Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Campaign. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

2008 Republican Primary Final Delegate Estimate - 2008-01-23


As the primary season unfolds this year, I was interested to find out what the Final Republican Delegate Count would be if the 2008 Republican Primary were tomorrow. Below are the results of my research. These figures include the results of the most recent Primaries (South Carolina and Nevada) and the latest polling data. I have also added more state-by-state polling data, as well as a new methodology for considering it in the final delegate count. Additionally, I have recently done further research into the process of delegate selection for those states I was unsure about.

John McCain - 1,135
Michael Huckabee - 438
Rudolph Giuliani - 246
Mitt Romney - 210
Ron Paul - 31
Unpledged - 320

Total Delegates: 2380
Needed to Win: 1191
Winner: No Delegate Majority Achieved

Disclaimer:
This map is simply an average of national polling, created using the methodology described below. I am not a professional pollster, and the above map is for illustrative purposes only. As the national polls continue to vary, given the unpredictable nature of the primary race at this point, this map will change. I will continue to update these numbers as poll numbers change and as the actual primary votes and caucus results are gathered, and Republican delegates selected.

Click Here to View the Most Recent Map

I should also add that this does map does not represent my endorsement of any one candidate or their position. It is simply a compilation of polling data and not reflective of my opinions in any way, since the end result is created by strict calculation.

Methodology:
The process of delegate selection for each state was researched, as well as the number of delegates.

Where actual cauci and primaries had been conducted, the actual delegate count was used. These states included: Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina

Where cauci and primaries had not been conducted, the most recent statewide polling data was used to determine the estimated delegate count. Statewide polling data from www.realclearpolitics.com and www.usaelectionpolls.com was used in this study. These states included: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. If the poll was conducted less than 31 days ago, it was used. If it was conducted more than 31 days ago, then the state's poll figures were averaged with the national poll figures. The weight of the state poll figures in this average was decreased according to the date they were conducted, with older polls having the least weight. This was done the preserve some regional data in the delegate estimates, while also taking the date of the poll and national trends into consideration.

Where statewide polling data was not available, the national average according to www.realclearpolitics.com was used.

For all polling data, support for candidates no longer in the race (Hunter, Tancredo, Thompson) were added to the Undecided category).

In the Real Clear Politics Average, Senator John McCain had an 8.4% lead over the other candidates. Given the number of winner-take-all states, and the age of many state-by-state polls (influences the state-by-state methodology), he takes a large amount of Republican Delegates. However, recent state polls haven given enough delegates to Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani to prevent McCain from forming a majority.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

2008 Republican Primary Final Delegate Estimate - 2008-01-16


As the primary season unfolds this year, I was interested to find out what the Final Republican Delegate Count would be if the 2008 Republican Primary were tomorrow. Below are the results of my research. These figures include the results of the New Hampshire and Michigan Primaries and the latest polling data. I have also added more state-by-state polling data, as well as a new methodology for considering it in the final delegate count.

John McCain - 1,637
Michael Huckabee - 246
Rudolph Giuliani - 177
Mitt Romney - 95
Fred Thompson - 23
Ron Paul - 9
Duncan Hunter - 1
Unpledged - 192

Total Delegates: 2380
Needed to Win: 1191
Winner: John McCain

Disclaimer:
This map is simply an average of national polling, created using the methodology described below. I am not a professional pollster, and the above map is for illustrative purposes only. As the national polls continue to vary, given the unpredictable nature of the primary race at this point, this map will change. I will continue to update these numbers as poll numbers change and as the actual primary votes and caucus results are gathered, and Republican delegates selected.

Click Here to View the Most Recent Map

Methodology:
The process of delegate selection for each state was researched, as well as the number of delegates. Where the process of delegate selection was unknown, a "winner-take-all" method was used, since this is the most common practice within the Republican Party delegate selection process. The states which were assumed to use the "winner-take-all" method included: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

Where actual cauci and primaries had been conducted, the actual delegate count was used. These states included: Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan.

