TwoConservatives picked up on this article 2 days ago, so h/t to them for being ahead of me on the curve.
CNN, who is known for being moderate-left, recently featured an article that pretty much tells you that the calls by Pelosi, Reid, and company could have dangerous and far-reaching implications that would threaten the future and security of this nation. Click here to read.
Click here to read Charles's take over at TwoConservatives. He notes that a few of the simplest questions about the Democratic strategy have yet to be answered...or even recognized, for that matter.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Oh Dear Lord...
Raising Kaine knows how to misinterpret conservatives for their own political views like none other, except for maybe Daily Kos.
Now they're saying Fred Thompson blames Virginia Tech University for the shootings.
They totally ignore the fact that Thompson was making more of a reference to the university overriding state law in Virginia, not "blaming" the university. He was stating fact.
This is why I won't even bother signing up for a free membership to the website, it's not even worth the money you pay to be a member. It's one blog I read for the pure laugh I get from the misinformation they spread about conservativism.
The article RK references can be read here.
Now they're saying Fred Thompson blames Virginia Tech University for the shootings.
They totally ignore the fact that Thompson was making more of a reference to the university overriding state law in Virginia, not "blaming" the university. He was stating fact.
This is why I won't even bother signing up for a free membership to the website, it's not even worth the money you pay to be a member. It's one blog I read for the pure laugh I get from the misinformation they spread about conservativism.
The article RK references can be read here.
Weighing In On The 51st District Controversy
This is waaay out of my normal range for the statewide political scene, as I tend to focus more on the Northern and Central Shenandoah Valley. However, I've got to talk about the GOP nomination race in the 51st District of the House of Delegates.
Namely, I've got to talk about some of the slung mud going on from the lefty blogs on this one, especially towards Faisal Gill.
I read the Washington Post article on Gill's hiring of Tom Kopko (chair of the Prince William County Republican Committee) to create a campaign website for him, and that Kopko was paid a fee of $2000.00. There is nothing illegal about this, the transaction even took place before PW County School Board member Julie Lucas decided to enter the race for the nomination. Simply put, Kopko was paid for services rendered (in my opinion).
How is this illegal? Gill paid Kopko to make a website, which Kopko did...and all of this took place while Gill was the only GOP candidate at the time of the transaction. Now Julie Lucas wants to make an issue of this.
Well, a few lefty blogs in Virginia have jumped on this one as "another example of Gill's corruptness". Apparently, some are attempting to say that Gill is trying to "buy" his nomination for paying s. Gill apparently endorses and promotes terrorism (while having worked for the Bush administration, whose M.O since 9/11 has been going after terrorists), and called the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina "a worthy operation" (even though that statement was actually made by Abdurahman Alamoudi, some have attributed it to Gill, since Gill was once employed by Alamoudi). Gill has also been labeled a "Bush crony" since he used to work for the administration.
I don't know, seems like a stretch to me when you call someone a supporter/endorser of terrorism, then call them one of "Bush's cronies", and attribute their former boss's quotes to their lips.
Now, does Gill really stand for these things...well, maybe he does, I don't know. However, I would like to see something other than loose labeling and drive-by accusations by a known liberal rag (WaPo, I'm talking to you) before I start calling someone an enabler of terrorism.
Especially when they're Pakistani in origin...ya know?
Namely, I've got to talk about some of the slung mud going on from the lefty blogs on this one, especially towards Faisal Gill.
I read the Washington Post article on Gill's hiring of Tom Kopko (chair of the Prince William County Republican Committee) to create a campaign website for him, and that Kopko was paid a fee of $2000.00. There is nothing illegal about this, the transaction even took place before PW County School Board member Julie Lucas decided to enter the race for the nomination. Simply put, Kopko was paid for services rendered (in my opinion).
How is this illegal? Gill paid Kopko to make a website, which Kopko did...and all of this took place while Gill was the only GOP candidate at the time of the transaction. Now Julie Lucas wants to make an issue of this.
Well, a few lefty blogs in Virginia have jumped on this one as "another example of Gill's corruptness". Apparently, some are attempting to say that Gill is trying to "buy" his nomination for paying s. Gill apparently endorses and promotes terrorism (while having worked for the Bush administration, whose M.O since 9/11 has been going after terrorists), and called the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina "a worthy operation" (even though that statement was actually made by Abdurahman Alamoudi, some have attributed it to Gill, since Gill was once employed by Alamoudi). Gill has also been labeled a "Bush crony" since he used to work for the administration.
