A Better Man Has Never Served…
Promoted by Jeff. This is an example of just why Gen. Pace is the type of man that we need in office in this nation. Here is more information on the Draft Pace effort, including how you can donate to his prospective campaign for US Senate.
I’m talking about Peter Pace.
HT to The Corner, from Old Sarge’s News and Stuff…
I wanted to share with you what we saw in Washington DC last week. We toured the Mall and made the usual stops at the WWII Memorial, the Wall, Lincoln Memorial, etc.
At the Vietnam Wall we saw something unbelievable. We noticed three small index cards at the base of the Wall.
I knelt down for a closer look and noticed that a 4-star general’s rank was pinned to each card.
The cards were personally addressed and said something like:
These are Yours - not mine!
With Love and Respect,
Your Platoon Leader,
Pete Pace
1 Oct 2007The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had laid down his rank for his boys who died in Nam.
Oct 1 was the day he stepped down as Chairman.
There’s nothing I can add but Semper Fi! General.
Originaly from Source
LA-GOV: Black voters may tip the balance
For Jindal, Black Voters May Be Key
This Saturday’s primary results could be largely determined by voting patterns in the black community.
Although Jindal hasn’t devoted nearly as much time to courting black voters as he did four years ago, when he narrowly lost to Democrat Kathleen Blanco in a runoff, some polls show him picking up 18 percent to 21 percent of votes from African-Americans — twice the percentage he received in 2003. If those numbers don’t erode dramatically between now and Saturday’s primary, he should exceed the 50 percent margin to avoid a Nov. 17 runoff.
Read on . . .
As shown by the graphic, 40% of black voters are still undecided. The dilemma facing black voters in this election is that none of the candidates would be considered a “natural”, a traditional liberal Democrat with a base load of African-American support.
Jindal’s indicated support in the black community, if it holds at the 21% indicated by this poll, would be astounding, and would virtually guarantee a primary victory.
Georges ran as an independent, frustrated by the Republican Party’s support of Jindal. He has made an overt appeal to the black community, but he’s a country club R at heart.
Boasso is running as a Democrat, but the erstwhile Republican is hardly a liberal, scoring a perfect 100% voting record with the main business lobby, the Louisiana Assn of Business & Industry (LABI).
Campbell is Public Service Commissioner and former State Senator from North Louisiana (meaning without much natural appeal in the large urban black communities of New Orleans and Baton Rouge). He is the farthest Left D in the race, but the only plank in his platform is an unpopular (and probably unconstitutional) proposal to restructure oil and gas taxation and end the state income tax. His campaign has lagged all the others in financing, too.
Originaly from Source
Clinton: Listen to political enemies, not terrorists
With Hillary Clinton the seemingly inevitable Democrat presidential nominee, conservatives are going to have to start reminding people just how bad “that woman” is.
The good news? There is quite a bit of material to work with. Like this article in The Hill by Alex Bolton. He is writing about a new book by Don Van Natta, Jr., and Jeff Gerth, a current and a former New York Times reporter, respectively. Excerpts:
Hillarys defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.
The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bills supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”
So she listens in on the conversations of her political enemies? But the CIA better not listen in to the conversation of America’s enemies. Oh no, that’s a violation of their rights!
In August, Clinton voted against an emergency law that temporarily expanded the governments power to conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant. The bill was criticized for being overly broad and sidelining the role of a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
You can see how she could be a change candidate. In her strange world, there probably isn’t enough hypocrisy and venality in Washington. And she actually could change that.
Originaly from Source
A look at California’s District 4
Here are some vote percentages for this district that speak volumes:
| Race | Republican | Democratic | Libertarian | Green |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| House 2006 | John Doolittle 49.1% | Charlie Brown 45.9% | Dan Warren 5.0% | |
| Governor 2006 | Arnold Schwarzenegger 72.2% | Phil Angelides 22.8% | Art Olivier 1.1% | Peter Camejo 2.6% |
| Senator 2006 | Dick Mountjoy 50.2% | Dianne Feinstein 44.3% | Michael S. Metti 1.9% | Todd Chretien 1.4% |
| House 2004 | John Doolittle 65.4% | David I. Winters 34.6% | ||
| President 2004 | George W. Bush 61.3% | John Kerry 37.4% | Michael Badnarik 0.4% | David Cobb 0.3% |
| Senate 2004 | Bill Jones 55.6% | Barbara Boxer 40.1% | Jim Gray 1.7% | Don Grundmann 0.7% |
| House 2002 | John Doolittle 64.8% | Mark Norbert 31.9% | Allen Roberts 3.2% | |
| Governor 2002 | Bill Simon 58.5% | Gray Davis 30.6% | Gary Copeland 2.1% | Peter Camejo 5.6% |
Yes, those third parties are capable of making a difference in this district, as seen by the defections from Doolittle versus other Republicans. That’s in part because the district contains part of the not-so-sovereign State of Jefferson, a long time home of libertarian activism.
However as seen by other races, especially in 2004, this district is capable of coming together when it is motivated for the right Republican.
In addition, that cuts both ways. Democrat Charlie Brown also has to watch his back for Libertarian Dan Warren if he runs again, because Warren runs as sort of a fusion Green/California Libertarian: anti-war, anti-illegal immigration, anti-tax, anti-global warming, pro-public financing of elections, all while quoting Ronald Reagan at every opportunity.
But Doolittle’s support is fading, that much is clear, even as support for other Republicans remains. Of all the races above, only Doolittle in 2006 failed to crack 50%, and Charlie Brown in that year was the only Democrat to get within 5 points of the Republican (in a district Doolittle previously won by 33 and 31 points, Schwarzenegger and Simon won by 50 and 28 points, and Bush took by 24 points.