Where cauci and primaries had not been conducted, the most recent statewide polling data was used to determine the estimated delegate count. Statewide polling data from www.realclearpolitics.com and www.usaelectionpolls.com was used in this study. These states included: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. If the poll was conducted less than 31 days ago, it was used. If it was conducted more than 31 days ago, then the states poll figures were averaged with the national poll figures. The weight of the state poll figures in this average was decreased according to the date they were conducted, with older polls having the least weight. This was done the preserve some regional data in the delegate estimates, while also taking the date of the poll and national trends into consideration.

Where statewide polling data was not available, the national average according to www.realclearpolitics.com was used. In the Real Clear Politics Average, Senator John McCain had a 9.5% lead over the other candidates. Given the number of winner-take-all states, and the age of many state-by-state polls (influences the state-by-state methodology), he takes the majority of Republican Delegates.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

2008 Republican Primary Final Delegate Estimate - 2008-01-09


As the primary season begins to unfold this year, I was interested to find out what the Final Republican Delegate Count would be if the 2008 Republican Primary were tomorrow. Below are the results of my research. These figures include the results of the New Hampshire Primary and the latest polling data.

Michael Huckabee - 1,624
Rudolph Giuliani - 477
Mitt Romney - 60
John McCain - 36
Fred Thompson - 21
Ron Paul - 8
Duncan Hunter - 1
Unpledged - 153

Total Delegates: 2380
Needed to Win: 1191
Winner: Michael Huckabee

Disclaimer:
This map is simply an average of national polling, created using the methodology described below. I am not a professional pollster, and the above map is for illustrative purposes only. As the national polls continue to vary, given the unpredictable nature of the primary race at this point, this map will change. I will continue to update these numbers as poll numbers change and as the actual primary votes and caucus results are gathered, and Republican delegates selected.

Click Here to View the Most Recent Map

Methodology:
The process of delegate selection for each state was researched, as well as the number of delegates. Where the process of delegate selection was unknown, a "winner-take-all" method was used, since this is the most common practice within the Republican Party delegate selection process. The states which were assumed to use the "winner-take-all" method included: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

Where actual cauci and primaries had been conducted, the actual delegate count was used. These states included: Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire

Where cauci and primaries had not been conducted, the most recent statewide polling data was used to determine the estimated delegate count. Statewide polling data from www.realclearpolitics.com was used in this study. These states included: California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

Where statewide polling data was not available, the national average according to www.realclearpolitics.com was used. In the Real Clear Politics Average, Governor Michael Huckabee had a 1.3% lead over the other candidates. Given the number of winner-take-all states, he takes the majority of Republican Delegates.

Monday, January 7, 2008

2008 Republican Primary Final Delegate Estimate - 2008-01-07


As the primary season begins to unfold this year, I was interested to find out what the Final Republican Delegate Count would be if the 2008 Republican Primary were tomorrow. Here are the results of my research:

John McCain - 1,591
Rudolph Giuliani - 481
Michael Huckabee - 65
Mitt Romney - 56
Fred Thompson - 20
Ron Paul - 8
Duncan Hunter - 1
Unpledged - 158

Total Delegates: 2380
Needed to Win: 1191
Winner: John McCain

Disclaimer:
This map is simply an average of national polling, created using the methodology described below. I am not a professional pollster, and the above map is for illustrative purposes only. As the national polls continue to vary, given the unpredictable nature of the primary race at this point, this map will change. I will continue to update these numbers as poll numbers change and as the actual primary votes and caucus results are gathered, and Republican delegates selected.

Click Here to View the Most Recent Map

Methodology:
The process of delegate selection for each state was researched, as well as the number of delegates. Where the process of delegate selection was unknown, a "winner-take-all" method was used, since this is the most common practice within the Republican Party delegate selection process. The states which were assumed to use the "winner-take-all" method included: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

Where actual cauci and primaries had been conducted, the actual delegate count was used. These states included: Iowa and Wyoming

Where cauci and primaries had not been conducted, the most recent statewide polling data was used to determine the estimated delegate count. Statewide polling data from www.realclearpolitics.com was used in this study. These states included: California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

Where statewide polling data was not available, the national average according to www.realclearpolitics.com was used. In the Real Clear Politics Average, Senator John McCain had a 1% lead over the other candidates. Given the number of winner-take-all states, he takes the majority of Republican Delegates.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Republicans for Hillary Rodham Clinton?

