J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Congresswoman Candice Miller:

Tweet This Post

Talk and more talk everywhere about where and how the Republican party has gone wrong.

Given the events of the past few months and the beating we have taken from the negativity coming out of our own White House, it would no doubt do well for the party to take a page out of Big Mitch’s book and “Stand Up For America”:

Be positive, tell us what is good and strong about our country.

Wave the American Flag.

Challenge the negativity, if not with policy then with words, real words which define America and Americans.

Respect those who have joined in tea parties. Make your appearance on news programs and tell people how proud you are to stand with those who challenge this Administration.

Better yet, as elected officials, arrange a few of these gatherings yourselves.

Talk about our troops. Put them back into the hearts and minds of those who may have forgotten.

And, oh yes, those “Bible Thumping Christians,” they had better be a strong part of this movement or the foundation upon which this country was built will crumble even further.

We’ve lost something recently in this country. Republicans have a chance to begin to give it back.

We just need to find the right person to go back to the fundamentals. Not just fiscal policy. Not social programs. Not even foreign policy at the moment, but addressing the Constitution and all our Forefathers envisioned for this Nation.

For just a moment make it about country and not politics..it just might work.

Tweet This Post

Congratulations to Michael Steele who secured the RNC Chairmanship in the 6th round of voting today:

Tweet This Post

Mind boggling..nah.

This has become run of the mill politics and there is no end in sight.

Does anyone really believe that either party in Washington will revamp the system if they feel it will hamper their chances of maintaining or gaining power?

If you do I would really like to hear your thoughts.

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — The bill for the 2008 U.S. elections has been paid, and it comes out to a record $4.1 billion — almost $20 per registered voter.

That’s 37 percent more than the $3 billion spent on the 2004 campaigns by the political parties and their candidates for the White House and Congress, the latest figures from the Federal Election Commission show. The figures don’t include the millions spent by labor unions, advocacy groups and independent political organizations on behalf of candidates.

Those barrier-breaking numbers may give ammunition to those pressing President-elect Barack Obama to overhaul the way federal races are funded.

“It’s hard to eliminate the temptations of corruption that Obama has promised to change without tackling campaign finance,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University in New Jersey.

[emphasis-mine]

Tweet This Post

Ordinarily I might not consider posting this video but these are not ordinary times. We are on the cusp of one of the most important presidential elections in decades.

After listening to this presentation, it is clear not much else need be said in relation to the candidates or their positions.

(There is one section which some might find not suitable for children)

Tweet This Post

While Senator Obama is claiming it was he alone and John McCain had nothing to do with the bailout deal, the Washington Post, no friend of McCain’s, haswritten a piece that gives the inside look of what happened on Thursday in Washington.

When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to “just touch gloves” with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

“I appreciate what you’ve done here, but I’m not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal,” McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. “Just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”

For a moment, as Graham described it, “you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable.” Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before — one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans — was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain’s presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day’s events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain’s arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit — even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

“If there is a deal with the House involved, it’s because of John McCain,” Graham, one of the Arizonan’s closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain’s dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

[Emphasis mine]

There were specific things the House Republicans did not want in the package and since Pelosi and Reid didn’t want to take full blame for the bill, even though they had enough votes to pass it and excluded the House republicans “by mistake” it appears the House Republicans got things cleaned up a bit and with the backing of Sen. McCain.

It looks like Boehner and Company had more sense than the Republican senators or the Democratic representatives and that’s why they were not invited to the negotiating table.

In walks McCain, he makes a statement that even if he has to stand alone he will, and out comes a better proposal. No one is happy about it, but one candidate shouldn’t be taking all the credit for it. Look at the table in the link Sue provided here and see how much worse it would have been without the House Republicans sticking to their guns.

Tweet This Post

It’s been a tough couple of days for the Speaker of the House.

Cindy Sheehan has secured the signatures which will qualify her to compete against the Speaker in her upcoming re-election bid.

Now that could be quite interesting to watch. Not that I expect Ms. Sheehan to to a serious threat to Ms. Pelosi, but for the fireworks which might ensue.

George Stephanopoulos on Sunday grilled Ms. Pelosi on her decision to shut down debate and not allow a vote on off shore drilling.

I’ve read the transcript in its entirety at least twice and with all of the incomplete sentences offered by the Speaker, I could not make heads nor tails of her position. Please, if you do, let me know in the comments.

