A report by Sen. James Inhofe contains the names of over 400 scientists who dispute many of the claims about global warming made by Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, many of these scientists were members, or former members, of that very same panel. The report also states that many of the scientists keep silent due to fear of retribution for speaking their own disputes of the supposed "consensus".
And they say Republicans use politics of fear...
In a display of typical left-wing response, an Al Gore spokeswoman tried to claim that 25 to 30 of those scientists were or are funded by ExxonMobil. That claim has since been dismissed.
French climatologist Marcel Leroo described the enviro-activist movement by people like Al Gore very well, "Day after day the same mantra — that 'the Earth is warming up' — is churned out ... Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen is bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance."
Nobody has yet to explain why Mars has been warming up at a similar rate as the Earth over the past 40 years, but yet the enviro-activists want to disconnect and/or ignore the global warming that occurs on Mars because it goes against their agenda.
So...how many scientists does it take to stop a consensus?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Dem Polls Gone Crazy
Let's start with Iowa...
CNN
- Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%, Richardson 7%, Biden 3%
Rasmussen
- Clinton 31%, Obama 27%, Edwards 22%, Richardson 9%, Biden 5%
ABC/WaPo
- Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 8%, Biden 4%
Strategic Vision
- Obama 30%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 27%, Biden 5%, Richardson 3%
Clinton...Obama. Obama...Clinton. This has been a two-horse race for quite a while, but it seems that John Edwards has started to really gain some traction in the lower-20 percent range after a long and steady slide downward, and is overall looming as a threat to both Obama and Clinton, even tying Clinton for 2nd place in the Strategic Vision poll (can you imagine that? Clinton finishing 3rd?). In the CNN poll, only 4 points separate the "big 3" in the Democratic Party race.
With the news that the Clinton campaign has advised it's staffers to "lower expectations" for Iowa, could they be bracing for impact as their campaign grinds to a halt?
Heading down to South Carolina...
CNN
- Clinton 42%, Obama 34%, Edwards 16%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Insider Advantage
- Obama 28%, Clinton 22%, Edwards 14%, Biden 10%, Richardson 2%
Rasmussen
- Obama 33%, Clinton 33%, Edwards 17%, Biden 4%, Richardson 2%
Edwards' performance in South Carolina is, for the lack of a better term, piss-poor. He's from neighboring North Carolina, his southern accent is real (unlike Clinton's), he should be doing a lot better than this. It actually should speak volumes about his true viability as a candidate to be doing well in Iowa (where anything goes), but stinking up the joint in South Carolina. By the way, look at the Insider Advantage poll, and see where Joe Biden is getting 10% and only 4 points behind Edwards...is it an anomaly or a sign of things to come?
Clinton and Obama are in a dogfight here, and Edwards' generally poor showing here allows them to each claim larger shares of support, but neither one has gained a decisive advantage over the other.
To the national stage we go...
Rasmussen
- Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
Reuters/Zogby
- Clinton 40%, Obama 32%, Edwards 13%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
FOX News
- Clinton 49%, Obama 20%, Edwards 10%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Interesting, Clinton polling anywhere from 40 to near 50 percent nationally. Obama polling an average in the mid-20's, and Edwards unable to break out of the low-teens. This is more in line with what the pundits expected. However, this may change dramatically if Obama wins Iowa and/or South Carolina. Right now, Clinton's popularity nationally rides on name recognition more than anything. Many primary voters won't pay serious attention until after Iowa, especially on the Dem side, where things are so hot and heavy.
Unless he finishes 2nd in Iowa, Edwards is cooked. Biden and Richardson are most likely positioning themselves for a VP slot at this point.
CNN
- Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%, Richardson 7%, Biden 3%
Rasmussen
- Clinton 31%, Obama 27%, Edwards 22%, Richardson 9%, Biden 5%
ABC/WaPo
- Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 8%, Biden 4%
Strategic Vision
- Obama 30%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 27%, Biden 5%, Richardson 3%
Clinton...Obama. Obama...Clinton. This has been a two-horse race for quite a while, but it seems that John Edwards has started to really gain some traction in the lower-20 percent range after a long and steady slide downward, and is overall looming as a threat to both Obama and Clinton, even tying Clinton for 2nd place in the Strategic Vision poll (can you imagine that? Clinton finishing 3rd?). In the CNN poll, only 4 points separate the "big 3" in the Democratic Party race.
