Political Football

I don’t often go to Michelle Malkin’s site but this article is worth the read and passing around. – pf

Looking Down the Ticket

By see-dubya  •  July 29, 2008 09:15 AM

What’s a disgruntled conservative blogger to do this election?

A: open up the five hundredth “Lesser of Two Evils” should-I-actually-vote-for-that-squish-McCain debate, or

B: Look around for some actual conservatives to back?

You might not find any at the top of the ticket, but the real conservatives are out there, running for Congress all around the country. I was thinking about writing a post summarizing some of the hotter races, where some support from bloggers and local activists and small donors could make a big difference.

But then some guys went and started up a whole blog dedicated to exactly that subject: Down The Ticket.

Which is pretty cool. They’re covering some of the races I’m interested in: Harris in Maryland, McClintock in California, Barletta in Pennsylvania, and several more.

I’d point out that they’re missing Florida’s Allen West, who I would really like to see in Congress.

I’d also recommend they follow Keith Fimian in Northern Virginia–not so much that he’s a rock-solid conservative (he might be, I just can’t tell yet) as that his Democratic opponent is Gerry Connolly, who as Fairfax County supervisor maintained a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens and also backed the county’s relationship with a Saudi-funded radical Islamic school.

So even if Fimian turns out to be a RINO who makes McCain look Reaganesque, I don’t think there’s any reason to let this district go to Connolly. And even if it is trending a little Whole-Foods soccer-mom nanny-state around NoVa, Connolly’s spent a lot to win his primary and he’s made those very bad decisions on illegals and madrassas that Fimian’s campaign–or his surrogates–ought to be able to exploit.

Anyway, conservatives. They’re out there, and they need some lovin’. I’m not big on telling you what to do, but if you were to ask my advice, I’d say to pick out a name from Downtheticket’s list–or maybe one of my additions–and send them twenty bucks along with a short note explaining why you’re doing this and which issues are important to you.*

And when your paycheck comes in next month, do it again. Repeat until November.

We’ve got plenty of time to decide what to do about McCain, and frankly I’m already tired of him. But we can never have enough principled conservatives in Congress. Even if we don’t reclaim a majority, we’ll need stalwarts in there who will do their best to delay and disable the new shamnesty bill that will be headed our way pretty soon–under either new president.

*If you do this, please mention where you got the idea–because if these candidates aren’t reading this site, they should at least know that their donors are.

Also, this doesn’t constitute an “endorsement” of any of those candidates, for whatever that’s worth. I’m just saying it’s a pretty good list. If you know of anybody who ought to be added to it, let us know in the comments.

The world is not as simple as Mr. Obama sees it.  Simply put, Obama is dangerous.  -pf

powerlineblog link 

A highly placed official with responsibility for Afghanistan writes to comment on Paul Mirengoff’s post on Obama and Afghanistan. He writes:

[Obama's] policy prescription there is equally as troubling as the one he proposes for Iraq (retreat!). If I may, I wanted to add one quibbling corollary to your post — Afghanistan occupies an enormous amount of my time…these days: I think Afghanistan IS as bad now as Iraq was pre-surge. None of this is classified, of course.

For the reasons you cite the answer is not more US troops. The circumstance are different and, to use Obama’s word, nuance is important. (as an aside, isn’t Obama’s prescription for Afghanistan — a surge — at least an implicit admission that he believes the surge in Iraq is effective? If not, where did he get the idea?)

Unlike Iraq, control of the cities is not the problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is HUGE. Bigger than Iraq. We just don’t have the troops to do in Afghanistan what we did in Iraq, even if we weren’t in Iraq. Rather it’s the lawlessness in the hinterlands that is the problem. Regular Army doesn’t get you much there. We need to bolster Afghan security forces and dismantle enemy networks, not control territory (i.e., it’s a special forces mission).The root causes of the trouble in Afghanistan are twofold: (1) the slow (and frightening!) disintegration of Pakistan and (2) Iran’s alliance with the Taliban. Pakistan can’t control its border or northwest territories. This gives the Taliban and AQ a free area to operate and a porous border that they can cross to attack US troops. Just as troubling, Iran is training and equipping the Taliban with even more deadly tactics and weapons. Of note is that the Taliban has begun employing the same deadly EFPs that Sadr’s goons use against US troops in Iraq.