And, GOP members of the House plan to continue their debate on the House floor today:

ABC News’ Viviana Hurtado Reports: House Republicans tell ABC News that at least 30 members of Congress, emboldened by Barack Obama’s “shift” on off shore drilling, are flying back to DC from their Districts today and tomorrow to attend a special debate on energy policy. This “session” is scheduled for Monday, August 4th beginning at 10 am ET. As expected, no Democrats will participate.

One House Republican says, “I’m a 25 year veteran of the U.S. Congress, and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

GOP members say they would not be holding this debate tomorrow, if the Democratic nominee had not modified his position on off shore drilling.

They believe that with Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain, appearing to be in “agreement” about off shore drilling, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi should recall the Congress from recess, and put an energy bill on the floor in August.

We continue to hear that it will be 10 years before we see the benefit of drilling in Anwar and off shore. While there is a great deal of truth to that statement, it escapes me how the Speaker in her interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos blamed President Bush for a failed energy policy.

In 2002 the House and the President had a plan which would have taken at least a first step towards our energy independence.

If Congress had at least passed that legislation, we could then have moved forward towards developing other forms of energy which would begin to free our binds of substantial dependence on foreign oil.

Doing nothing is no longer an option for members of Congress if we hold their feet to the fire. Majority or minority makes no difference. Party affiliation should go out the window and as citizens we should work to make certain that those elected to represent us are earning their paycheck.

There are some very honest, intelligent, upstanding individuals elected to public office at all levels. They take an Oath of Office and do their level best to live up to that charge. But for those who do not, we must hold not only them but also ourselves accountable.

No,we have no say as to a Representative or Senator elected from a state other than our own, but we always have the availability of using email, phone or a letter to make our views known. When our citizens rise up as they have over the recent price at the pump, Washington takes notice.

After the past few days, I would bet Ms. Pelosi would agree.

Tweet This Post

Some might call this a political stunt, but I wish it was exactly what we would see more of on a constant basis:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi’s refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

I would love to see President Bush call Congress back for an emergency session and keep them in Washington until they can provide him with an acceptable energy bill.

In the meantime I applaud those Republicans who, despite all obstacles put before them by the Speaker, stayed on and continued to hammer away at an issue so vital to the citizens of this country.

Lot’s more here, including video.

Tweet This Post

Tuesday evening when I read that the GOP had lost another House seat in a traditionally Republican district in Mississippi, it set me to wondering how in the world the party digs themselves out of the hole they have created.

Karl Rove has a few ideas in this article published in the Wall Street Journal:

Why is it tough sledding for Republicans? Public revulsion at GOP scandals was a large factor in the party’s 2006 congressional defeat. Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president’s approval ratings. But the principal elements are the Iraq war and a struggling economy.

Gallup’s 2007 report found that fewer voters identify themselves as Republicans now than at any point in the past 20 years – despite the fact that less than a fifth of Americans agree with Mr. Obama’s call to rapidly withdraw from Iraq. And while many Americans are concerned about the economy, most are satisfied with their own finances.

As Republican ranks declined, the number of independents and Democrats grew. Has the bottom been reached? It’s too early to know. But Americans are acknowledging progress in Iraq, economists are suggesting the economy will be in better shape this fall, and a recent ABC/Washington Post poll found GOP identification rising.

What is clear is that John McCain and Republicans will prevail only if they convince voters that there are profound consequences at stake in Iraq, and that more and better jobs will follow from the GOP’s approach of lowering taxes, opening trade, and ending earmarks and other pro-growth policies.

Mr. Rove may have been adept in pointing out the areas on which candidates on the Right should focus, but I see a larger problem.

I am wondering if anyone is even listening..or is the electorate in one of those “throw the bums out” mindsets so that anyone with an (R) following their name will have an uphill climb?

What say you?

Tweet This Post

Civic responsibility in the form of Jury Duty calls today so I will not be posting the traditional Tuesday Tid-Bits.

I did however see this interesting video at the NRCC website which defines a series which has recently been completed.

The NRCC recently sat down with several Members of Congress to ask them about the most pressing issues facing voters today, and why the Republicans can, and will, win back the Majority. The web series, entitled “Rediscover Your Party,” will run throughout the fall.

This above video reflects a compilation of the 6 individual videos linked below. Many of the longstanding differences between the two controlling parties in Congress are addressed. The entire collection takes roughly 20 minutes to view.