With the news that the Clinton campaign has advised it's staffers to "lower expectations" for Iowa, could they be bracing for impact as their campaign grinds to a halt?
Heading down to South Carolina...
CNN
- Clinton 42%, Obama 34%, Edwards 16%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Insider Advantage
- Obama 28%, Clinton 22%, Edwards 14%, Biden 10%, Richardson 2%
Rasmussen
- Obama 33%, Clinton 33%, Edwards 17%, Biden 4%, Richardson 2%
Edwards' performance in South Carolina is, for the lack of a better term, piss-poor. He's from neighboring North Carolina, his southern accent is real (unlike Clinton's), he should be doing a lot better than this. It actually should speak volumes about his true viability as a candidate to be doing well in Iowa (where anything goes), but stinking up the joint in South Carolina. By the way, look at the Insider Advantage poll, and see where Joe Biden is getting 10% and only 4 points behind Edwards...is it an anomaly or a sign of things to come?
Clinton and Obama are in a dogfight here, and Edwards' generally poor showing here allows them to each claim larger shares of support, but neither one has gained a decisive advantage over the other.
To the national stage we go...
Rasmussen
- Clinton 40%, Obama 24%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
Reuters/Zogby
- Clinton 40%, Obama 32%, Edwards 13%, Richardson 3%, Biden 3%
FOX News
- Clinton 49%, Obama 20%, Edwards 10%, Biden 3%, Richardson 2%
Interesting, Clinton polling anywhere from 40 to near 50 percent nationally. Obama polling an average in the mid-20's, and Edwards unable to break out of the low-teens. This is more in line with what the pundits expected. However, this may change dramatically if Obama wins Iowa and/or South Carolina. Right now, Clinton's popularity nationally rides on name recognition more than anything. Many primary voters won't pay serious attention until after Iowa, especially on the Dem side, where things are so hot and heavy.
Unless he finishes 2nd in Iowa, Edwards is cooked. Biden and Richardson are most likely positioning themselves for a VP slot at this point.
GOP Polls Gone Wild
Talk about some strange numbers, here's some of the latest out of Iowa...
Strategic Vision
- Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 16%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 5%
American Resource Group
- Huckabee 28%, McCain 20%, Romney 17%, Giuliani 13%, Thompson 5%, Paul 4%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion
- Romney 28%, Huckabee 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 7%, Paul 6%, Giuliani 5%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 27%, McCain 14%, Thompson 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 6%
Now, this is interesting. In some of these polls, Fred Thompson has established himself as the presumptive "bronze medal" winner, but John McCain claims that title in other polls. I've always felt that Thompson and McCain tend to draw from a similar crowd (the C-SPAN crowd). That coveted "3rd place" spot is important for momentum heading forward, as both Thompson and McCain are trying to drive their campaigns forward.
Either way, once you get past Huckabee and Romney, Iowa is a total horserace.
Two interesting notes from the American Resource Group poll. One is that 36% of caucus goers were "undecided". Another note of interest is that 98% of Romney supporters say their support is "definite", same goes for 80% of McCain supporters and 67% of Giuliani supporters. However, only 38% say the same for Huckabee. This means that anyone who will be running a solid, aggressive campaign in Iowa over the next few weeks (Fred Thompson comes to mind) might be able to break into Huckabee's seemingly impressive poll numbers.
On to South Carolina...
CNN
- Huckabee 24%, Thompson 17%, Romney 16%, Giuliani 16%, McCain 13%, Paul 11%
SurveyUSA
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 18%, McCain 16%, Thompson 15%, Giuliani 12%, "Other" 7%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 23%, Romney 23%, Thompson 12%, McCain 12%, Giuliani 11%, Paul 5%
A lot of uncertainty in South Carolina, despite Huckabee's lead in all 3 polls. In the Rasmussen poll, only 51% of Huckabee voters were "certain" to vote for him in the primary, and Romney could only count on a certain vote from 41% of his bloc. Fred Thompson can rely on 59% of his supporters, McCain get's 55% certainty, and Giuliani 53%.
It's odd how the front-runners (Huckabee and Romney) have the least amount of certain support. The question remains, can any of the candidates behind these 2 capitalize on their shaky base of support?