These may be wonky points but it’s safe to say that Obama’s policies would be disastrous for both problems. I think it’s under-appreciated just how fragile Pakistan is. Obama has said that he would invade Pakistan. That could be the tipping point that throws the country into chaos — a scary thought for a country with nukes and a habit of allying itself with terrorists.

And on Iran, even Obama’s golden tongue couldn’t convince the Iranian government to stop supporting the Taliban. Obama’s promise to hold unconditional talks with Tehran would just make their murder of US troops in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) another leverage point in their negotiations. The Taliban are enemies of the US, which makes them Tehran’s allies, despite their history and the sophomoric point that they are Sunni.

We could go into infinite detail here on what we should do, but it’s safe to say that Obama has no earthly idea what he is talking about. Even a cursory briefing on Afghanistan would help him. This man is truly dangerous.

from powerlineblog.com     (Bolding is mine)
Before a military audience in Denver today, John McCain launched his strongest attack yet against Barack Obama. The attack was devastating because it is true. Here are some excerpts; McCain began by recalling the beginning of the surge:

Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed.We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the “surge” was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops — which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq.

Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president.

I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war.

My choice was not smart politics.

It didn’t test well in focus groups.

It ignored all the polls.

It also didn’t matter.

The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.

Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn’t just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.

And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. …

Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn’t have been more wrong.

By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. “Not only have we not seen improvements,” he said, “but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the “Sunni Awakening” would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.

Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. …

Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.

Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. … In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.

Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.

That recitation of Obama’s conduct is entirely factual. In this case, the facts are nuclear.

OR…….. Eine was für Überraschung! (for those still in Germany with Obama) or … what a surprise I find in this next article. Our mainstreet media friends, the dying old media types – give $100 for every buck they give republicans. I’m shocked. And, remembering too that many of my republican friends don’t consider Rudy a Republican. (shame) -pf

LINK 

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The New York Times’ refusal to publish John McCain’s rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media’s favoritism for Barack Obama. It’s time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. “It’s not a result of bias,” they say. “It’s a matter of news judgment.”

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can’t prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The “newsworthy” argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union’s PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won’t take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they’re freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They’re mainly freelancers. That’s because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists’ contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

“Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left.”

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, “it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors.”

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it’s intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

I will get back to the JFK comparison below, but not right now, the Great River Day’s parade is SAT and we’ve got some county meetings on FRI and SAT to kick start the Miller-Meeks campaign. In the meantime – I found this article pretty odd. I mean he just visited troops in Iraq and … this makes no sense – and shows how disconnected democrats are with reality. -pf

LINK

BERLIN (AP) – Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey. The spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that Obama made his decision out of respect for the servicemen and women, but Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign immediately criticized the move.

“Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the Republican contender.

Obama’s decision raised a number of questions because the visit, which had been scheduled for Friday, never appeared on the schedule of events distributed to reporters who are accompanying him on his travels.

The first word from the campaign about its existence was Gibbs’ statement.

Obama had been planning to go to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany before a flight to Paris. Gibbs said the stop was canceled because Obama decided “it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.”

Link to original article in the Wall Street Journal

(yet this weekend – a comparison between JFK and BHO)

Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He’ll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we’ll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the “judgment” he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated President Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said:

“The problem – the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.”