Episode 1: Iraq
Episode 2: Earmark Reform
Episode 3: Accountability and Transparency
Episode 4: Free Speech
Episode 5 – Republicans Running to Regain the Majority
Final Episode: Election 2008

Tweet This Post

My original blog was Oh, How I Love Jesus and I had one other writer with me for the first part.

Then people began to visit the site and we started discussing politics as well as faith issues. I invited two of them to blog with me.

After awhile, it became apparent we were discussing politics more than faith and I suggested to the two newest members that maybe we should start a political blog. I was willing to foot the bill if they would be a part of that blog.

At first they declined, but after speaking to their husbands about it they decided it was a good idea afterall and the dominant one said she would pay for the domain registration and design of the blog.

The one who wanted to be friends with everyone said she insisted on paying for half the cost of designing the blog. They said I had already paid for one blog and could share in the cost the next year.

I had three other themes made up for the elections and to show the White House for this cycle and Congress for the off-year elections, so I contributed as much as they did.

We started in May 2006 and had 200 hits the very first day. I contacted people I knew in the blog world to tell them about our new blog and soon we were getting comments that we were the first stop in the morning.

By March of 2007 it had become apparent that the dominant partner and I were not as compatible as we should have been, with her sending emails to me telling me how awful it was that I wrote about such and such and I should do it this way.

On March 8, 2007, after my dear neighbor had died four days before and my best friend’s father died that day I received an email from the peacemaker telling me that she and the dominant one had discussed it and decided they didn’t want me to be a partner in the blog. Instead of having administrative privileges I would be just an editor, which meant there were a lot of things I could see and do as administrator that would be blocked from me now.

I declined their offer and left that day after removing every post I had ever put up and the one announcing our first blogiversary.

That made them mad and when I questioned the dominant one in the comments section she went off on a rant. The next day someone posted something about Fred Thompson and I agreed I thought he’d be a good candidate. My comment was blacklisted, as was this blog.

I cannot comment there nor can I give them any credit for using some of their material in our posts.

This is a long story to get you to this point. In June 2007 the peacemaker made a decision to have me do a trackback to their blog if I would write something about the soldiers in Iraq needing air conditioners. I would have done it without the trackback, but since that’s good blogiquette I did the trackback.

About 2 hours later the trackback was gone, and so was the peacemaker.

Now the dominant one had the place all to herself and began to get some other bloggers besides the ones the other two of us had suggested. We had a great blog up until all this happened.

Now if I go to that blog I find everyone caterwauling that we didn’t nominate someone who is conservative and therefore we should vote for him anyway. The next day the story is we didn’t nominate someone who is conservative so we should not vote for him but vote for the down-ballot candidates.

And every day the dominant one shows her ignorance by telling us how smart she is. She hasn’t quit whining since it became clear McCain would win the nomination.

Before, she would never vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon and her sister converted to Mormonism and she knows all about them. By the last month or so she was Mitt Romney’s biggest supporter.

She’s not going to vote, nor are her two daughters and husband. At least that’s what she says now.

This is a perfect example of fair weather Republicans and the reason we lost the Congress two years ago. We’d rather cut off our noses to spite our faces than go with the one who is more like you and whose ideas for governing are more like yours.

All I can say is although I was deeply hurt when I was kicked off the blog the Lord knew what He was doing. I would have gone insane trying to play both ends against the middle and He knew it.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

The National Republican Congressional Committee is putting together some videos with spokesmen from the party leadership to discuss issues and bring them directly to the public.

Here is the first of their videos.

If you like this please go over to their site to view more in the series as they become available or to view other videos and read the posted articles.

Tweet This Post

This is whats happening in the real world of scandal. People don’t care about who got a million here or there. They care about things that they can understand in one second of their busy lives. I think that we are going to need more than campaign finance scandal this time around to beat the Democrats because the Republicans seem to be in a self destruct mode.

Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, was at a dinner in Philadelphia on Monday night when his cellphone and Internet pager began beeping like crazy. Only later did he learn why. His party was buzzing with news of a sex scandal involving a Republican United States senator — again.
Just when Republicans thought things could not get any worse, Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct after an undercover police officer accused him of soliciting sex in June in a Minneapolis airport restroom. On Tuesday, Mr. Craig, 62, held a news conference to defend himself, calling the guilty plea “a mistake” and declaring, “I am not gay” — even as the Senate Republican leadership asked for an Ethics Committee review.