I don't know, seems like a stretch to me when you call someone a supporter/endorser of terrorism, then call them one of "Bush's cronies", and attribute their former boss's quotes to their lips.
Now, does Gill really stand for these things...well, maybe he does, I don't know. However, I would like to see something other than loose labeling and drive-by accusations by a known liberal rag (WaPo, I'm talking to you) before I start calling someone an enabler of terrorism.
Especially when they're Pakistani in origin...ya know?
Debate Thoughts
Here are a few of my thoughts on last night's GOP Debate...
- This debate was a good counter-response to the apparent solidarity amongst the Donkey nominees. The ten men on that stage pretty much were in unison on issues like Iraq, but had their own unique approaches to how they would approach these issues.
- Chris Matthews interrupted and talked over the candidates too much, but I'm not surprised. He was not the man to be moderating this debate, but to be honest...he could've been a lot worse about talking over and interrupting the candidates, as well. I give him about a "C" rating at best. Kudos to the GOP for going onto MSNBC and letting a known Democrat moderate your debate...unlike the Democrats, who refused to hold any kind of debate between their own candidates on Fox News, for fear of being asked real questions, I guess.
- I never realized how right Hunter Golden has been about Mitt Romney's ability to cultivate his own image. He does have a very slick, polished way about him. I think Romney came out of this debate in better shape than when he went in. He did take a definitive stance, and explained his past changes on issues in a very dignified, reasonable manner. My wife, who relies a bit more on "gut feeling" and image than I do, really preferred Romney over the other candidates.
- People are giving Guiliani waaaay too much crap for last night. He looked extremely comfortable and "in place" up there, and some people are taking that as indifference, because of his more fiery speeches and actions from the past. Also, when Guiliani gave his answer about abortion, he was not flip-flopping within his own answer, as many liberal pundits have attempted to say. Simply put, Guiliani "hates abortion", as he said, but respects a woman's right to choose as her conscience can be different than his...and he also believes that abortion is more of a state's rights issue...which should appeal to conservatives who are really looking for a "smaller government". Guiliani also scores points for knowing the difference between Sunni's and Shiite's, which tells me that Guiliani subscribes to the theory of "know thy enemy".
- John McCain finally lit the fire under his backside and showed us a similar candidate to what we saw in 2000. Unfortunately, I think McCain was a much more viable candidate in 2000 than he is now. If McCain continues to keep this fire lit, that opinion of mine may very well change. McCain, as well as Romney and Guiliani, all struck me as having some strong opinions on how America goes forward in the face of terrorism. I loved McCain's statement that he would follow Bin Laden "to the gates of hell", as well as Romney's statement that Bin Laden "will die". A passion for justice is something we need to keep alive in our society.
- Tommy Thompson didn't do much for his cause, neither did Sam Brownback. Tom Tancredo was constantly cut-off by Chris Matthews, and just wasn't forceful enough to get past the cut off for the extra 5-10 seconds he was looking for. While Tancredo is a fine politician, he's doesn't strike me as someone who would make a strong executive. Mike Huckabee came across well, but I simply see his as more of a Vice-Presidential candidate. He's got a good stance, and is well-spoken, but I think he lacks any kind of "standout" qualities for voters. Duncan Hunter proved that he has good knowledge of the military, but past the Iraq and Iran issues, I'm not sure what makes him more appealing than other candidates on other issues. That being said, Duncan Hunter is one of the better articulators of his opinions, even if he shares them with other candidates. That gives him an edge over the rest of the "second tier".
-Jim Gilmore was so hell-bent on saying, "I am a true conservative, I governed Virginia as a true conservative, I will be a president who is a true conservative, I eat true conservative foods, I drink true conservative drinks, I sleep in a true conservative bed with a true conservative wife in a true conservative house". I began to feel like I was listening to a broken record with Gilmore.
- Ron Paul was arguably the most bombastic candidate up there (only McCain could really stake any kind of claim to that title), and said some things that were great in principle, but not necessarily feasible on a federal level. At least, not immediately. However, the general sense of his message, which is to reduce government's size and influence, is something that should be recognized and remembered as the GOP moves forward towards 2008.
Final Debate Thoughts: No clear winner, but the biggest mover may be Mitt Romney, and that will probably show as he should leap-frog McCain and seriously challenge Guiliani's position at the top. The biggest winner, should he run, would be Fred Thompson...as none of the candidates really jumped out as the "obvious choice".