Mr. Obama’s site now puts a considerably brighter gloss on the surge. Yet the candidate himself shows no signs of rethinking. In a foreign-policy address Tuesday, the Senator described the surge, in effect, as a waste of $200 billion, an intolerable strain on military resources and a distraction from what he sees as a more important battle in Afghanistan. He faulted Iraq’s leaders for failing to make “the political progress that was the purpose of the surge.” And his 16-month timetable for near-total withdrawal apparently remains firm.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama could at least get his facts straight. Earlier this month, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad reported that the Iraqi government had met 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set for it in 2006. The Sunni bloc in Iraq’s parliament is returning to the government after a year’s absence. Levels of sectarian violence have held steady for months – at zero. (In January 2007, Mr. Obama had predicted on MSNBC that the surge would not only fail to curb sectarian violence, but would “do the reverse.”) If this isn’t sufficient evidence of “genuine political accommodation,” we’d like to know what, in his judgment, is.

The freshman Senator also declared that “true success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge.”

Yet the reason Iraq is finally getting that kind of government is precisely because of the surge, which neutralized al Qaeda and gave Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the running room to confront Moqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite Mahdi Army. And the reason the U.S. can now contemplate more troop withdrawals is because the surge has created the conditions that mean the U.S. would not be leaving a security vacuum. On Wednesday, Mr. Maliki’s government assumed security responsibility in yet another province, meaning a majority of provinces are now under full Iraqi control.

Mr. Obama acknowledges none of this. Instead, his rigid timetable for withdrawal offers Iraq’s various groups every reason to seek their security in local militias such as the Mahdi Army or even al Qaeda, thereby risking a return to the desperate situation it confronted in late 2006.

The Washington Post has criticized this as obstinate, and Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reacted this way: “To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule – regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground – is the height of absurdity.”

Mr. Obama does promise to “consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government” in implementing his plans. But he would have shown more sincerity on this score had he postponed Tuesday’s address until after he visited Iraq and had a chance to speak with those generals and Iraqis. The timing of his speech made it appear not that he is open to what General David Petraeus tells him, but that he wants to limit the General’s military options.

Mr. Bush has often been criticized for refusing to admit his Iraq mistakes, but he proved that wrong in ordering the surge that reversed his policy and is finally winning the war. The next President will now take office with the U.S. in a far better security position than 18 months ago. Mr. Obama could help his own claim to be Commander in Chief, and ease doubts about his judgment, if he admits that Mr. Bush was right.

7/15 update – more on Obama here and here

far from an agent of change and hope… Obama is a typical politician, rewriting his own points of view of the last months…

——- 

from powerlineblog.com   LINK 

As with virtually every other issue of consequence, Barack Obama has failed to take a consistent, coherent position with respect to his goal for the city of Jerusalem. A few months ago, when he was pandering to the pro-Israel audience at AIPAC, Obama said that Jerusalem should remain “undivided.” For those with a basic understanding of the discourse on this issue, the meaning of his statement was clear — Jerusalem will remain the Jewish people’s historical capital city and will remain exclusively part of the Jewish state under any future agreement with the Palestinians.

Obama, moreover, had plenty of incentive to convey this position to the AIPAC convention. Indeed, any other descripton of the future of Jerusalem would have played poorly with an audience Obama very much wanted to impress.

However, Obama’s handlers were uncomfortable with Obama’s statement because the call for an undivided city might “prejudice” the “final status” of Jerusalem. The party line among mainstream advocates of the “peace process” is to call on Israel and the Palestinians negotiate without such preconditions, with the “final status” of Jerusalem to be resolved at the end of the process.

With the AIPAC convention behind him, Obama has fallen back to the party line. Attempting to “clarify” his “poorly phrased” remarks to the pro-Israel crowd, Obama now says:

The point we were simply making was that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ’67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final-status issues.

But that is an easy point to make. If this is what Obama wanted to convey to AIPAC, it’s difficult to believe he would have used the loaded term “undivided.”