We all want the best for our country. And, when it comes to conservatives, we all want our Republican Presidential Candidate to beat whomever the Democrat Party nominates. Therefore, it is in our best interest to support the nomination of the Democrat candidate that is the weakest, so that come the general election, the Republican candidate will be a shoe in.

This is the line of reasoning behind Republican support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Take a look at these articles

ABCNews: Clinton Will Win Nomination, Lose Election
NYTimes: Vulnerable Democrats See Fates Tied to Clinton
HuffingtonPost: Are Republicans Really Scared of Hillary Clinton
NewsMax.com: Hillary Would Lose in 2008

The premise of these articles is that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination and then be decisively beaten in the general election. Let's look at the facts. Hillary Clinton is not likable: she has never had more than a 50% favorability rating during this race. Hillary Clinton is polarizing: everyone has an opinion on Clinton, positive or negative, and they are unlikely to change those opinions. Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy: polls have shown that people do not trust Hillary, even many of her own supporters. Hillary Clinton is wishy-washy: her position on the issues constantly changes, making it easy to poke holes in her campaign platform. Additionally, Hillary Clinton has enough dirt on her to make her candidacy a series of stumbles explaining away scandals and scandals. So with all of this baggage, why not support a Hillary Clinton nomination?

Well, Karl Rove has written an article advising Republicans on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. In it, he advises them not to think that running against her will be slam dunk for the GOP. She is a clever adversary with vast resources and powerful supporters, all of which she will bring to bear if she wins the nomination. It is a good reality check for those conservatives thinking Senator Hillary Clinton will be an easy target in November 2008.

I think Senator Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry opportunist, who will do what ever it takes to seize and hold power. If given the power of the Presidency, she will radically change the course of this country. She will certainly raise taxes, making it near impossible to get rich, while bankrupting the middle class. She will implement socialized medicine and authorize the government takeover of the health care, which represents 1/7th of the U.S. economy. She will create policies that will put the oil companies out of business, and eliminate any energy independence we have left. Hillary Clinton will fill the bureaucracy with her socialist cronies, who will use their government posts to protect her, destroy her enemies, and prevent any reversal of her disastrous policies. She will nominate ultra-liberal judges to the appellate and supreme courts who will not hesitate to rewrite our constitution, interpret away our freedoms, and use foreign law and U.N. resolutions as a basis for their decisions. She will allow a flood of illegal immigrats from Mexico to radically change the demographics of America, and create a new underclass of government-dependent voters. And on and on. I've only scratched the surface on the disaster that will be her Presidency, not to mention the scandals First Husband Bill Clinton will create with his philandering. Her policies will literally destroy the American economy, eliminate the freedom that has made this country great, and sell America's time honored traditions for the advancement of her own power. This is Hillary Clinton.

Now, I do not even want Hillary Clinton in the Senate, not to mention to Presidency. So, why would I want her to be one breath away from winning the general election? Let's say she wins the nomination. What happens if the Republican candidate becomes involved in some scandal, or dies, or even just runs a poor campaign? What if current events change and tilt the election in favor of the Deomcrats? There are a million scenarios where Hillary Clinton could win. Not to mention all of her efforts to manufacture the scenarios I just described. And with a dutifully obedient media behind her (ahem... CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTimes, LATimes, etc...), she may pull it off. For me, it is simply too close for comfort.