- This debate was a good counter-response to the apparent solidarity amongst the Donkey nominees. The ten men on that stage pretty much were in unison on issues like Iraq, but had their own unique approaches to how they would approach these issues.
- Chris Matthews interrupted and talked over the candidates too much, but I'm not surprised. He was not the man to be moderating this debate, but to be honest...he could've been a lot worse about talking over and interrupting the candidates, as well. I give him about a "C" rating at best. Kudos to the GOP for going onto MSNBC and letting a known Democrat moderate your debate...unlike the Democrats, who refused to hold any kind of debate between their own candidates on Fox News, for fear of being asked real questions, I guess.
- I never realized how right Hunter Golden has been about Mitt Romney's ability to cultivate his own image. He does have a very slick, polished way about him. I think Romney came out of this debate in better shape than when he went in. He did take a definitive stance, and explained his past changes on issues in a very dignified, reasonable manner. My wife, who relies a bit more on "gut feeling" and image than I do, really preferred Romney over the other candidates.
- People are giving Guiliani waaaay too much crap for last night. He looked extremely comfortable and "in place" up there, and some people are taking that as indifference, because of his more fiery speeches and actions from the past. Also, when Guiliani gave his answer about abortion, he was not flip-flopping within his own answer, as many liberal pundits have attempted to say. Simply put, Guiliani "hates abortion", as he said, but respects a woman's right to choose as her conscience can be different than his...and he also believes that abortion is more of a state's rights issue...which should appeal to conservatives who are really looking for a "smaller government". Guiliani also scores points for knowing the difference between Sunni's and Shiite's, which tells me that Guiliani subscribes to the theory of "know thy enemy".
- John McCain finally lit the fire under his backside and showed us a similar candidate to what we saw in 2000. Unfortunately, I think McCain was a much more viable candidate in 2000 than he is now. If McCain continues to keep this fire lit, that opinion of mine may very well change. McCain, as well as Romney and Guiliani, all struck me as having some strong opinions on how America goes forward in the face of terrorism. I loved McCain's statement that he would follow Bin Laden "to the gates of hell", as well as Romney's statement that Bin Laden "will die". A passion for justice is something we need to keep alive in our society.
- Tommy Thompson didn't do much for his cause, neither did Sam Brownback. Tom Tancredo was constantly cut-off by Chris Matthews, and just wasn't forceful enough to get past the cut off for the extra 5-10 seconds he was looking for. While Tancredo is a fine politician, he's doesn't strike me as someone who would make a strong executive. Mike Huckabee came across well, but I simply see his as more of a Vice-Presidential candidate. He's got a good stance, and is well-spoken, but I think he lacks any kind of "standout" qualities for voters. Duncan Hunter proved that he has good knowledge of the military, but past the Iraq and Iran issues, I'm not sure what makes him more appealing than other candidates on other issues. That being said, Duncan Hunter is one of the better articulators of his opinions, even if he shares them with other candidates. That gives him an edge over the rest of the "second tier".
-Jim Gilmore was so hell-bent on saying, "I am a true conservative, I governed Virginia as a true conservative, I will be a president who is a true conservative, I eat true conservative foods, I drink true conservative drinks, I sleep in a true conservative bed with a true conservative wife in a true conservative house". I began to feel like I was listening to a broken record with Gilmore.
- Ron Paul was arguably the most bombastic candidate up there (only McCain could really stake any kind of claim to that title), and said some things that were great in principle, but not necessarily feasible on a federal level. At least, not immediately. However, the general sense of his message, which is to reduce government's size and influence, is something that should be recognized and remembered as the GOP moves forward towards 2008.
Final Debate Thoughts: No clear winner, but the biggest mover may be Mitt Romney, and that will probably show as he should leap-frog McCain and seriously challenge Guiliani's position at the top. The biggest winner, should he run, would be Fred Thompson...as none of the candidates really jumped out as the "obvious choice".
Thursday, May 3, 2007
This Should be Interesting...
Apparently, Chris Matthews is moderating tonight's GOP debate on MSNBC. I am interested to see how Matthews phrases the questions posed to the various candidates...will he just ask questions, or will he put them on the defense for having (R) next to their name?
Given the fact that this debate is shaping up to be a bit less civil than the Donkey Debate last week, it's only fitting that someone who has a history of being combative with Republicans will be moderating.