It was a bizarre spectacle, and only the latest in a string of accusations of sexual foibles and financial misdeeds that have landed Republicans in the political equivalent of purgatory, the realm of late-night comic television.

Forget Mark Foley of Florida, who quit the House last year after exchanging sexually explicit e-mail messages with under-age male pages, or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist whose dealings with the old Republican Congress landed him in prison. They are old news, replaced by a fresh crop of scandal-plagued Republicans, men like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose phone number turned up on the list of the so-called D.C. Madam, or Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative Rick Renzi of Arizona, both caught up in F.B.I. corruption investigations.

It is enough to make a self-respecting Republican want to tear his hair out in frustration, especially as the party is trying to defend an unpopular war, contain the power of the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill and generate some enthusiasm among voters heading toward the presidential election in 2008.

“The real question for Republicans in Washington is how low can you go, because we are approaching a level of ridiculousness,” said Mr. Reed, sounding exasperated in an interview on Tuesday morning. “You can’t make this stuff up. And the impact this is having on the grass-roots around the country is devastating. Republicans think the governing class in Washington are a bunch of buffoons who have total disregard for the principles of the party, the law of the land and the future of the country.”

Story

Tweet This Post

If this is true and I don’t know if it is, someone should at least go to jail for breaking the law,Hatch act.

WASHINGTON – Top Commerce and Treasury department officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.

Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings – all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether the White House’s political briefings to at least 15 agencies, including to the Justice Department, the General Services Administration and the State Department, violated a ban on the use of government resources for campaign activities.

Under the Hatch Act, Cabinet members are permitted to attend political briefings and appear with members of Congress. But Cabinet members and other political appointees aren’t permitted to spend taxpayer money with the aim of benefiting candidates.

During the briefings at Treasury and Commerce, then-Bush administration political director Ken Mehlman and other White House aides detailed competitive congressional districts, battleground election states and key media markets and outlined GOP strategy for getting out the vote.

Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grant announcements that often correlated with GOP interests, according to a review of the events by McClatchy Newspapers. The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House’s political guidance in mind.

The briefings are part of the legacy of White House political adviser Karl Rove, who announced this week that he is stepping down at the end of the month to spend more time with his family. Despite Rove’s departure, investigations into the briefings are expected to continue.

Story

Tweet This Post

Max Deveson of the BBC’s Analysis and Research unit explains what happened to the men and women who came to power with President Bush in January 2001.

The appointment of the staunchly religious, anti-abortion John Ashcroft as attorney general, in charge of the Department of Justice, was an early sign that the Bush White House would be keen to reward the religious right for its electoral support.

Ashcroft was widely disliked by liberals for his package of security measures after 9/11, perceived as an attack on civil liberties.

However, this opposition turned to grudging admiration when it later emerged that Mr Ashcroft – whilst ill in hospital in 2004 – had rejected a White House request to authorise a scheme to allow the warrantless wire-tapping of US citizens.

After his departure in 2005, Mr Ashcroft set up a lobbying company advising clients involved in the homeland security industry.

Although he was one of the longest-serving chiefs of staff in over 40 years, Andrew Card was never a particularly high-profile member of the president’s team.

Mr Bush valued him for his loyalty and dedication. His wife is said to have asked once: “Are you married to me or George W Bush?”

Mr Card resigned in March 2006, a move reportedly prompted by concern that the Iraq War would be perceived as another Vietnam. He now sits on the board of directors at Union Pacific Railroad.
When Mr Bush chose Mr Cheney as his running mate in 2000 the decision was seen as an attempt to reassure voters that the young Bush would be able to draw on Mr Cheney’s wisdom and experience.

A long-standing political operator, Mr Cheney had served in Congress and in the administrations of a number of former presidents.

After the election, Mr Cheney used his knowledge of the mechanics of government to become one of the most powerful vice-presidents in US history, seen by some as the “power behind the throne”.

With the president’s approval, Mr Cheney has had a great deal of influence over a number of policy areas, in particular energy and foreign affairs.

He has also developed a reputation for secrecy, refusing to allow congressional oversight of some of his activities.

Health-permitting, he will remain in office until the end of the administration’s second term.

Mr Rove managed Mr Bush’s two successful Texas gubernatorial campaigns in the 1990s as well as the 2000 presidential campaign.

