone far enough to assuage their concerns by saying that he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges.
“He’s trying to send all sorts of signals,” Bauer said. “But he [has] got a hard sell, and it’s going to take a lot more.”
Perkins cited the influence that the conservative movement has had over the Bush administration, particularly after it was able to pressure the White House to fix what they considered a huge mistake in the form of Bush’s attempt to appoint former White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“Saying you’re going to appoint conservative judges is not enough,” Perkins said. “I’m under no illusion that social conservatives would have any influence in the Giuliani administration.”
When asked what Giuliani would have to do to allay their fears, Perkins and Bauer said a legitimate conversion on the abortion issue or some sort of behind-closed-doors pledge to be strong on their issues would be required.
Perkins and Bauer said they are both convinced that Romney’s evolution on the abortion issue is a legitimate conversion, “even if the movement tends to coincide with a primary schedule,” as Bauer said.
“I don’t think he’s flip-flopping,” Perkins said.
The two conservative leaders said they remain optimistic that a Republican candidate who is strong on their issues can win next year, but they think Giuliani against Clinton in the general election would be a “frustrating option.”
What does not appear to be an option next year is a break with the GOP in support of a third-party candidate.
While conservative religious leaders said last week the move is something they would consider, Bauer and Perkins said doing so would ensure a Democratic president. Perkins, however, said it is something they would consider in the long run.
“Everybody realizes that a third-party candidate would not work in this election,” Bauer said.
From Hannity & Colmes:
But you're taking Rudy's word on his intention to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, and I would like to remind you that he has a terrible record in New York of appointing judges. He appointed some of the worst possible judges.
I've already reported on Rudy and judges: what Rudy means by "constructionist" isn't what the pro-life community means.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a GOP presidential hopeful and leading critic of immigration policies, blasted Texas mayors Monday for not letting the federal government build a border fence on their land.
Tancredo is reacting to reports that mayors of some Texas cities oppose the construction of the fence, which Congress approved to improve border security.
“These mayors are jeopardizing national security with their not-in-my-backyard attitude,” Tancredo said. “Congress approved the border fence with the overwhelming support of the American people to protect our nation from terrorists and illegal aliens and it will not be thwarted by a handful of rogue mayors.”
The outspoken Tancredo, who is polling in the low single digits in national polls, also offered his solution to the problem, which is to “build the border fence north of these communities.”
“These mayors have already demonstrated that their hearts and loyalties lie with Mexico — perhaps they’d feel more comfortable if their cities were geographically located there as well,” Tancredo said.
Friday, October 05, 2007
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Al White is the single most liberal Republican in the Colorado General Assembly.
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani.
That's the ball game, folks. Thanks for coming to Yankee Stadium.
If 27% of Republicans don't vote for him in a general election, that is enough to sink any hope he has of beating Hillary Clinton.
Good. I don't want a pro-choice Republican killing babies under the GOP banner.
Additionally, Dr. James Dobson reiterates his opposition to pro-abort Giuliani in a New York Times Op-Ed:
REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous...
I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.
One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.
That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.
Dobson hit a home run.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Will it work?
Who knows, Huckabee has been by far the most enjoyable to watch out of any of the candidates Republican or Democrat and Rudy is looking to be the top contender out of the GOP lineup.
It could very well be a formidable line up if the James Dobson crowd is satisfied by this concession to the point where they would vote Republican instead of third party this election.
From the STLtoday:
Of the six Catholics running for president, only Republican Sen. Sam Brownback has a legislative record on abortion that meets the church's approval. Along with Republican Rudy Giuliani, Democrats Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Gov. Bill Richardson all have public records that are inconsistent with church teaching on abortion rights.
"It is a cause of concern for me and for all bishops to find ourselves in this situation," Burke said in an interview last week.
Asked if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament at the Cathedral Basilica, Burke said: "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law and I know that person knows it, yes I would."
In an interview earlier this year, Burke said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."
(H/T: Andrew Sullivan)
-- Take the Quiz! --
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Amid much discussion of the impact Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) could have on downballot Congressional races next year if she is the Democratic presidential nominee, a much quieter debate has begun among Republicans about the potential pros and cons of their presidential frontrunners when it comes to picking up House and Senate seats.
The belief among many Republican Members and strategists is that if Clinton is on the ballot in 2008, it will matter little who her opponent is because the GOP’s base and conservative independents will turn out in droves to cast an “anti-Hillary” vote. Still others in the party argue that mobilizing the base won’t be the party’s primary problem next year. Instead, it will be appealing to the moderate and independent voters who are credited with handing control of Congress to Democrats in the 2006 elections.
Already, the battle for the House is shaping up to be waged largely in suburban districts in the Northeast and Midwest. Additionally, the top targets in the Senate are Republicans representing Democratic-leaning states like Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon.