Should make for interesting TV.
Given the fact that this debate is shaping up to be a bit less civil than the Donkey Debate last week, it's only fitting that someone who has a history of being combative with Republicans will be moderating.
Should make for interesting TV.
American Students - Not as Dumb as You're Led to Believe
Making a Case for Fred Thompson in My Own Mind
There are many, many conservatives out there who are pulling for Fred Thompson to run for the GOP nomination. The reasons are understandable. He's a solid conservative without the "neocon" label. He's a likeable guy. He's got media savvy. He has tremendous presence and has an "authority figure" persona. He speaks, and people listen. He also strikes me as someone who has good morals, but isn't a "christian conservative", a term that the mainstream liberal press uses to vilify many right-wingers.
I've been searching pretty far-and-wide on Thompson, trying to get a handle on what his political views are, since he's the popular alternative candidate to guys like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guiliani (who I favor at this point among those actually running). So far, it seems that his stances are pretty much run-of-the-mill conservative ideology. Smaller government, no tax increases, pro-2nd Amendment, and so on...mostly things I can agree with. So I decided to read into his political career a little bit.
He served as Chief Co-Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee as they investigated the Watergate scandal. In fact, it was Thompson who was responsible for Howard Baker asking the question of "what did the President know, and when did he know it." It's speculated that this question was a key element in bringing down Richard Nixon. While serving in the U.S. Senate, Thompson chaired the Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997-2001, which investigated the campaign finance scandal of 1996, in which China was accused of attempting to influence American political elections.
He's a former lobbyist for several large corporations, has served on several bipartisan counsels, and is a registered foreign agent. These qualities strike me as someone who can work "across the aisle" and knows how to get his agenda across at the same time.
Thompson definitely seems to have the credentials to be taken seriously as a contender for the GOP nomination. I would like to see what he would bring to the table in the upcoming debates, so I hope that if he decides to run, he makes the decision soon.
I'm favoring Rudy at this point, but I'm leaning more and more towards Thompson each day. Maybe I'm getting caught up in the hype a little bit, but the man does peak my interest as a possible candidate.
I've been searching pretty far-and-wide on Thompson, trying to get a handle on what his political views are, since he's the popular alternative candidate to guys like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guiliani (who I favor at this point among those actually running). So far, it seems that his stances are pretty much run-of-the-mill conservative ideology. Smaller government, no tax increases, pro-2nd Amendment, and so on...mostly things I can agree with. So I decided to read into his political career a little bit.
He served as Chief Co-Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee as they investigated the Watergate scandal. In fact, it was Thompson who was responsible for Howard Baker asking the question of "what did the President know, and when did he know it." It's speculated that this question was a key element in bringing down Richard Nixon. While serving in the U.S. Senate, Thompson chaired the Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997-2001, which investigated the campaign finance scandal of 1996, in which China was accused of attempting to influence American political elections.
He's a former lobbyist for several large corporations, has served on several bipartisan counsels, and is a registered foreign agent. These qualities strike me as someone who can work "across the aisle" and knows how to get his agenda across at the same time.
Thompson definitely seems to have the credentials to be taken seriously as a contender for the GOP nomination. I would like to see what he would bring to the table in the upcoming debates, so I hope that if he decides to run, he makes the decision soon.
I'm favoring Rudy at this point, but I'm leaning more and more towards Thompson each day. Maybe I'm getting caught up in the hype a little bit, but the man does peak my interest as a possible candidate.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
27th District - Issues With Tate's Finance Reports
I was reading the finance report for the past quarter for Mark Tate, who is running against Jill Holtzman Vogel. Usually, I don't go too in-depth into the finance reports unless I have a reason to. Apparently, according to VCAP, Tate is under investigation for some inaccuracies in his report.
The most notable inaccuracy was where Tate reported 0 loans taken out, but has received $155,000.00 in loan revenue, which equals nearly 47% of his total reported revenues.
Who knows if this is simply bad math, or more...but it's worth watching. However, as of right now, there is no indication that there was any criminal activity and may simply have been a poorly-filed report.
The most notable inaccuracy was where Tate reported 0 loans taken out, but has received $155,000.00 in loan revenue, which equals nearly 47% of his total reported revenues.
Who knows if this is simply bad math, or more...but it's worth watching. However, as of right now, there is no indication that there was any criminal activity and may simply have been a poorly-filed report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