He has been described variously as “Bush’s Brain”, “evil Rasputin” and – by the president himself – “Turd Blossom”, a reference to a Texan flower which blooms on manure.

His success in producing Republican electoral victories and the often cunning, partisan way in which the victories have been achieved has made him unpopular with the president’s political opponents.

His resignation came amid calls for him to testify in the Senate about his role in the sacking of a number of US attorneys and the launch of a probe into political briefings to government officials by him and his team.

Story

Tweet This Post

Can it get any more pathetic?

This weekend, Americans will see images of voters emerging from polling booths proudly displaying their purple-stained thumbs as a mark of pride after their democratic effort.

The images will not be beamed from Baghdad, though, but from Ames, Iowa, where Republicans will gather for an annual straw poll. This year’s straw poll will be the first to have voters dip their thumbs in the same kind of dye used in the 2005 national elections in Iraq.

“We recognize the great privilege of voting by tipping our hat to the Iraqi people who cast their first votes in a free and democratic election,” Chuck Laudner, the Iowa Republican Party’s executive director, said in a news release. “Iowans will be just as proud to display their inked thumb as the newly liberated Iraqi people were.”

Story

Tweet This Post

Speaks for itself.

A majority of the American public has turned sour on President Bush’s policy in Iraq — but you wouldn’t know it from listening to top Republican recruits for congressional races next year.

Virtually all of the party’s blue-chip challengers continue to back Bush’s surge policy and oppose any timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Their dogged support, even as a number of prominent GOP incumbents in Congress have distanced themselves from the president, could offer political peril for Republican candidates if conditions in Iraq do not dramatically improve.

Republican recruits sense the potential danger; few are eager to talk about Iraq. But most of these challengers seem to feel they have little choice but to back Bush, who remains popular with the most stalwart factions of the GOP base — the party faithful who vote in primaries and give money to congressional candidates.

“Very rarely do GOP recruits cite Iraq as a motivating issue behind their candidacies, and most Republican nominees would prefer to be talking about taxes next October,” said Cook Report House analyst David Wasserman. “It’s difficult to see how a continued presence in Iraq next fall would be anything other than a liability to GOP efforts to gain back ground.”

Story

Tweet This Post

Tell me this isn’t crazy. Sounds like they’re doing the American peoples work. Yeah Right!
Well, I guess you could say they learned from the best.

House Democratic leaders are intent on sidetracking bipartisan attempts to change course in Iraq at least until fall, officials said Tuesday, rather than allow nervous Republicans to vote for legislation that lacks a troop withdrawal deadline.

Several lawmakers and aides said the goal was to deny members of the GOP rank and file a chance to proclaim their independence from President Bush by voting for a limited measure - after months of backing his policy in an increasingly unpopular war.

Story

Tweet This Post

This is a good read, enjoy.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) isn’t giving an inch on revealing his plans.

No matter that he hasn’t raised much money for a 2008 reelection bid (fueling speculation that he will not run for a sixth term). Or that this influential legislator on defense matters is challenging the White House’s policy on Iraq (suggesting perhaps that he’ll stick around to finish business
Right now, he will say only that he remains focused on passing the proposal he introduced last week with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) to revisit what he calls the “obsolete” war authorization and require the administration to begin drawing up nonbinding troop redeployment plans. Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday postponed votes on the defense authorization bill and any war-related amendments, including Warner’s, because Republicans demanded a 60-vote margin for passage. But Warner was undaunted.

“We can’t have any more loss of life. We need to restore the loss of credibility in some measure of the country and remain a respected source of authority in that region,” said Warner, 80. “We want to bring a measure of stability to Iraq, but at the same time, this needs to be brought to a conclusion.”

As a longtime senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Warner is a highly respected voice on the conflict. The World War II veteran and former Navy secretary startled Republicans last year when he returned from a trip to Iraq and said that the country seemed to be “drifting sideways.” And as the Armed Services Committee’s chairman during the Abu Ghraib scandal, he raised eyebrows when he insisted in 2004 that Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary at the time, testify under oath.

Story

Tweet This Post

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has always been considered to be a liberal Republican, who has even discussed impeachment of President Bush.

I could never understand how a liberal Republican would win a Senate seat when he’s from a very conservative state.

There are even rumors he might join Mayor Michael Bloomburg of NYC in a third party presidential run, although it’s all rumor about either of them as far as I can see.