But, she cannot win the Presidency if she does not win the nomination. That is why it is critical to defeat her now and to put an end to her presidential aspirations early. As Iowa approaches, it seems that this may be a possibility. The Republican candidates should brace for a bitter, dirty battle in 2008 with Senator Hillary Clinton. However, if possible, they should do their best to eliminate her as a candidate now. Republicans and conservatives nationwide should not be afraid of Senator Clinton, but should view her candidacy realistically and understand the threat it poses to America. They should then stop looking forward to the knock-down drag-out battle she would bring to the general election, but look forward to finally putting her brand of socialism on the shelf permanently, and as soon as possible.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Weekly Poll Results: 11/24/2007

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Democrat Idiocy Has REAL Consquences

I am sure you have been following all of the news simmering in the background of the Presidential campaign about Pakistan. The basic situation is that General Pervez Musharraf, currently serving as the Pakistani President, declared a State of Emergency in early November, has arrested political opponents, and is interfering with the upcoming elections in January. General Pervez Musharraf, head of the Pakistani military, seized power in Pakistan in 1999 through a military coup. Despite the fact that he is a military dictator, he has been a major ally to the United States in the War on Terror. Today, the Times Online reports that General Musharraf has announced he will resign as head of the military. This will allow him, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling, to continue in power legally for another five years. However, this will most likely not placate rival political factions and protesters. Overall, it seems as if the political situation over there has become unstable to say the least.


Now, this story got me to thinking about when I first started hearing about the political problems for General Musharraf. I have known for the last few years, through my studies in college, that General Musharraf was already balancing a tense situation. He was essentially being pressured by three factions. On one side was the army, who he had to feed and keep happy in order to maintain his rule. On the other were the madrases and other terrorist networks who, despite fostering hate and anti-Americanism, were actually providing social services to his people, making them rather popular. Add in the United States, calling for increased democracy and a crackdown on terrorist activities and you can see why the General's job was so tough. Advances were slow because they were so heavily dependent on US aid to offset the power of the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations over the Pakistani people. So what was the match that set this powder keg aflame?
"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Portion of a Speech by Senator Barack Obama at the Wilson Center
August 1, 2007 - Washington, DC

These remarks by Senator Obama, which came seemingly out of the blue, set off a firestorm of debate. In fact, there really was no need for him to lay down the law for General Musharraf in such a way, since the leader had in fact been assisting the US greatly in our hunt for Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And regardless of whether or not the Senator claims that he actually was making a threatening remark, it was taken as such by the Pakistani government.
"A top Pakistani official on Friday called Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama 'irresponsible' for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaeda. Protesters chanted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag in the street." - Associated Press, August 3, 2007.
Hmm, protesters? Social unrest? That would need police action to quell, would it not? And wouldn't that police action create further conflict, etc...? Not to mention the political fallout in the United States, which included statements from Senator Edwards, Secretary Rice and President Bush. These of course must have affected the Pakistani situation further, given the added US pressure and the impact of the statements on the government and its dissidents. And when President Musharraf declared a State of Emergency in order to regain control of his country, he was slammed even further... leading to today's resignation as head of the military.


Could the Senator's remarks have begun a chain of events that unraveled the delicate political situation in Pakistan? I believe so. Senator Barrack Obama was engaging in his usual anti-war rhetoric and demanding that the United States withdraw from Iraq and refocus it's anti-terrorism efforts on Afghanistan. Except this time, he included Pakistan in his remarks and agitated what was already a delicate situation. His comments, regardless of the idiocy of their content, have now resulted in General Musharraf resigning from the Pakistani military. And when the Pakistani government falls apart and we are forced to intercede in order to prevent the establishment of a terrorist state, I am sure that Senator Obama will be among the first to point their finger at the Bush Administration for blame. Who knows, he may be against military action in that instance as well.

Now, I am not trying to defend General Musharraf's actions or to say that his government does not need reform. I am merely trying to illustrate how idiotic statements by the well-intentioned Democrat party can have very real and last effects that impact millions. Let's think about that as we are considering presidential nominees in the coming months.

Saturday, May 5, 2007

Weekly Poll Results: 5/5/2007

What story would you have liked the Capitalist League to discuss?