This is Republican country, but it’s not Doolittle country anymore. In a Presidential year, in this district, we should get our pick of Republicans, and that’s why California Republicans need Eric Egland to be our standard bearer in this district come next November, or we risk losing a seat that’s ours by all rights.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| ca04_110.png | 55.46 KB |
Originaly from Source
11.09.07
A Hand Raised In The ‘Stupid Question For Hillary!’ Gallery
And this nonsense about ‘reintroduc[ing] America to the world?” Puh-lease, the world is fairly familiar with us as they stand in line every month at the World bank to cash our checks valued in the billions.
Having just released her Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-First Century paper, she-who-would-be-President suggests this:
“The United States must be stronger, and our policies must be smarter.” She laments the record of the Bush presidency: “The tragedy of the last six years is that the Bush administration has squandered the respect, trust and confidence of even our closest allies and friends.” She says, “Our friends around the world do not want the United States to retreat. They want once again to be allied with the nation whose values, leadership, and strength have inspired the world for the last centuryAmerican leadership is wanting but it is still wanted.”
[hand raised again]”Please, m’lady, square that fluff piece with this:”
“We must face up to an unprecedented array of challenges in the twenty-first century, threats from states, nonstate actors, and nature itself.” To meet these challenges, “We must learn once again to draw on all aspects of American power, to inspire and attract as much as to coerce.” As president, she will get out of Iraq and rebuild our military strength, and develop a much broader arsenal of tools in the fight against terrorism. She will also forge a policy of “security through statesmanship,” reassuring our allies, and engaging our adversaries.
Hillary Clinton will ensure “that the United States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.” She says, “Education is the foundation of economic opportunity and should lie at the heart of Americas foreign assistance efforts.” She sees climate change as a “powerful economic opportunity that can be a driver of growth, jobs, and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century.”
Are you really suggesting we surrender and retreat from an active theater of combat operations so we can pay homage to a fabricated environmental crisis and educate the world so they can get jobs defeating climate change. Is that REALLY how you see us becoming leaders in the world?
Now, I realize (and you have reminded us) that you are a lady…so I won’t make a disparaging remark…but do you really see the strongest nation on earth taking a back seat to AlGore and the UN? That’s your idea of world leadership?
I know you think we’re all obsessed with you, and that you somehow twist that into this notion that we actually care about what you have to say…but please-our obsession ends at just when the bloody hell we put you in a rubber room-long before you get the chance to drive America into the ground.
Originaly from Source
MyDD hearts Walter B. Jones
Promoted from blogs, with an observation: you can credibly switch Parties. Ronald Reagan did it, after all. But you can only go to that particular well once in a career and still have one. Nobody trusts yo-yos. - Moe Lane
Readers of both RedState and my own blog will be aware that I have some issues with North Carolina GOP Congressman Walter B. Jones (hence why I’ve been doing some work for his Republican primary challenger, Joe McLaughlin).
But, today, I have found a whole new reason to be concerned about Jones. The lefties over at MyDD seem to be fantasizing about him switching parties and becoming (again) a Democrat.
Money quotes from today’s “Coaxing a Party Switch in North Carolina” post:
Back in March I pointed to the possibility that North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones, a conservative on most issues other than Iraq, where he has staked out an anti-war position, would leave the GOP and join the Democrats. Well, it hasn’t happened yet, but perhaps it may soon given the way Jones’ caucus is treating him.
[…]
As I noted back in March, Jones has already previously been a member of the Democratic Party, having unsuccessfully run as a Democrat for the congressional seat being vacated by his father, also a Democrat, in 1992, before winning his current seat as a Republican in 1994.
[…]
There is little doubt that he would be among the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus were he to join it (either as a Democrat or a Democratic-leaning independent). To take one example, Jones voted against the expansion of SCHIP earlier this year — though that can at least in part be chalked up to the fact that he represents a state uniquely hit by the increased tax on cigarettes (given the prominent role the tobacco industry plays in the North Carolina economy). That said, at least according to the 2006 National Journal vote rankings, Jones lines up on the left side of the aisle, voting liberally than 53.5 percent of his colleagues in the second session of the 109th Congress, which is about as good as one could ask for from a district as inherently Republican as North Carolina’s third.
(my emphasis added)
The MyDD folks seem to feel that were Jones to switch parties (and, it appears that based on a report today that Jones’ firm anti-war stance may cost him a key position on the House Armed Services Committee, they think it’s possible), his seat would be at least “in play” for Democrats.
What the MyDD kids, and indeed Jones himself, however seem to be forgetting are these key points:
- the district went to Bush with roughly 68% in the last presidential election;
- it contains three major military installations (Camp Lejeune, Marine Corp Air Station Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base);
- it’s a conservative district more than it’s a district that’s inherently loyal to Jones, as a political personality (and especially given all the sightings of him with favorties of the conservative movement like Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan).
Those three things make it somewhat laughable that Democrats would view the district as “in play” for them were Jones to defect– though he sounds more and more like he may with comments about him being an independent (see the Hill piece linked above), his noting of his seeming preference to work with Democrats (see his comment to the Hill: The times I have asked to meet with a chairman, the door has always been open”), and his evident refusal to sign onto a letter promising to sustain the President’s veto of SCHIP (no doubt to keep in good graces with Pelosi, et. al.). After all, the way Jones is going– intention to defect, or not– it’s looking pretty likely that he’ll be ousted next year, either in the Republican primary, or in the general election, should he switch parties.
Sadly, for him, he’s fallen completely out of step with his district, and that’s the fundamental point that MyDD– and voters in his district– would do well to bear in mind.
Originaly from Source