Now comes word in a New York Sun editorial that the state attorney general of Nebraska, Jon Bruning, has stated that today he will announce his candidacy to challenge Hagel for the 2008 primary.

A poll conducted for Mr. Bruning shows him leading Mr. Hagel among likely Republican primary voters by 9 percentage points. Mr. Bruning assails Mr, Hagel for being, “The Republican that talks like a Democrat,” pointing to Mr. Hagel’s support for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, as well as his discussion of impeaching President Bush. “He’s become arrogant and out of touch,” Mr. Bruning said. “His constituent services are very poor.”

Mr. Bruning also mentioned New York Sun editorials documenting the weakness of Mr. Hagel’s record on Israel, including a recent speech by Mr. Hagel before an Arab American group in which Mr. Hagel said that support for Israel shouldn’t be automatic.

In my mind support for Israel is a very important issue and I would not support a candidate who does not support Israel, even if he were conservative on everything else. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

With the self-proclaimed base of the Republican party going bananas over illegal immigration and promising to not vote for someone who is not 100% as far right as they are on every issue, we now have the same thing happening to the self-proclaimed base of the Democratic party.

The bitter battle between the Democratic Congress and President Bush over Iraq war funding may be over for now, but another fight has erupted between Democrats and members of the antiwar base who say they were betrayed by their party.

Democratic leaders told their rank-and-file supporters Friday they had no choice but to give up efforts to tie a troop-withdrawal deadline to an emergency appropriations bill. Mr. Bush on Friday signed the bill that pays for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30.

Many antiwar activists and bloggers condemned the Democrats’ retreat and said their patience with party leadership was wearing thin.

“Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth — all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation,” Democratic campaign strategist David Sirota wrote Friday on the left-wing Huffington Post Web site. “We gave them our heart; they gave President Bush a blank check.

“That will make May 24, 2007, a dark day … when Democrats in Washington not only continued the war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government’s role is to ignore the will of the American people,” Mr. Sirota wrote.

The Daily Kos, one of the largest antiwar Web sites, also expressed disappointment and anger that leaders such as Democratic Sen. James H. Webb Jr. of Virginia voted to approve funding for the war. But it took some solace in Mr. Webb’s statement that he “will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

“They let us down this time. But the opportunities for them to make amends still exist,” Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the Daily Kos, wrote the day after the vote. “If Democrats take advantage of them, as they promise they will, then all might be forgiven. They can prove to us that they in fact know what they are doing, and that they, in fact, do plan on honoring their most sacred promise to the 2006 electorate.

“And if they don’t? Well, no one, not even the most rabid partisans, have an endless supply of patience,” Mr. Zuniga warned.

As I’ve said before, the problem with the extreme wings of both parties is their candidates have to be as pure as the driven snow when it comes to their issues. No compromise; no reality; just temper tantrums to get what they want.

So, with the election about 17 months away, what will these purists do if they don’t get their way? Besides suck their thumbs and sulk?

They can’t vote for anyone in good conscience because no one measures up, so do they stay home to punish the party?

Maybe that’s not such a bad idea because then we could elect someone who is reasonable and not ready to fall off a cliff on the right or the left.

Tweet This Post

I’ve been thinking lately about the far right wing of the Republican party and of the far left wing of the Democratic party.

To be honest with you I wouldn’t want to belong to either wing.

Let’s start with the far left wing of the Democratic party, which is the one I am least familiar with from personal experience.

These are your ultra-liberals from Hollywood and the various arts groups, the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual and Transgender organizations, the Ladies in Pink, who support just about anything if it’s strange to the mainstream of America, professors at our universities who indoctrinate our college-age children if at all possible and the major news media in this country.

I don’t care about another person’s sexuality, but I don’t want it shoved down my throat and my grandchildren’s throats as an accepted alternate lifestyle. This is an issue that should be handled by the parents at home and not the teachers in the school room.

The Ladies in Pink…well what can I say about them other than they seem to like the spotlight and making fools of themselves in public gatherings. Their purpose in life seems to be to demand what they want as a small child would demand what he wants. Except the small child would get a pop on the bottom after awhile.

Professors should make their students think, but they shouldn’t politically indoctrinate them. Teach the subject and be objective in the grading, even if the student disagrees politically with the professor.

I have no problem with the major newspapers writing opinion pieces as long as they keep them on the opinion pages and not on the front pages posing as news.