The Virginia Tech Shooting
9% - 1 vote

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
9 % - 1 vote

Senator Barbara Boxer Scandal
9% - 1 vote

The On-Going 2008 Presidential Race
36% - 4 votes

Opening Day of the 2006 Baseball Season
9% - 1 vote

Sanjaya Off American Idol
9% - 1 vote

Global Warming Controversy
0% - 0 votes

Other
18% - 2 votes

I Don't Really Care
0% - 0 votes

Thursday, May 3, 2007

Thursday Theory: Critical Realignment Theory and the 2008 Election

Critical Realignment Theory is a much debated theory in the field of political science regarding party politics. The basic theory states that there is a major shift in United States political party ideology, issues and coalitions about every 30 years.

V.O. Key first developed the notion of "critical elections," in his 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections." Key proposed that certain presidential elections were more important than others, in that they had a larger impact on future elections than others. In addition, he noted that American electoral patterns remained stable for a period of time before a critical election took place.

Over the next 50 years, several other academics studied the idea of critical elections, notably E.E. Schattschneider, James L. Sundquist, Walter Dean Burnham and Paul Kleppner. Here, the idea of realignment was developed. Realignment is the manner in which a critical election "realigns" tradition party coalitions and creates a new era of party politics. The cycle of realignment usually takes 30-40 years, or roughly one generation. Basically, a critical election establishes a party system with a set of issues and ideas that politicians address. Since political parties will stick with what has worked in the past, their platforms remain relatively unchanged. As time goes on, new issues and ideas emerge that go unaddressed by political parties (ie. In today's system: Illegal Immigration). This creates a large pool of voters who are ignored and marginalized. Soon, this pool of candidates finds a candidate with new ideas and new ways of addressing old issues. This candidate is then elected in a critical election, that realigns the issues, ideology, and coalitions of political parties for another generation.

I have summarized the traditionally cited eras below:

1800 - Thomas Jefferson wins against John Adams
The Jefferson Era solidified the party system in the United States, and began a generation of Democratic-Republican control and the demise of the Federalist Party.

1826 - Andrew Jackson wins against John Quincy Adams
The Jackson Era continued the dominance of the Democratic-Republican party, and introduced the spoils system, which changed the nature of party influence on political offices and the voters. The Jackson Era is often cited as the period in American history when political parties had the most influence.

1860 - Abraham Lincoln
The Lincoln Era saw the emergence of the Republican Party, with a shift in voting coalitions to North vs. South, with the major issue of the day being slavery.

1896 - William McKinley wins against William Jennings Bryan
The McKinley election is sometimes disputed as a realigning election. However, the change in party politics is clearly evident as a result of the election. William McKinley and the Republicans were able to hold together and strengthen a coalition of businessmen, professionals, skilled workers and farmers. Williams Jennings Bryan however, failed to realign party coalition along class lines, ie. rich vs. poor. As a result, the Republicans began a 30 year era of dominance that lasted until FDR. In addition, the McKinley Era saw the rise of Progressivism in the Republican Party, which was a change from the Classical Liberalism that had previously dominated the party.

1932 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt wins against Herbert Hoover
The Roosevelt Era saw the creation of the Modern Liberal ideology, that government can solve social problems. In addition, the Democrat and Republican coalitions came to rest upon class lines, as Williams Jennings Bryan had attempted, with the Democrats representing the interests of the poor and the Republicans representing the interests of the rich.

Some would argue that the 1932 election was the last realigning election. One school of thought claims that the rise of the modern media supplanted the need for party politics and somehow ended the cycle of realignment. However, changed in media may poke holes in this theory. The rise of talk radio in the 1980s and the rise of the internet today have already had a profound effect on political campaigns and party politics. Other academics hold with a de-alignment theory, which believes that party politics had been declining since the Jackson Era and that the Roosevelt Era represents it's ultimate demise. Usually, these are liberal academics who do not want to give credit to modern Republicans or cannot see the accomplishments of presidents such as Reagan and Nixon. I would argue that there was a sixth realignment.