Looking at the national polls...
USA Today/Gallup
- Giuliani 27%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 14%, Romney 14%, McCain 14%, Paul 3%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 16%, Romney 15%, McCain 15%, Thompson 11%, Paul 6%
Reuters/Zogby
- Giuliani 23%, Huckabee 22%, Romney 16%, Thompson 13%, McCain 12%, Paul 4%
The Rasmussen Poll is crazy, as no candidate cracks 20%. The only poll where Giuliani really appears to be "the" front-runner is the USA Today/Gallup poll. He's virtually tied in the Reuters/Zogby poll and losing to the Huckster in the Rasmussen poll.
McCain and Thompson, again, seem to be battling for the same group of voters. Romney is joining those 2 on a national level, but is really fighting Huckabee and Thompson in Iowa and South Carolina.
Ron Paul keeps marching along, snagging up about 4-6% in the polls and being very loud and active with his fundraising. Those dollar bills, however, have not added up to support in the polls.
Strategic Vision
- Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 16%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 6%, Paul 5%
American Resource Group
- Huckabee 28%, McCain 20%, Romney 17%, Giuliani 13%, Thompson 5%, Paul 4%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion
- Romney 28%, Huckabee 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 7%, Paul 6%, Giuliani 5%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 27%, McCain 14%, Thompson 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 6%
Now, this is interesting. In some of these polls, Fred Thompson has established himself as the presumptive "bronze medal" winner, but John McCain claims that title in other polls. I've always felt that Thompson and McCain tend to draw from a similar crowd (the C-SPAN crowd). That coveted "3rd place" spot is important for momentum heading forward, as both Thompson and McCain are trying to drive their campaigns forward.
Either way, once you get past Huckabee and Romney, Iowa is a total horserace.
Two interesting notes from the American Resource Group poll. One is that 36% of caucus goers were "undecided". Another note of interest is that 98% of Romney supporters say their support is "definite", same goes for 80% of McCain supporters and 67% of Giuliani supporters. However, only 38% say the same for Huckabee. This means that anyone who will be running a solid, aggressive campaign in Iowa over the next few weeks (Fred Thompson comes to mind) might be able to break into Huckabee's seemingly impressive poll numbers.
On to South Carolina...
CNN
- Huckabee 24%, Thompson 17%, Romney 16%, Giuliani 16%, McCain 13%, Paul 11%
SurveyUSA
- Huckabee 28%, Romney 18%, McCain 16%, Thompson 15%, Giuliani 12%, "Other" 7%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 23%, Romney 23%, Thompson 12%, McCain 12%, Giuliani 11%, Paul 5%
A lot of uncertainty in South Carolina, despite Huckabee's lead in all 3 polls. In the Rasmussen poll, only 51% of Huckabee voters were "certain" to vote for him in the primary, and Romney could only count on a certain vote from 41% of his bloc. Fred Thompson can rely on 59% of his supporters, McCain get's 55% certainty, and Giuliani 53%.
It's odd how the front-runners (Huckabee and Romney) have the least amount of certain support. The question remains, can any of the candidates behind these 2 capitalize on their shaky base of support?
Looking at the national polls...
USA Today/Gallup
- Giuliani 27%, Huckabee 16%, Thompson 14%, Romney 14%, McCain 14%, Paul 3%
Rasmussen
- Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 16%, Romney 15%, McCain 15%, Thompson 11%, Paul 6%
Reuters/Zogby
- Giuliani 23%, Huckabee 22%, Romney 16%, Thompson 13%, McCain 12%, Paul 4%
The Rasmussen Poll is crazy, as no candidate cracks 20%. The only poll where Giuliani really appears to be "the" front-runner is the USA Today/Gallup poll. He's virtually tied in the Reuters/Zogby poll and losing to the Huckster in the Rasmussen poll.
McCain and Thompson, again, seem to be battling for the same group of voters. Romney is joining those 2 on a national level, but is really fighting Huckabee and Thompson in Iowa and South Carolina.
Ron Paul keeps marching along, snagging up about 4-6% in the polls and being very loud and active with his fundraising. Those dollar bills, however, have not added up to support in the polls.
Sacha Baron Cohen No Longer to Play Borat or Ali G.