Backers of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who continues to lead the GOP field in most national polls, say he is the best-positioned candidate to appeal to the more moderate electorate in those areas.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a leading Giuliani booster in the House, argued it is paramount to have a candidate at the top of the ticket who can appeal to former Reagan Democrats and independent voters in places like New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida.
King said he has discussed Giuliani’s downballot impact with high-ranking Republicans, whom he declined to name.
“They agree that we have the best chance of picking up seats, if not taking back the House, with Rudy on top,” King said. “He would run stronger [in swing areas] than any of the other Republicans.”
King said Giuliani could especially aid vulnerable Republicans in New York. Reps. Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) and Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.) face competitive races again in 2008, and the GOP also has hopes of winning back the seats currently held by freshman Reps. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and John Hall (D-N.Y.).
Recent Democratic polling appeared to back up the notion that Giuliani would run best in swing territory.
An August survey done by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who is working for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) in the 2008 presidential race, showed the former New York mayor ahead of both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in 31 Democratic-held House districts that are considered to be the most competitive.
The poll, reported on last month by The Washington Post, also showed that the two leading Democratic contenders could even be a drag on the incumbent lawmakers’ re- elections.
Meanwhile, supporters of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are more apt to argue that the top of the Republican ticket will have little impact downballot, and some say it shouldn’t be among the top criteria when choosing a nominee.
“Whoever is on the ballot opposite Hillary Clinton is going to ride a huge wave of popular support as the anti-Hillary,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who is backing Romney.
He added that either Romney or Giuliani “is going to do very well in the South” as the party’s nominee.
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), another Romney supporter, noted the former chief executive’s business background will help him appeal to conservatives, moderates and independents alike. He said above all else, the public is looking for change and a competent leader and that Romney’s “sunny disposition and positive outlook” will win voters over if they don’t agree with him on all issues.
Other Republicans contend that it won’t matter which name is at the top of the party’s ballot come next year, just as long as it isn’t Bush.
When the Republican nominee emerges in February or March he will become the national face of the party, and lawmakers contend there will be much less talk about President Bush’s low poll numbers.
“I think that gives us the opportunity to restore some of the Republican brand that we’ve lost,” McCain backer Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) said.
While Republican House Members are more likely to be directly affected by the success or failure of their party’s presidential pick, Senate incumbents also are mindful of the impact the top of the ticket may have on their reelection hopes, especially given the difficult landscape the party faces.
With 22 Republican Senate seats in play, fundraising faltering and recruitments stalled, the party’s presidential nominee could prove critical to incumbents’ successful re-elections.
Too conservative a nominee could easily damage the chances of a vulnerable Senator running in a swing state, while a more moderate White House hopeful — such as Giuliani — could actually boost those incumbents’ odds at re-election.
Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), who is among the GOP’s most threatened Senators in 2008, said Giuliani would clearly be an asset to his campaign and that “there’s no question [Giuliani] has a chance to win Minnesota.”
Coleman, who has not endorsed a 2008 contender, said he is not concerned that the more socially conservative White House hopefuls would hurt his chances, either.
“There are no negatives in this, and potentially there’s a strong upside,” Coleman argued.
Giuliani supporters have long avowed that he is the only candidate who can change the electoral college math, putting traditionally blue states in play and forcing Democrats to spend money in states like California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan and New York.
There are eight House Republicans whose districts were carried by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race. Giuliani has been endorsed by four of them, including Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.).
Dent said one of his reasons for endorsing Giuliani was that he believed he would be the best person to run with in his Democratic-leaning district.
“Rudy Giuliani will give the greatest assistance to candidates running in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions and help bring more independents back into the Republican column,” he said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain backer also up for re-election in 2008, agreed Giuliani could make things easier for moderate Republicans in cycle. But he also argued that McCain — who has broken ranks with conservatives at times — could help his party’s candidates in swing states.
“We need to play in the blue states and we need a nominee who can put the blue states in play,” Graham said.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a former top party strategist and potential 2008 Senate candidate, said it would be impossible to predict now which candidate might be a drag or boost downballot. But he agreed that the nominee can make a huge difference, citing the 1964 and 1972 presidential elections as evidence of one-sided landslides that impacted Congressional races. Voters traditionally are less prone to ticket splitting in presidential years, he said.
Other party operatives argue that President Bush had little to no coattails in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that similarly, the down-ballot impact for both parties will be minimal next year.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), who faces a difficult re-election next year, narrowly won an open House seat in 1996 — as then- President Bill Clinton carried the district with 48 percent, compared to former Sen. Bob Dole’s (R-Kan.) 40 percent. Independent candidate Ross Perot got 10 percent.
“In that case, it didn’t have too significant an impact,” he said. “But I can’t predict the future.”