But what of Obama’s current vision under which Mr. Yes-We-Can resolves to “create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent” that it is not exclusively part of a Jewish state but requires no barriers? The question answers itself. Here’s how David Hazony, a resident of Jerusalem, puts it:

What could it possibly mean to want a “coherent” city that is the capital of two different countries, one of which has been teaching its entire population to hate the other and commit suicide bombings in its restaurants for 15 years now — and all this without a proper border? I live in Jerusalem. The border between Israel and the Palestinians, wherever it may run, and no matter how long peace reigns, will never be like that between Massachusetts and Connecticut. It is unlikely ever even to be like the one between Arizona and Mexico. If there is ever a division of Jerusalem, there will be more than just barbed wire separating the two halves of the city. We are talking about different worlds entirely, and security arrangements will reflect this.

As Hazony concludes, Obama either understands this or he doesn’t. If he does, he is being dishonest when he claim the city can be undivided in other than the sense in which his AIPAC remarks were construed. If he doesn’t, his ignorance is staggering.

Link

The fate of the Republican Party of Iowa now rests in the hands of Steve Scheffler, President of the Iowa Christian Alliance. I didn’t even know who he was until last month. There were many disappointments today at the Republican State Convention, but the most important was booting my laptop up after lunch to see that Tony Snow had died this AM. I was shocked to immediate tears during this trying day. He was a great reporter and will be missed. His wife and three young children are in my prayers.

I cannot begin to explain the details what happened today in Des Moines except to tell why I believe my party was high-jacked today by someone who only thinks of individual power, not Republican voters or candidates.

I will try to paint a broad picture then discuss further blog posts I see on the net over the next days.

The week began with rumors there could be an anti-McCain walkout but that never happened. What did happen was, as the linked article above notes, a power shift to those who firmly support (without questioning) the Iowa Christian Alliance, Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Right to Life organizations. It’s simply not good enough to be pro life with a voting record to prove it. You must be a supporting $$$ member of ICA and Steve Scheffler must be your hero. If there is any good to this (but painful to those it affected) it is that the split not only widened the rift between moderates and some conservatives in the party but set conservatives against conservatives. This clearly opened the eyes to many conservatives who will continue to question this new leadership.

I knew the weekend was going to be messy when I arrived at the Hall where the Friday night delegate caucus was to be held and most people had Scheffler stickers on their shirts – I had only heard of his running against Roberts last week. I assumed Roberts would be unopposed.

When the first action of the night was to elect a permanent chair for the district meeting; the person who was nominated (an ICA board member) had deftly removed her SS sticker from her blouse before the caucus began.

There was a surprise 2nd person nominated from Johnson County (probably with knowledge and planning with Clinton and Linn) - the ICA board member won election by ONLY one vote. I’m sure having a contested vote was a surprise to her. After the election, a question to request that candidates reveal if they are ICA members was ruled out of order by the ICA board member.

The speeches by the national committee candidates on Saturday were the most telling. Roberts and Greiner talked about national experience, inclusion and the need for negotiation skills; Scheffler and Leman basically said that homosexuals, pro-choice and any others not fitting their narrow definition of Republican were no longer welcome in the Iowa party and they would PUSH the prolife agenda (I inferred at the exclusion of everything else, as that was all either talked about in their nominating speeches). Oh wait… as Lehman ended her speech she did say she would support McCain (throwing a bone to the masses).

Steve Roberts made it clear in his speech that the committeeman’s role was not to be a policy maker but to support all Republicans. I guess that’s why the word needs to be redefined by the new leadership.

There is no way either Steve Scheffler or Kim Lehman are more qualified to be national committee people – than the 20+ year veteran of national politics (Steven Roberts) or a 16 year veteran of the Iowa State House, Sandy Greiner; but Scheffler and Lehman both won handily 700 something to 400 something.

The painful end showed conservatives that do not bow to ICA, separated from their friends, and in the end some ICA supporters wondering out loud if they had not unwittingly contributed to a process spinning out of control.

ICA had planted seeds of a moderate push on the convention platform to rile the troops (when in truth moderates have long given up any such futile efforts). … part of an email from Scheffler:

The country club Republicans, which involves some of those in Republican Party leadership positions, are making a concentrated effort to dilute and rid the Republican Party of individuals like you who consider themselves social conservatives.

rid the party of individuals? hmmm… no. These organization now controlling the Iowa party are the groups of exclusion.

