VIA: American Thinker Blog
Madame Speaker:
I just heard on the news that you are leading the Democrats out of the House for a break without passing the new intelligence bill. What are you thinking?
I am guessing that you didn't know anybody in the World Trade Center on 9/11. The people trapped in the building faced the choice of either jumping to their deaths or burning alive. I don't know to this day which fate was chosen by those I knew in the building.
I would have thought that you would have a care that if the passengers on Flight 93 had not been heroes, the Capitol would very likely have been a smoking ruin on that day. I cannot understand what is impelling you to take such a lax attitude to your duties.
I suppose this comes under the rubric "the public interest be damned." Intelligence is essential to the safety of the country, and you refuse to provide us with that weapon. I cannot imagine what is going through your mind.
It is clear that you are not up to the duties of your high office. I can only hope that we can replace you in the next election.
Appalled,
Greg Richards
P.S. And the House had the time to hold hearings on steroids in baseball? What Article, exactly, in the Constitution enumerates that power? Even if there was one, what does it say about your leadership that you thought that subject worth the time of the House but the intelligence bill wasn't?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
COMING SOON! Open Letter: Dear Fox News
Here's a sample:
Brian LewisExecutive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Fox News Channel1211 Avenue of the Americas
2nd FloorNew York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Lewis,My name is Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and am a huge fan of the Fox News Channel. The reason I'm writing to you is to address something I've observed while watching your news programs. Fox News has given me, it's viewers, and the public at large, a false picture of Senator John McCain's public record. And for that reason, I've chosen to no longer trust Fox News. While this pains me greatly to do I don't intend to stay silent.
I have been a huge fan of Fox News for almost 10 years. My favorite shows are The Oreilly Factor, Special Report w/ Brit Hume, Hannity & Colmes, Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, and Fox & Friends, in that order. I follow the news and current events very closely. Combined, my sources of news are cable news, talk radio, the internet, and print, which gives me an extraordinarily accurate view of what's happening in our world. And that's why, with deep sadness and with deep regret, that I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer trust Fox News...
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Why I Support Romeny
Here's a problem I see for Romney. And I'm speaking from experience. I believe many of Romney's new found converts to his band wagon have one problem. They dislike McCain more than they actually support Romney. Bare with me.
You've heard the vicious opposition to a McCain nomination increase as the possibility of him becoming the republican nominee becomes more likely. I include myself in that group. But what you don't hear very much of is why Romney will make a great choice as the republican nominee.
And the reason, I believe this is the case, is because most of the attention of the conservative base has been focused on defeating Hillary Clinton. She basically consumed the debate on the right and not much attention was paid to Senator McCain. Or for that matter anyone on the republican side.
While no one focused specifically on Senator McCain, counting him out early on, he made a comeback. He did so without the support of the base of the republican party. And therein lies the paradox.
Because I'm consumed with politics--and specifically with this election--I, for one, didn't see the McCain comeback coming. And whether I like to admit it or not, I feel helpless.
I don't proclaim to have some sort of influence over this process. But I do consider myself conservative, in touch with conservative issues, and up to date with the conservative movement. And when I saw McCain surging I felt like I was blind sided by something I didn't recognize. Which brings me to my support for Romney.
At first I had hoped, like many other conservatives, a Ronald Reagan would emerge. Things were moving so fast that I hadn't even considered voting for anyone yet, including Mitt Romney. I just knew at any time that Reagan would show up and save the day. Sadly, he was a no show.
With regard to Romney, all I really knew about him was that he's a former governor. He's a Mormon. And he's a flip flopper. (You can tell I got all my info from the MSM, can't you?)
But looking closer at his record, I found a brilliant businessman, a great family man, a conservative politician, and a great candidate for the republican nomination for president. He's no Ronald Reagan, but he ain't no John (Maverick) McCain either.
He didn't, by the way, flip flop on all the issues. Abortion was the only issue in which you can say he changed his position. But as governor, he governed as a pro-lifer. Where as McCain is pro-life unless you're unfortunate enough to be an embryo. He wants your cells for research.
And if he's (Mitt) a flip flopper because he changed his position on one issue, what then, does that make John McCain? He flip flopped on tax cuts, on amnesty, and on building a border fence.
The way I see it, Romney "evolved." McCain's just lying. I do not believe McCain has changed his position. But instead, has only changed his rhetoric.
And there's why so many conservatives are now jumping on the Romney band wagon. Ronald Reagan was a no show. McCain scares the b-jesus out of them. And Romney is truly a conservative they could rally behind. It took the possibility of a McCain nomination to nudge them along.
I believe, and I don't have any evidence to back this up, that if we had another week or two before Super Tuesday McCain would certainly not be in the position he's in right now. We would like a "do over."
You've heard the vicious opposition to a McCain nomination increase as the possibility of him becoming the republican nominee becomes more likely. I include myself in that group. But what you don't hear very much of is why Romney will make a great choice as the republican nominee.
And the reason, I believe this is the case, is because most of the attention of the conservative base has been focused on defeating Hillary Clinton. She basically consumed the debate on the right and not much attention was paid to Senator McCain. Or for that matter anyone on the republican side.
While no one focused specifically on Senator McCain, counting him out early on, he made a comeback. He did so without the support of the base of the republican party. And therein lies the paradox.
Because I'm consumed with politics--and specifically with this election--I, for one, didn't see the McCain comeback coming. And whether I like to admit it or not, I feel helpless.
I don't proclaim to have some sort of influence over this process. But I do consider myself conservative, in touch with conservative issues, and up to date with the conservative movement. And when I saw McCain surging I felt like I was blind sided by something I didn't recognize. Which brings me to my support for Romney.
At first I had hoped, like many other conservatives, a Ronald Reagan would emerge. Things were moving so fast that I hadn't even considered voting for anyone yet, including Mitt Romney. I just knew at any time that Reagan would show up and save the day. Sadly, he was a no show.
With regard to Romney, all I really knew about him was that he's a former governor. He's a Mormon. And he's a flip flopper. (You can tell I got all my info from the MSM, can't you?)
But looking closer at his record, I found a brilliant businessman, a great family man, a conservative politician, and a great candidate for the republican nomination for president. He's no Ronald Reagan, but he ain't no John (Maverick) McCain either.
He didn't, by the way, flip flop on all the issues. Abortion was the only issue in which you can say he changed his position. But as governor, he governed as a pro-lifer. Where as McCain is pro-life unless you're unfortunate enough to be an embryo. He wants your cells for research.
And if he's (Mitt) a flip flopper because he changed his position on one issue, what then, does that make John McCain? He flip flopped on tax cuts, on amnesty, and on building a border fence.
The way I see it, Romney "evolved." McCain's just lying. I do not believe McCain has changed his position. But instead, has only changed his rhetoric.
And there's why so many conservatives are now jumping on the Romney band wagon. Ronald Reagan was a no show. McCain scares the b-jesus out of them. And Romney is truly a conservative they could rally behind. It took the possibility of a McCain nomination to nudge them along.
I believe, and I don't have any evidence to back this up, that if we had another week or two before Super Tuesday McCain would certainly not be in the position he's in right now. We would like a "do over."
Friday, February 1, 2008
Coulter Would Vote For Hillary Over McCain
From Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, via YouTube:
Coulter: I’ll campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee
I actually disagree with Ms. Coulter about Hillary being better on the war in Iraq.
But as to the rest, it’s hard not to see her points.
Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.
At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.
Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.
“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”
“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”
Read the whole story here.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.
At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.
Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.
“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”
“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”
Read the whole story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
