Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘republicans’

GOP senators can stop Obamacare — if they have the will

Posted by Richard on December 14, 2009

The current leadership of the Republican Party leaves a lot to be desired in terms of commitment to the party's alleged limited-government principles, ability to articulate those principles, and willingness to fight hard for those principles. As Obama applies the screws to wavering Democratic senators, and the terrifying specter of government-controlled health care looms closer, the failure of Republican senators to mount any effective opposition is simply unconscionable.

It's not like they're helpless to stop the Obamacare juggernaut. Erick Erickson makes it clear that they have a multitude of tools for stopping this thing dead (emphasis added): 

The Founding Fathers created a Republic, but 60 Senators are poised to take it away. With the pending disaster of the passage in the Senate of a bill nationalizing one sixth of the U.S. economy and our entire healthcare system at a cost of over $2.5 trillion, we are faced with a crucial question: are the Republican senators using every means at their disposal to stop this looming, tyrannical abuse of power? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be “no.”

The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.

There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.

How could this be done?

To start with, they should stop constantly agreeing to “unanimous consent” requests from the Democrats. Senate Republicans, to date, have allowed Democrats, by unanimous consent, to process 10 amendments. The amendments that have been accepted – Democrat amendments – did not make the over 2000-page atrocity any better. The Republican strategy of trying to pass their own “message” amendments carries no message unless you consider “no strategy to kill the bill” a message. There are no amendments that could possibly make this bill a palatable piece of legislation – and any amendments the Republicans get passed that supposedly make the bill “better” may just make it easier for the Democrats to get final passage. If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate. And the only way to do that is through an all-out fight with no holds barred. They need to look like Braveheart, fighting to the end to save freedom. Because, in fact, it is our very freedom and liberty that is at stake.

Erickson has nearly a dozen examples of ways to delay, derail, and obstruct this abomination of a bill — if only the Republicans have the will to fight. Read the whole thing. If you have a Republican senator, send him or her a copy (or at least a link)!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Memo to GOP: “Lead, follow — or get out of the way”

Posted by Richard on December 8, 2009

On Monday, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll of 1000 likely voters in which they asked them to "suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?" The results:

18% Republican
36% Democratic
23% Tea Party
22% Not sure 

To those ready to file party organizing papers, Rasmussen offered this caution: 

In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats–provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.

But the polling data ought to make the GOP leadership (and I use the term loosely) stop and think.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement while only seven percent (7%) offer an unfavorable view. Interestingly, 49% of Democrats have no opinion one way or the other.

Among unaffiliated voters, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party efforts while 20% say the opposite.

Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people. Republicans are evenly divided on this question, while Democrats overwhelmingly disagree. However, among those not affiliated with either major party, 60% agree that a new party is needed, and only 25% disagree. Men are far more likely than women to believe a new party is needed.

As for the voting preference, the Tea Party bests the GOP among both men and women and in all age groups except those over 65.

And it ought to make the socialists running the Democratic Party stop and think, too. Notice that the Republican plus Tea Party total is 51%, and the Dems got barely over a third. Notice also that 60% of independents think the donkeys and elephants are too much alike — that ain't 'cause the Dems have moved toward fiscal conservatism, free-markets, and limited government, folks!

Americans for Limited Government president Bill Wilson issued a statement that put it rather well:

"The stunning Rasmussen Poll showing the Republican Party finishing a decided third to a hypothetical 'Tea Party' candidate should send shock waves through the GOP. It demonstrates once again that the timid, tepid Republican leadership is leading its party to the brink of disaster. Tens of millions of Americans are looking for strong leadership to stand up to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi leftwing onslaught. Instead, the Republican Party is giving them the same shilly-shally two-step that cost it a majority in Congress, and the Oval Office. Looks like the American people are telling the GOP in no uncertain terms, 'Lead, follow — or get out of the way.'"

What he said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republican socialist health care

Posted by Richard on September 4, 2009

Inevitably, when the Democrats propose some radical, leftist, big-government program that moves us closer to socialism, some Republicans will support a slightly different radical, leftist, big-government program that moves us closer to socialism at a slightly slower pace or along a different path. Case in point: Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Judd Gregg (R-NH) are co-sponsoring Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-OR) "Healthy Americans Act," S. 391 (PDF). Here are the first two paragraphs of the summary (emphasis added):

Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll.