They all want to set the agenda and if it isn’t their way it’s the highway. How many times have we read about Moveon.Org stating they won the last election and the Democrats had better do what they want or they won’t support them?

It’s precisely because of these groups that we can’t get a supplemental funding bill for our troops, or any other meaningful legislation passed.

They want us to pull out and never mind the consequences.

Then we have the far right wing of the Republican party that looks for nothing but purity in everything.

They got angry with the president over his nomination of Harriet Miers to SCOTUS (I agree she wasn’t a good candidate), over the Dubai Ports deal (I wasn’t crazy for that either) and illegal immigration.

In the end they got what they wanted except on illegal immigration and there’s the rub.

To them it has to be deportation of all illegals in this country, an electric fence with a moat if possible, and no chance of any immigrants from south of our border to be allowed into this country at all. Of course I joke about the electric fence and the moats but you get my drift.

So what do they do to get their way? They don’t vote and figure that fixes the Republicans, while in the process getting a worse deal from the Democrats, but it’s the “principle” they stand on.

I firmly believe immigration is the reason the Republicans lost both houses of congress last year and it’s been a problem in our country for over 20 years, but somehow it became Bush’s fault.

The right wing will eat their own and are doing it with our president and members of congress.

They will accept no compromise, just as the far left wing of the Democratic party will accept no compromise that has the word bipartisan in it.

When everyone can’t agree on something they usually give a little so they can get something else. That’s how compromise works and it may not be the best solution for everyone’s purposes but it’s the best solution our congress can come up with at the time and we need to accept it.

If you can get 75%-80% of what you are after, can’t you be a little patient and wait for the other 20%-25%, particularly if you are in the minority and in no position to get a better deal?

Being a conservative Republican does not automatically make me a far right-winger anymore than being a Liberal Democrat automatically makes a person a far-left winger.

If most people are like me, they will be conservative on issues they value the most and liberal on other issues they value. No one but the wingers can be straight down-the-line conservative or liberal.

I believe in personal responsibility, which most Republicans believe, but I’ll bet there are many Democrats who believe the same thing.

I happen to believe we have social responsibilities to those less fortunate than we and whether that be with the help of churches, private charities or {gasp!} the government, then I believe those people unable to help themselves should be assured of housing, food, clothing and medical care.

I guess it all depends on what we’ve been exposed to in life. I happened to have been raised on an Indian reservation and saw many people go without necessities due to lack of funds. Somehow we banded together as a community and helped these folks and now their children are self-sufficient.

This does not mean I think we should help every person who is able to work and just doesn’t want to do so, but I think we should provide them with the tools necessary for them to take care of themselves and their families for the rest of their lives. To me, that’s an investment.

Tweet This Post

I guess I always knew in the back of my mind it would happen. Right-leaning sites love to call those on the left the cut and run crowd.

Now the right has its own cut and run people. Oh, they describe themselves as moderates, but no one will pay attention to that. All they see and will see is a group of Republicans met with the president on Tuesday and told him they can’t support him much longer because the polls don’t look good. And, by golly, getting re-elected is priority number one in Washington.

House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

…
But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out.
…
“It was a very remarkable, candid conversation,” Davis said. “People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance, and we took it.”

Even with pressure mounting, Congress and the White House are making little progress as they try to find a bipartisan option to fund the war through the summer. Senate leaders met with White House officials yesterday and produced no agreement, as Gates warned lawmakers that the debate is beginning to delay Pentagon operations.

The one area of agreement seemed to be that U.S. officials want the Iraqi government to better contain violence there. Vice President Cheney made an unannounced trip to Baghdad yesterday to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other officials. He urged them to help end fighting between rival Sunni and Shiite factions, to make progress on revising their constitution, and to better manage their oil revenue.

Cheney also expressed concern about the Iraqi parliament considering a two-month summer vacation.

Mr. President, I’m no bigwig or even a littlewig in politics, but I have some advice to you: Stay true to yourself as long as you can and force Congress to defund the war so when the crying and bellyaching start you can say with a clear conscience you tried to complete the job, but the Congress tied your hands.

It will make the anti-war crowd orgasmic and I’m beginning to think those in your own party will feel the same way. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

It seems Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and not Senator John McCain is the White House go-to man for immigration legislation.

Last year the Senate passed a pretty liberal immigration bill that allows a path to citizenship for just about anyone who wants it. If not for the Republican House last year this bill would have become law.