1968/1980 - Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan
These two presidents advanced the new conservative ideology that had been developed by people like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Richard Nixon was the first president to be elected who voiced conservative ideas during his 1968 campaign. The conservative movement was hurt by the Watergate Scandal, but later advanced and solidified by Ronald Reagan. If you think about it, modern Republicans still measure themselves against Ronald Reagan, calling themselves "Reagan Republicans." Moreover, the party coalitions shifted as well. After World War II and the construction of the interstate system, America saw the rise of the suburbs. As people moved out of the city, a new constituency was created. The elections of 1968-1980 created a Republican coalition based on rural voters, while the Democrat coalition became that of the city. We still see today that cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat, more rural areas vote Republican, and the suburbs stand as a battleground between the two.

An you can see, we are due for another realigning election soon. Some would argue that 2004 or 2006 was a realigning election. I would disagree. In both elections, traditional Republican and Democrat ideologies remained the same. Both parties retained their traditional coalitions. And, many issues continue to go unaddressed: immigration, social security reform, the nature of education funding, taxation, etc...

I believe that 2008 will be a realigning election primarily because there will be no incumbents running for president. As a result, both parties have the opportunity to reshape their message, address new issues, present new solutions to national problems, and reach out to voting blocks that were traditionally out of their grasp. For example, many Democrats have the opportunity to build and solidify a coalition of statists, who advocate massive government spending and power. Senator Barack Obama's "Third Way" may represent the beginnings of a new Democrat ideology as well, although it is doubtful at the present time. The Republicans also offer several changes from the past. Mayor Rudy Giuliani's stance on gay marriage and abortion may break off the Christian element of the party and exchange it for greater support from gays and women. Senator John McCain also represents a shift in Republican ideology to a more moderate form, while retaining strength on foreign policy issues. Fred Thompson's ideological conservatism may strengthen the existing Republican coalition, much in the same way the election of William McKinley did. Either way, there is a great diversity of opinions in the mix right now. Additionally, turn out should be high, given the issues at stake. Whether 2008 will be a realigning election is up for debate. But, as the time draws closer we will be better able to tell for sure.

Friday, April 27, 2007

And Another Thing... Democrats Surrender, Giuliani Attacks and Alec Baldwin Insults

4 of 8 Democrat Presidential Candidates: No "Global War on Terror"
That's right. During the 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate, Brian Williams asked the following question:

"A second show of hands question: do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"


Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd and Gov. Bill Richardson all raised their hands.

Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Joe Biden, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Former Sen. Mike Gravel all did NOT raise their hands.

You can read the transcript, watch the video, or look at the photos. No matter which way you slice it, these four men did not believe there was a Global War on Terror. This, despite the fact that terrorists have carried out bombings in America, Britain, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, and made attempts in numerous other countries. This despite the terrorists' own call to war against us. And, this despite the fact that both Sen. Biden and Sen. Edwards both voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, which specifically mentions the "War on Terrorism" 3 times. Well, Senators, if there is no Global War on Terror then why did you vote for the resolution? Do you believe the terrorist war has gone away? Or are you and your fellow Democrats simply demagoguing the issue again?



Congress Passes Bill Surrendering in Iraq, Veto Awaits
Your Democrat controlled Senate passed the measure yesterday along party lines, 51-46. The bill sends $124.2 billion to fund the war, but requires troops to withdraw from Iraq by Oct. 1 or sooner. A similar bill passed along party lines in the House on Wednesday, 218-208.

A couple thoughts. I got a bunch of comments when I called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a traitor. Well, every single Senator and Representative that voted for this bill is a traitor as well. Here you have a political party actively and joyfully seeking the military defeat of the United States of America. How will our withdrawing from Iraq magically make the terrorists there stop bombing innocent civilians? How will our withdrawal from Iraq keep the terrorists in the Middle East? Won't our withdrawal instead embarrass us worldwide, and send the signal that we are not willing to defend ourselves in the face of threats to our freedom? How does that serve the best interests of the United States? There's no way around it: This bill is treason.