Establishes standardized coverage and state options for HAPI plans. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate guidelines concerning the benefits, items, and services to be covered. Sets forth requirements for setting premiums. Requires the Secretary to establish the Healthy America Advisory Committee to provide annual recommendations concerning modifications to the benefits, items, and services required.

Note the double-talk: It seems to "require" us only to "have the opportunity," but there are "penalties for failure to enroll." And the "guidelines" that it requires the Secretary of HHS to "promulgate" are essentially mandatory. Other key features:

  • It raises federal health care spending by over six times as much as Obamacare.
  • It outlaws all plans that don't meet the detailed government requirements, thus severely limiting our choices.
  • It requires all employers and individuals to "make shared responsibility payments for HAPI plan premiums," with stiff fines for those who don't.
  • It directs the IRS to collect the money, with employees' "shared responsibility payments"  withheld from their paychecks.
  • It restricts the tax deductibility and controls content of pharmaceutical advertising, and it lets the FDA determine whether a new drug intended to treat a condition for which other drugs exist offers "new value." 
  • It puts virtually all aspects of health care under the control of the federal or state governments, establishing among others: 
    • "school-based health centers" 
    • Chronic Care Education Centers
    • state Health Help Agencies to administer HAPI plans and "promote prevention and wellness"
    • State Choices for Long-Term Care Program
    • Healthy Americans Public Health Trust Fund

I think it's pretty awful, but I'll give the senators this: They accomplish all this and more in only 168 pages, compared to the 1018 pages of H.R. 3200. That brevity and efficiency of language earns a bit of grudging respect.

The Club for Growth has specifically targeted Sen. Bennett (who is up for re-election in 2010), sending a letter about S.391 to 3200 likely delegates to the Utah GOP convention and running a TV ad state-wide. You can see the ad here and click through to the letter. You can also help fund the ad, as I did.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Rasmussen: voters favor GOP on health care

Posted by Richard on August 13, 2009

Judging from Rasmussen's latest poll of likely voters, the Democrats are practically engaging in assisted suicide (assisted by the mainstream media) by pushing government-controlled health care:

For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.

Democrats held a four-point lead on the issue last month and a 10-point lead in June. For most of the past two years, more than 50% of voters said they trusted Democrats on health care. The latest results mark the lowest level of support measured for the party on the now-contentious issue.

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of U.S. voters now in favor of it. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

Overall, Republicans lead Democrats in terms of voter trust on eight out of 10 key issues for the second consecutive month, and the two are tied on one issue.

Republican candidates continue to hold a modest lead over Democrats for the seventh straight week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Only on the issue of government ethics do voters trust the Democrats more than the Republicans. But the lead is narrow, 34% – 31%, and the combined total of a mere 65% suggests that many, many people don't trust either party very much. 

In Rasmussen's daily tracking poll , the Presidential Approval Index is at -8. The index is calculated by subtracting the percentage who strongly disapprove, 37%, from the percentage who strongly approve, 29%. Obama's total approval score (strongly plus somewhat) is now at 47%, the lowest level Rasmussen has yet recorded, while 52% disapprove. It should be especially worrisome to Democrats that 65% of unaffiliated voters now disapprove. 

Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrats and support for government-controlled health care have thrown a one-two punch at his re-election hopes. In the span of two months, Specter has gone from a double-digit lead over Republican Pat Toomey (of the Club for Growth) to a double-digit deficit (36% – 48%), and his lead in the Democratic primary race is starting to slip. 

It warms the cockles of my heart that apparently there are still plenty of Americans who have no use for arrogant, condescending busybodies who think they know what's best for us and are thus entitled to run our lives.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The party of pre-Americans

Posted by Richard on December 17, 2008

In what I would describe as a Very Important Post, Daffyd pleaded with the Republican Party to reject the "Tancredistas" and become the "party of pre-Americans" (emphasis in original):

I conclude that the Republican Party cannot survive as "the native-born American party." We have no option but to reach out to all those immigrants and children of immigrants who come here because they love America and what she stands for. Instead of discouraging or even stopping immigration, we must encourage it — but only by the right people, those who come here anxious to assimilate, who already believe in American values, no matter where they were born. We need more, not less, immigration by folks who were already American in their hearts long before they immigrated here. I call such folks "pre-Americans." If we don't want to repeat the same mistake with the rising population of Hispanics that we made with blacks, the Republican Party must become the party of pre-Americans.