Once the ICA faithful were roused the stage was set, and insult to injury – these people (good conservatives all) were irrationally missing from the At Large Delegate list submitted for approval to go to the National Convention: The Chair and Co-Chair of the Republican Party of Iowa, The Presidents of the Iowa Federation of Republican Women and College Republicans, Senator Grassley and the McCain State Chair in the primary, Marlys Popma. Apparently you have to be a contributor to ICA for delegate consideration now.

The convention was all about getting an ICA supported slate of delegates to the national convention to attempt to force a very conservative VP candidate for McCain. I hope those supporting Huckabee disregard his rhetoric and review his record.

“Governor Huckabee says he is a fiscal conservative,” Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said, “but his ten-year economic-policy record as the governor of Arkansas is mixed, at best. His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation. To be sure, Governor Huckabee’s record displays an occasional deference to a pro-growth philosophy, but that is only a small slice of a much bigger picture. The Club for Growth feels citizens deserve a full picture of where Governor Huckabee stands on the critical economic issues of the day.” Link

When the convention ended (or I guess I left an hour early and spent the hour before that not paying much attention to the floor votes, etc. except for the shouting) there was a palpable sadness and recognition of what just happened. A few conservatives reached out to ICA supporters to explain in more detail what had happened in the days before – promises made and broken, unauthorized take over of committee meetings and more…

Many more details (I suspect) will be documented in the next days by these blogs:
Krustie who’s logic and point of view I trust
Sporer is on the ICA side

UPDATE AM 7/10 – the MSM media picks the story up – it’s in a NYTIMES BLOG

===========

good stuff again from http://littlegreenfootballs.com blog

17 hours ago: A video grab from Al Alam television shows three of nine long- and medium-range missiles being fired during a test in Iran July 9, 2008. Iran test fired nine long- and medium-range missiles, including one which it has previously said could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the region, state media in Iran reported on Wednesday.

but AP chooses to use the more impressive picture (below)

16 hours ago: In a handout picture released on the news website of Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards, four long and medium range missiles rise into the air after being test-fired at an undisclosed location in the Iranian desert on July 9, 2008. Iran today test-fired a missile it said is capable of reaching Israel, angering the United States amid growing fears that the standoff over the contested Iranian nuclear drive could lead to war.

Why do they do this? Silly people. And why can’t the MSM verify pictures before putting them up for posting?

Our Social INSecurity

http://www.socialinsecurity.net/

Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt; introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

5.)That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the *money* we paid to the Federal government to “Put Away” you may be interested in the following:

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson> Democrat, and the Democrat Controlled House and Senate.

Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA withholding)?
Answer: The Democratic Party. William Jefferson Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore>)

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. Gore cast the “tie-breaking” vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson>

Well I can see I didn’t miss much news. Iran is mad, fires still raging on the Left Coast and Obama is sounding more like Hillary than early 2008 Obama… I just returned from a working vacation in Texas – Republican State Convention is next weekend, then the County Fair starts… (and that’s not counting keeping up at work!) so it continues to be very busy for me. Here is a picture of the 4th of July group I missed in Muscatine:

Mary, Jonathon, Dez, Mariannette and Bob

For those of you who think the rich need to pay more taxes – dig this:
The top 1% of tax payers paid 24.6 per cent of all federal income taxes
The top 5% of taxpayers paid 43.4 per cent of the taxes
The bottom 50% of tax filers paid 5.5 per cent of the taxes

Out of 134 million tax filers in 2005, 43 million (almost one third) paid NO Income Tax. (Link)

And remember this: the rich are those of us who are most capable of just leaving the country to set up in a new country that doesn’t tax quite so much. Who pays the taxes, and employs those workers in the US then?

more stats: Link

Man Made Global Warming – The Truth
(click below to view – do not try with dial-up connection)
The Great Global Warming Swindle
hat tip to Kathy Burt for finding this video

Again folks, these are important times.