Secondly, this bill is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Congress has the power to declare war and to fund war. It does NOT have the power to determine troop movements. With this bill, the Democrats are seeking to illegally seize power from the executive branch. And the liberals say that the President is the one acting like a King... Well, it seems to me that these Democrat legislators are the ones attempting to amass power.

You know, I often wonder if liberal politicians even stop to think about the oath they took when they were sworn in:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Do they really think about it... about the meaning? Or are they so drunk with power at that moment that they just mouth the words. If they had really stopped to take in the implications of their oath, to "support and defend the Constitution... against ALL enemies... " and to "bear allegiance" to the United States, they would have never voted as they did this week.


Giuliani Assails Democrats' Health Plans
Mayor Rudy Giuliani stayed on the offensive today against the Democrats. He was speaking at the North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference. Among other things, he criticized the Democrat plans for "mandatory" universal health care, saying that it would only raise costs and put control of health care into the hands of bureaucrats. Said Mayor Giuliani:
"[The Democrats are] moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin..."
Thank you Mayor Giuliani. He is on a roll folks, calling it like it is. The Democrat plans are just that, socialized medicine. It will be run by the government. As we all know the government does not produce, it takes wealth from its citizens and then doles out the spoils. The same will happen for universal health care. America's most productive members will be forced to pay for government rationing of health care. This is wasteful and socialistic at its core. The poor will over-consume health resources, leading to shortages, waiting lists, and poor quality health care. Instead of waiting for months to see a second rate doctor, the rich will instead pay for their own private health care in addition to the confiscatory taxes they will already be paying. Like I say (with great sarcasm), the government does such a great job running the schools and the DMV, lets put them in charge of the hospitals. The alternative is clear, as Mayor Giuliani pointed out, use the power of the free market to reduce costs.
"When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers."
Mayor Giuliani also stood by his comments from earlier this week (Yes!), adding this:
"When, in the history of war, has a nation that decides to retreat, printed up a schedule of that retreat and handed it to its enemies?"
If Mayor Giuliani continues to take such a hard line with the Democrats, exposing their ideological weaknesses, then I believe he will be the next President of the United States.


Alec Bladwin Leaves A Threatening Message to His Daughter
Some of you may be aware of the message Alec Baldwin left on his 12 year old daughter's voice mail. My mouth dropped open the first time I heard it. I could not believe a father could be so rude, insensitive and all around "mean spirited" to his own child! Not that his daughter is any saint, but this kind of screaming, insulting and poor behavior is simply uncalled for. And, when I listened to what he was actually saying, I was doubly shocked. It was all about him. He had been made an ass of, she insulted him, he called her and she didn't talk to him, etc... The fact that this girl is related to him seems to have been crowded out of his brain by his ego. All this from a champion of Democrats... Makes you think, doesn't it?



Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Rudy Giuliani Nails the Democrats

“The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
So said Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fund raising dinner in New Hampshire yesterday. During his speech, before the Business and Industry Association, the former New York City Mayor criticized Democrats for their opposition to the War on terror. Here are some more quotes as reported in a story by Roger Simon on the Politico.com:
“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? ...If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense... We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

"And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

“[The terrorists] were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it...”

In sum, Mayor Giuliani told Roger Simon: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Wow. I don't know about you, but reading what Mayor Giuliani had to say really got me excited about the 2008 election. It was refreshing to hear the leading Republican candidate make such bold statements and call out the Democrats on their anti-war position.

The truth is that the Democrats' actions will put us on defense and make us less safe against terrorism. The Democrat obsession with pulling out of Iraq too soon, redeploying troops to Okinawa (as Rep. Murtha suggested), supporting constitutional rights for terrorists, denying funding and supplys to our troops in the field, etc... and the list goes on and on. The Democrats have proven that they are not committed to victory in the War on Terror. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted as much when he declared last week that we had lost in Iraq.