… 

There is no need to compromise on the fundamental requirement of controlling our borders; but we must finally recognize that most illegal immigrants are not "criminals," not in the commonly understood sense of a convenience-store robber or a carjacker. Most are simply responding irrationally to an irrational and unjust immigration system. Correct the system — which we should do anyway for our own reasons — and we'll see a huge drop in illegal entries, as those pre-Americans who rationally should be admitted are allowed in legally.

But it is important to show sympathy and support for those "huddled masses yearning to breath free" who desperately desire to become real Americans — those that already have the distinctive American values and virtues. Instead of talking about a moratorium on immigration (which comes across as "There are too many of your sort here already"), we must say, in essence, "While it's important to enforce our territorial integrity, we understand that many folks see America as a 'shining city on a hill,' and we'll do everything in our party's power to open the gates to all those who are truly American at heart… no matter where they were born."

Then actually do it.

Read. The. Whole. Thing. Please!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 9 Comments »

A village of pygmies

Posted by Richard on November 19, 2008

Jerry Bowyer began his recent TCS column about what's wrong with conservative leadership by telling a great Winston Churchill story I hadn't heard before. It was after Churchill was defeated by socialist Clement Atlee. Churchill was at a urinal when Atlee walked in and took the urinal next to him:

… Churchill looked up at him, zipped up, moved a couple of urinals farther down and resumed his business. "Why Winston, I had no idea you were so modest.", said Atlee. "It's not modesty, Prime Minister. It's only that every time you find something that is large and functions well, you try to nationalize it, and I thought it best not to take a chance!"

But the subject of the column isn't the giant that was Churchill:

Let me say in print what so many of us believe in our hearts: the present generation of conservative leaders has failed us miserably. For the most part, congressional republicans are a village of pygmies. Few have genuine leadership qualities. Fewer still can compose a clear English sentence in defense of our ideas. Our president, whom I love, certainly cannot. Our nominee is a man who spent too many decades in the DC Skinner Box where he learned to flinch every time his inner Reagan threatened to say something true about the left. Sen. McCain said in his most recent appearance on Meet the Press that he had appeared there more than any other guest in its history. He thought that was a good thing. I thought, "That's why he's losing."

How could he have possibly believed that he could win an investor-bashing bidding war with a utopian socialist?

RTWT

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What the next Republican candidate must do

Posted by Richard on November 10, 2008

Dafydd at Big Lizards:

It's a serious question: If a candidate like John S. McCain can be beaten by an empty suit with no experience spouting policies that "seem vague but are in fact meaningless," then what the heck are we supposed to do in order to win next time?

Surprisingly enough, I'll tell you what we should do. So there.

It's a long, thoughtful, and comprehensive post, covering both general strategic principles and tactical specifics. There's no way to summarize it or condense it into a few excerpts. You really need to read the whole thing. Especially if you have any influence (local or national) in the Republican Party.

I think he's spot on.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Not a good sign

Posted by Richard on November 7, 2008

The pundits, including many conservative pundits, are opining that Obama will "govern from the center." Sure he will. That's why he picked a hard-core leftist, rabidly partisan pit bull, Congressman Rahm Emmanuel, as his chief of staff.

Emmanuel made it quite clear after the 2006 election how interested he is in reaching across the aisle and ending the  partisanship in Washington: "The Republicans can go fuck themselves!"

I suspect a number of blue-blood country-club Republican politicians will be only too eager to go fuck themselves in order to demonstrate how bipartisan and cooperative they can be.

Oh, yeah — Emmanuel was on the board of Freddie Mac when it was creating our current financial crisis, and he helped Steny Hoyer manipulate the Congressional bailout plan voting so as to maximize the PR damage to the Republicans. (HT: Sweetness & Light)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

American Energy Freedom Day is coming

Posted by Richard on September 18, 2008

October 1 is being called American Energy Freedom Day because that's the day on which the current bans on oil shale and offshore drilling expire. Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place on this one. That's why, as Investor's Business Daily noted, they hurriedly threw together an "energy bill" and rammed it through the House the other day:

The move won them misleading headlines declaring that Pelosi's Democrats had "eased offshore drilling ban" in what the press described as "a stark reversal." 

But Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republicans' Study Committee chairman, correctly called the bill "a sham" with no provision addressing the dire need for construction of new oil refineries, "no clean coal, no energy exploration in arctic Alaska, no nuclear energy and — if you read it — no exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf for energy in their bill." 

Behind this bill to drill that doesn't is radical environmentalist ideology.  "They look at our oil and gas reserves and see toxic waste sites," Hensarling quipped.  "Republicans look at our oil and gas reserves and see vast and valuable natural resources that will ease pain at the pump and lessen our dependence on foreign oil."

The bill appears to have no chance in the Senate and would almost certainly be vetoed if passed. IBD pointed out that this presents Republicans with a terrific opportunity, since an overwhelming majority of Americans favor more drilling: 

Republicans could take that Oct. 1 deadline and act like a winning football team — by running out the clock.  President Bush and Sen. McCain could lead the chorus counting the days to American Energy Freedom Day. 

Then once the clock has run out and the drilling ban is gone, McCain and other GOP candidates can spend the final month of the campaign basking in the credit they'd get from the American people — especially since oil prices are sure to drop in reaction to the ban's expiration.

There's just one complication: As is usually the case when the GOP is about to win one, members of their own party have tried to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Ten Republican senators have joined with ten Democrats (the "Gang of 20") to propose a "bipartisan compromise" that would cost $84 billion, increase energy taxes (which you and I will pay) by $30 billion, and only pretend to increase access to more new oil supplies. Colorado's Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer quite accurately described it as "40% tax increase, 10% energy and 50% snake oil."

Chris at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy totally demolished the five key parts of this plan in a must-read post, concluding:

This is a disaster. If it doesn’t pass the media and democrats will light up with “Republicans kill increased drilling”. If it does pass, the republicans lose an issue to beat Obama up. Even worse is if it gets stuck in committee. Here’s that scenario. Mr. Representative wanna-be, where do you stand on drilling? “I support the ‘American Energy Act’ sitting in congress. I’ll make sure it’s passed”. Bam. Good bye issue. Of course, when he wins and the dems keep control, it will never come up and we’ll be stuck with high oil and gas prices as Nancy Pelosi tries to save the Earth.

The other problem is that even if it passes, it won’t increase supply. Two years from now, people will be wondering what the heck happened to all that drilling they had heard was coming. They won’t remember that it provided no incentives for the states to drill. They’ll just blame those evil oil companies and their republican allies.

We have the chance to win with this issue. If we do nothing over the next 2 weeks, the ban ends and the democrats will have to vote to re-instate it. The gang of idiots needs to be stopped before they can disarm the only issue that the republicans can win with.

According to The Hill, the Gang of 20 has now decided not to introduce a bill until after the election, instead issuing a "statement of principals (sic) outlining their agreement on a host of divisive issues, including expanded offshore drilling." Which makes it clear that the gang — Republicans and Democrats alike — are simply gutless, unprincipled opportunists who put this sham plan together so they could talk out of both sides of their mouths to the voters back home (9 of the 20 are up for reelection). 

Call and/or email your senators and congresscritter and tell them to let the ban expire. Tell them we don't need new taxes or massive new porkbarrel spending, we just need Congress to stop blocking access to energy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PUMAs 4 Palin

Posted by Richard on September 7, 2008

You think Bill Whittle was just blowing smoke? Check out some of these (posts and comments): 

Hillary Clinton Forum  (Click this one if you're only going to click one, and just keep reading!)

Hillary or Bust

No Quarter  

The Confluence  

PUMA PAC

Nice Deb  

P.U.M.A. 

Watch this and tell me it won't sway some Democratic and independent women:

And if you have time, read some of the 176+ comments

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A tectonic shift

Posted by Richard on September 6, 2008

Bill Whittle (bold emphasis added):

Sarah Palin is the anti-Obama: not a victim, not a poser, not riding a wave but rather swimming upstream — and most of all, not having run for president her entire life. She is the first politician I have ever seen — and I include Ronnie in this, God bless him — who strikes everyone who sees her as an actual, real, ordinary person.