Now all eyes are on Jon Kyl.

For two years, the White House thought the chances of getting an immigration bill passed in Congress lay with Arizona’s Republican senator. Unfortunately for President Bush, he was counting on the wrong one.

While the White House was working with Sen. John McCain, Arizona’s other senator, Jon Kyl, emerged this year as the most important player in the immigration debate, showing that even as the Congress has grown more liberal with Democrats in control, the immigration debate has shifted to the right.

It’s also a recognition that as Mr. Kyl goes, so go a number of Republicans.

“If it’s good enough for Kyl, it’s going to be good enough for a lot of conservatives,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican and one of the top House lawmakers pressing for a bill this year.

The debate starts today when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is expected to use a parliamentary procedure to resurrect one of last year’s bills. His move is designed to pressure Republicans to get something done, but they said they can’t meet the deadline.

Mr. Kyl is leading a group of Republicans working with the White House, two Cabinet secretaries and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democrats’ leader on immigration, to try to write a tough and workable bill.

“There’s only one way that there’s going to be legislation adopted this year, and that’s in a bipartisan way,” Mr. Kyl said yesterday, warning that Mr. Reid’s move could “break up any chance” for such an agreement.

Excuse me for not having the intellect to understand how Sen. Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate is resurrecting one of last year’s bills (without hearings) so he can get the Republicans to get something done. 8-|

Feel free to explain that one to me.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

DJ Drummond has a great post up Stolen Thunder. It is also cross-posted at Wizbang Politics.

I am thoroughly disgusted with the rash of upstarts claiming they have a right to vilify and smear the sitting President of the United States, merely because Dubya has declined to obey their whims and (often ill-considered) demands for certain policy and executive decisions. I do not mean just the Speaker of the House, who can find no time to meet with the President on pressing matters of state, but who can and has broken Federal law in order to chat with a state sponsor of terrorism. I do not mean just the Democratic Party, which pledged to the public to be honest, forthright, and to support the troops, but which since their election has performed to a moral standard somewhat below Bluto’s level in the Toga Party during the movie “Animal House”. I do not even mean just the “gotcha” media which has been trying to bring down officials in the Bush Administration ever since he was sworn in, nor the spittle-flecked blogs of the Extreme Left, whose sense of morality is almost as absent as their knowledge of History, Grammar, or personal hygiene. No, here I am talking about ostensible members of the Republican Party, who have become so obsessed with their ego and arrogance that they have forgotten every lesson taught in word and practice by Ronald Reagan.

No, he’s not fussing about the Democrats but is fussing about certain Republicans. Go read the rest.

Tweet This Post

This Washington Post article describes what the emboldened Democrats intend to do to harrass President Bush after the Easter recess (in addition to what they have already done.)

Here are some quotes:

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues — such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders — with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress.

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

“I suppose there’s always a risk of going too far,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), “but the risk of not going is far greater.”

Yes, Mr. Hoyer, there is a great risk of going too far and we have seen in the recent past the American people are above-all fair-minded unless all the fair-minded ones have died and we are left with the radicals who think child-like behavior is acceptable.

Why do you think the public rallied around Clinton if not for their sense of protecting the underdog and the one who has been fairly or unfairly badgered?

Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a “political price” at the polls: “If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react.”

Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.

“That’s where their strength is,” Panetta said. “If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that’s a recipe for losing seats in the next election.”

But even conservative Democrats insist their party is in no danger of overreaching its mandate from the November elections.

Panetta is right. And where is this “mandate” they claim? They have a two-seat majority in the Senate, one of which is Independent Joseph Lieberman who usually votes with the Republicans on issues of National Security.

The United States House of Representatives has 231 Democrats, 201 Republicans and two vacancies, one due to a death.

With such slim majorities, where is the mandate?

I just spoke to my congressman’s office to get the makeup of the House and asked the aide where the mandate is? She asked what I meant and I told her I keep hearing the Democrats talk of the mandate they got in November. I reminded her Nixon claimed a mandate and had won by a landslide but the Democrats denied he had a mandate.

Her answer was not one House Democrat lost the election in November and this is how they claim their mandate. I disagree. The numbers are too close and the partisianship is too great and too hateful, and I want adults in charge.

Is that too much to ask?

The Captain is also blogging on this story in a much better way than I can.

Tweet This Post