This is really disappointing, to be honest. I always liked both characters. I used to watch "Da Ali G. Show" reruns with my buddies in college. "Borat" was one of the funniest movies to come around in a decade.
Cohen says that their time has come and passed, and he's moving on. I'm sure he'll one day revisit those now-legendary comedic characters, but I think that Cohen should also be applauded for moving on and pushing forward with his career.
Cohen is quickly becoming part of the top ranks of comedic actors. I thought he was really hilarious in "Talladega Nights" as Jean Girard, the homosexual French rival of Ricky Bobby. I have also heard that he is a riot playing the character of Pirelli in "Sweeney Todd", nearly stealing the movie from Johnny Depp.
Cohen says that their time has come and passed, and he's moving on. I'm sure he'll one day revisit those now-legendary comedic characters, but I think that Cohen should also be applauded for moving on and pushing forward with his career.
Cohen is quickly becoming part of the top ranks of comedic actors. I thought he was really hilarious in "Talladega Nights" as Jean Girard, the homosexual French rival of Ricky Bobby. I have also heard that he is a riot playing the character of Pirelli in "Sweeney Todd", nearly stealing the movie from Johnny Depp.
Podium Positions: Social Issues
My position on "social" issues.
Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.
What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.
While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.
Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.
Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.
I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.
I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.
Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.
In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).
Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.
Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.
We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.
Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.
Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.
What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.
While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.
Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.
Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.
I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.
I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.
Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.
In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).
Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.
Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.
We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.
Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.
Marshall On The Brink of a Senate Run
Apparently, Del. Bob Marshall has announced the formation of an exploratory committee, which means he is one step away from officially running for the GOP Senate nomination against former Governor Jim Gilmore.
Interesting that Chris Saxman did not run, but Marshall is. Marshall has very good leadership skills and I like some of his fiscal policy stances, but his vocal stance against gay marriage will both turnout the social conservatives and the GLBT community.
The GOP will be holding a convention to select it's nominee, which may very well favor Marshall. The Dems are having a traditional primary with former Governor Mark Warner and progressive activist Julien Modica.
(h/t Citizen Tom)
Interesting that Chris Saxman did not run, but Marshall is. Marshall has very good leadership skills and I like some of his fiscal policy stances, but his vocal stance against gay marriage will both turnout the social conservatives and the GLBT community.
The GOP will be holding a convention to select it's nominee, which may very well favor Marshall. The Dems are having a traditional primary with former Governor Mark Warner and progressive activist Julien Modica.
(h/t Citizen Tom)
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Linda Ellerbee to Teach Kids How Jamie Lynn Spears Got Pregnant?
Um, I don't think that would be suitable for broadcast on a basic cable network.
Honestly, I wouldn't want Linda Ellerbee teaching my kids anything. Given what I have seen on past episodes of Nick News, I'm sure that somehow, little Jamie Lynn will be given a free pass from any kind of scrutiny for her behavior.
I'll hand it to Nickelodeon for using the "Nick News" episodes to bring about a reasonable discussion on many topics so kids understand what's going on, but sometimes she ventures into territory on these topics that make many parents understandably uncomfortable (see the link above where she shows how to use a condom to a 10 year old).
I personally believe Nick news needs a new host, but since she co-owns the production company that produces Nick News, I don't see this happening any time soon.
Honestly, I wouldn't want Linda Ellerbee teaching my kids anything. Given what I have seen on past episodes of Nick News, I'm sure that somehow, little Jamie Lynn will be given a free pass from any kind of scrutiny for her behavior.
I'll hand it to Nickelodeon for using the "Nick News" episodes to bring about a reasonable discussion on many topics so kids understand what's going on, but sometimes she ventures into territory on these topics that make many parents understandably uncomfortable (see the link above where she shows how to use a condom to a 10 year old).
I personally believe Nick news needs a new host, but since she co-owns the production company that produces Nick News, I don't see this happening any time soon.
More Presidential Nomination News, Notes, and Insanity
- Despite an apparent wealth of grassroots and blog support in Virginia, Duncan Hunter has failed to make it onto the Virginia primary ballot. Unlike Tom Tancredo's withdrawal, this one surprised me a bit. I figured Hunter had the grassroots to make it on the ballot, and I would've signed a petition so he could at least make the ballot (of course, nobody contacted me), even though I'm a Fred Thompson supporter. I like Duncan, I think he's a decent politician and man, and I'm sorry he didn't make it onto the ballot.