More proof to this effect is the way in which Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton responded to the criticism of Mayor Giuliani. Senator Obama responded at a campaign stop in New York:
"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics... America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure."
Here is a portion of the response on Sen. Hillary Clinton posted her campaign blog:
"There are people right now in the world, not just wishing us harm but actively planning and plotting to cause us harm. If the last six years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything, it's that political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change."
Notice how neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama actually addressed the substance of Mayor Giuliani's comments. They did not argue that they had worked to make America more safe. They did not respond with the actions they had taken to ensure victory in Iraq. They instead lamented the "political rhetoric" and the "politics of fear." These are mere rhetorical parries that only serve to dodge the criticism without taking a position.

Mayor Giuliani hit a nerve... because he is right. Hopefully, we can look forward to more such rhetoric from Mayor Giuliani and the other Republican candidates. When conservatives call out the Democrats like this, they put them on defense, and force them to defend (or try to avoid explaining) their anti-American agenda. The more they talk, the more they tell us who they are and what they believe.

Go Rudy, Go!

Friday, April 20, 2007

Weekly Poll Results: 4/20/2007


What do you think of Sen. Barack Obama's attack ad on Sen. Hillary Clinton?

(Note - although the ad is on behalf of Sen. Obama, it was not produced by the Obama campaign.)


Yes. Hillary Clinton will lead us into a Socialist Distopia.
2 votes - 40%

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but I also don't understand the point of the ad.
3 votes - 60%

Why can't the Democrats unite? Why do they have to attack each other like this?
0 votes - 0%

Barack Obama sucks! I'm supporting Sen. Clinton.
0 votes - 0%

I Don't Know / Not Enough Information
0 votes - 0%

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Keeping Gore Out of the Race

It looks like some members of the Liberal Media are sending warning shots to Al Gore.

NY Times: From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool the Hype

ABC News: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis

ABC Local: "An Inconvenient Truth?" $30,000 Utility Bill

It seems to me that they are saying: Even though we love you for all that Global Warming stuff, this isn't your race. You had your chance in 2000, so stay out of this.

The question is, who are these media members trying to protect? The anointed Sen. Clinton? Could the leak about Gore's energy consumption have been prompted by her campaign? Or, perhaps the "articulate" and "clean" Sen. Obama? Could the media be so enamored with him that they want to keep others out of the race? Maybe it is Sen. Edwards? No one can be sure who, but it does seem like the media is trying to torpedo Gore before he gets in the race.

I don't remember where I read this, but an article proposed that Republican candidates were better poised to win compared to Democrats for the following reason. Many Republican presidential candidates such as Dole and Bush, had run and lost in previous elections (or primaries). As a result, they already had the experience and the connections necessary to operate a successful campaign. They didn't have to start from scratch. Democrats, by comparison, seem to discard their failed candidates in favor of new candidates (take Gore and Kerry as prime examples). If Gore were to run, he would have the advantage of experience, and may as a result have a better shot at winning than some of the other challengers. Therefore, I find it interesting that some in the party want to keep him out of the race.

I and others have said that Gore is the Nixon of the Democratic Party. No, not because of the scandals, but because of the way he has positioned himself relative to the base of his party. When Nixon ran in 1960, he was running as a successor to Eisenhower, putting forth an image of a seasoned leader. Similarly, Gore ran (reluctantly) in 2000 under the ideological banner of the Clinton "New Democrats." Both candidates lost by narrow margins. After losing to Kennedy, Nixon spent his time supporting other Republican candidates and involved himself in what he considered to be the issues of the day (trade with China). As a result, he became a part of the Goldwater conservative movement, and was able to use that ideological position to win in 1968. Like Nixon, Gore has gotten in touch with one of his party's strongest factions, the environmental leftists. In the process, he has been able to create his own image, instead of living inside the shadow of Bill Clinton. This new image, coupled with his Democrat Party activism, may give him just the support he needs to launch a second campaign, should the current candidates fall out of favor with the party.

Like the Clinton camp has suggested: Keep an eye on Gore's weight. If he starts to lose some pounds, he may be running for president.