I think the magic of Sarah Palin speaks to a belief that so many of us share: the sense that we personally know five people in our immediate circle who would make a better president than the menagerie of candidates the major parties routinely offer.

Can I get an "Amen"? 

I’ve seen post after post on Hillary forums about how much they love Sarah, how they are energized and lifted out of depression by her (and the sight of an actual Roll Call made some of them weep). They gush about how she reminds them of their hero, how tough and savvy and unafraid she is. And I have seen these women, hard-core, feminist Democrats for 30 years and more, sit in slack-jawed amazement at Palin and at how fiercely Republicans — Republicans! — are defending her, backing her, and cheering her to the rafters. These Clinton supporters say they don’t know what to think any more: The Republicans are behaving like Democrats and the Democrats are behaving like Republicans!

If you think that’s an insult, you’ve got it exactly backwards. That is not only a huge compliment from these abandoned, centrist Democrats who bemoan the loss of their party to the radicals, it is an early rumbling of a tectonic shift in American politics which we are only dimly beginning to grasp. Who are the real feminists? A significant portion of our former hard-core opposition is now rethinking in a fundamental way who it is that actually does what their former allies only talk about.

That, my long-suffering and now giddy and sleepless friends — that is the smell of victory. That is conservatism with a future. And we started on that path not by nominating a Democrat-lite, but the polar opposite. The nomination of a woman with perfect conservative credentials is causing some significant number of Democrats to re-examine everything they believe. I say: Welcome Home. Welcome to the party of individual achievement, regardless of race or gender.

Whittle was won over by McCain, too, and you should read his reasons. For the first time, Whittle, a Republican, believes "we deserve to win more than they deserve to lose." Read. The. Whole. Thing. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

McCain “workmanlike”

Posted by Richard on September 4, 2008

Last night, Sarah Palin brought me to my feet. Tonight, I stayed planted in my comfy chair. I've heard McCain's speech described as "workmanlike" several times already, and I suspect that will be the consensus assessment. It emphasizes that McCain has made a big mistake by agreeing to meet Obama strictly in the moderated set-piece type of debate, rather than insisting on at least some of the more free-wheeling "town hall" meetings he originally proposed (and Obama originally agreed to). McCain is much better in that forum than reading from a teleprompter.

The Palin phenomenon is still the story of this convention. By far the loudest applause during Cindy McCain's speech and just about the loudest in John McCain's were for their remarks about Sarah Palin.

Content-wise, I heard a few things I liked — some good, solid free-market, free-trade. low-tax rhetoric, the candid talk about Republicans having abandoned their principles and lost their way, and that terrific bit about education being the civil rights battle of this century.

But there was plenty that left me cold. I was reminded, as I listened to him, of something Bob Bidinotto wrote yesterday (emphasis added): 

My enthusiasm for Palin is that she arguably moves McCain to the right on economics and limited government, which is something that desperately needs to happen to his campaign and — if he wins — to his governing agenda. The convention's banner slogans of "Service" and "Country First" are the GOP's way of creating a comfort zone for McCain's morality of altruism and self-sacrificial duty. At Reason Online, Matt Welch reminds us in an outstanding column that in McCain, we aren't getting a champion of individualism, but an adversary: a champion of "national greatness" progressivism. Self-sacrifice to the nation is at the heart of such a political outlook.

I therefore need to reiterate emphatically that my only reason for supporting the McCain ticket — especially now that Palin is aboard — is that national-greatness progressivism represents a far-less-damaging and more mixed alternative to the utterly destructive, anti-American, left-Wilsonian "progressivism" of Obama. This is especially the case on the paramount issues of national security and energy production. Sadly, in this political environment, stopping Obama requires us to sign on to a philosophically chaotic and often damaging Republican candidate. The Palin pick indicates that free-market, limited-government influences at least will have a seat at the table in a McCain administration, tending to blunt his worst inclinations

By the way, Bidinotto has posted a ton of outstanding stuff this week, mostly about Palin. Just go to his main page and start reading. Be sure to follow his link to David Harsanyi's The Libertarian Case for Palin.