- On the heels of his dropout from the GOP Presidential race, Tom Tancredo has endorsed Mitt Romney.
- No foul play suspected in the death of Dennis Kucinich's brother Perry, an autopsy will be done on Wednesday, Dec. 26th.
- From the Green Party ranks, former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has announced herself as a candidate for the Green Party's presidential nomination. McKinney has been elected, unelected, reelected, and re-unelected from the same Congressional seat (GA-04). Ironically, both times she was knocked out of her Congressional seat, it was in the Democratic primary (shows you her popularity).
McKinney joined the Green Party only two months ago, and is an extremely controversial (if nothing else) person. She has been accused of anti-Semitism, is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believes Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, is an activist for the release of all documents related to the death of 2Pac (she introduced a bill to do this in Congress), attempted to bring about impeachment proceedings against President Bush, holds Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in the highest regard, wants Nancy Pelosi replaced with Cindy Sheehan...oh yeah, and she was the one who punched a United States Capitol Police Officer when she attempted to re-enter the Capitol without the proper lapel pin for identification.
Yet, I don't see anything that stands with the Green Party's stances on environmentalism and decentralization...as she hasn't done much of anything on the environment and praises socialist/communist leaders. Hmm...
- John McCain is in a fight with the New York Times over an unpublished-as-of-yet story about a key telecom legislation that is currently before the Senate Commerce Committee. The story would lay out charges that McCain may have been providing special treatment to a lobbyist. The NYT is supposedly investigating the validity of the claims, but are frustrated with McCain's strong efforts to halt any and all publication of this story, as well. The lobbyist in question states that McCain has not shown any special treatment towards her.
McCain has hired high-powered attorney Bob Bennett to "stop the smears".
- Barack Obama stated that he would consider putting Republicans in his cabinet if elected President. Some of the names he mentioned: Sen. Chuck Hagel, Sen. Dick Lugar, and...California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
- Rudy Giuliani spent the night in a St. Louis hospital after suffering from flu-like symptoms. Feeling better after the overnight stay, Giuliani decided to go home for the holidays before heading back out on the campaign trail.
- On the heels of his dropout from the GOP Presidential race, Tom Tancredo has endorsed Mitt Romney.
- No foul play suspected in the death of Dennis Kucinich's brother Perry, an autopsy will be done on Wednesday, Dec. 26th.
- From the Green Party ranks, former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has announced herself as a candidate for the Green Party's presidential nomination. McKinney has been elected, unelected, reelected, and re-unelected from the same Congressional seat (GA-04). Ironically, both times she was knocked out of her Congressional seat, it was in the Democratic primary (shows you her popularity).
McKinney joined the Green Party only two months ago, and is an extremely controversial (if nothing else) person. She has been accused of anti-Semitism, is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who believes Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, is an activist for the release of all documents related to the death of 2Pac (she introduced a bill to do this in Congress), attempted to bring about impeachment proceedings against President Bush, holds Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in the highest regard, wants Nancy Pelosi replaced with Cindy Sheehan...oh yeah, and she was the one who punched a United States Capitol Police Officer when she attempted to re-enter the Capitol without the proper lapel pin for identification.
Yet, I don't see anything that stands with the Green Party's stances on environmentalism and decentralization...as she hasn't done much of anything on the environment and praises socialist/communist leaders. Hmm...
- John McCain is in a fight with the New York Times over an unpublished-as-of-yet story about a key telecom legislation that is currently before the Senate Commerce Committee. The story would lay out charges that McCain may have been providing special treatment to a lobbyist. The NYT is supposedly investigating the validity of the claims, but are frustrated with McCain's strong efforts to halt any and all publication of this story, as well. The lobbyist in question states that McCain has not shown any special treatment towards her.
McCain has hired high-powered attorney Bob Bennett to "stop the smears".
- Barack Obama stated that he would consider putting Republicans in his cabinet if elected President. Some of the names he mentioned: Sen. Chuck Hagel, Sen. Dick Lugar, and...California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
- Rudy Giuliani spent the night in a St. Louis hospital after suffering from flu-like symptoms. Feeling better after the overnight stay, Giuliani decided to go home for the holidays before heading back out on the campaign trail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