UPDATE: I thought Cindy McCain's speech was rather pedestrian, and I was in and out of the room during it. But I just heard something from a talking head that puts her speech into perspective: she's never done this before!

Apparently, her speech writer wanted to see some other speeches she's given in order to get a sense of what would be appropriate for her. There aren't any. This was her debut. In front of thousands in the hall and millions on TV, she was doing this for the first time! That it was merely pedestrian and not embarrassing is something of a triumph.

I also just saw a clip of Scott Palin speaking. I'm not sure, but I think they said he was introducing Cindy McCain. Anyway, he was great — down to earth, relaxed, and funny. Like his wife, he seemed so damned genuine. The kind of guy you'd like to go drinking with and listen to his stories about fishing.

I've looked for the text or a video, but no luck. If someone knows where to find it, please post a link.

One bit that struck me (paraphrased and not all that exact) went something like this: "When Sarah talks about making a difference and cleaning up corruption and changing things …<pause for effect>… it's best to just get out of the way."

UPDATE2: You know, "I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war" is still one of the great statements of all time. And it's even better when you're subsequently proven right.

UPDATE3: I liked this a lot: "I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a safer, freer, and more prosperous world … and how to stand up to those who don't." 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Palin hit it out of the park

Posted by Richard on September 4, 2008

Wow. Just wow. Last week, I was impressed by Barack Obama's speech. He's a fine orator and it was elegant rhetoric. Tonight, I was blown away by Sarah Palin. No, she wasn't an elegant orator. She was something better. She was poised, strong, smart, charismatic, funny — and genuine.

If you missed it, the video is here.

My favorite line (out of many great ones): "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

I have an idea for John McCain's nomination acceptance speech tomorrow night. It goes something like this:

My friends, some people have tried to make an issue of my age. I submit that the examples of Ronald Reagan and my 92-year-old mother, who's here with us tonight, demonstrate that I'm not. I'm strong and healthy and ready to serve as your president.

But by the time we meet again to select a presidential nominee, I will have served my country for almost 60 years. I think that's enough. I will have earned the right to retire.

Four years from now, I plan to ask you to accept Vice President Sarah Palin as your candidate for President. <thunderous applause>

 

I can see the ticket now:

 Palin/Jindal 2012

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Lieberman at the RNC

Posted by Richard on September 3, 2008

Sen. Joseph Lieberman addressing the RNC:

I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party.

I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward.

I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important.

But it is not more important than being an American.

Both presidential candidates this year talk about changing the culture of Washington, about breaking through the partisan gridlock and special interests that are poisoning our politics.

But only one of them has actually done it.

Only one leader has shown the courage and the capability to rise above the smallness of our politics to get big things done for our country and our people.

And that leader is John McCain!

… 

Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record – not in these tough times.

In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic party.

Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements and a balanced budget.

Governor Sarah Palin, like John McCain, is a reformer who has taken on the special interests and reached across party lines. She is a leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.

That's why the McCain-Palin ticket is the real ticket for change this year.

Read. The. Whole. Thing

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fred Thompson’s speech

Posted by Richard on September 3, 2008

Long-time readers may recall that I'm a Fred Thompson fan, and I was looking forward to hearing his RNC speech tonight. It took a bit of looking to find a broadcast. The local PBS station carried it live. During applause breaks, I channel-flipped a bit, and ABC carried at least part of it delayed a bit. 

I don't think CBS and NBC aired any of it. They were too busy offering their "analyses" and asking random delegates what they thought of the "troubling revelations" about Sarah Palin. Apparently, the text was available in advance (the Financial Times of London has it), so I suspect that they decided it wouldn't help the campaign for which they're in the tank to let the TV audience hear great red-meat stuff like this: 

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history making nominee for president.

History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress. History making because it’s the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation’s history.

Or this bit, which I especially enjoyed (quotes in original and used to show emphasis):

We need a President who understands that you don’t make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don’t lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they’re just going to tax ”businesses”! So unless you buy something from a ”business”, like groceries or clothes or gasoline … or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ”business”, don’t worry … it’s not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the ”other” side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.

Go read the whole thing, and just imagine his gruff, folksy delivery in your mind.

Yeah, I like Fred.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »