Posted on 05/29/2005 2:33:50 PM PDT by strategofr
Last week's Senate compromise that averted a showdown over filibustered judicial nominees was actually the opening salvo of the 2008 presidential campaign, several veteran political observers say. The unexpected consequence of the filibuster compromise is to give a boost to the presidential prospects of Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican. "Allen was very vocal in support of changing the rules to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominees and took the right position in condemning the compromise," said Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich. Conservatives have strongly condemned the compromise as a politically motivated gambit by Arizona Sen. John McCain, key Republican broker in the deal that ensured confirmation of three of President Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts. "George Allen is helped to the extent that the other potential [Republican] nomination competitors are not helped," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "Allen was on the right side and said the right things."
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
"Dwight D. Eisenhower"
Excellent. One before that was US Grant. Both men whom the nation felt they owed a huge debt to---without their having held office.
"Wonder how much unite'ing Bush has continued (with all that) with an absolutely beautiful diversion like the Iraq War from it all.."
Bush's faults and limitations are significant, and I'll rail about them without inhibition. But when you throw Bush in the same basket with that Traitor Clinton, you and I part company. Abruptly.
"Maybe not but many are frustrated to the point where they may simply sit on their hands and certainly not burn any more money and time to elect pale imitations of democrats."
Well, you needn't list the reasons for your frustrations. I share the national ones. In PA, we have a Republican legislature, but no Conservative has taken PA Republicans seriously for years here.
Nonetheless, I have not given up on the national Republican Party and implore you not to. I go back to the week after 9-11. I felt like someone had punched me in the gut. I felt like being an American was going to mean living in fear, and a kind of shame at our weakness.
Then came Afghanistan and the quick fall of the Taliban. Bush gave us that, from a leadership perspective. Then we conquered Iraq, one of probably the 10-15 best armies in the world, in 6 weeks with maybe 120,000 men. Deposed a amn who was a Hitler-in-training. Bush's leadership showed us, and the next dictator considering an attack on the US, what our military could do. And his man Rumsfeld made it happen, on the civilain end.
So yes, I believe Republicans do make a difference.
But I am not ignoring your point.
There is a terrible problem in the Party. In my opnion, the Hard Left, having taken over the Democratic party, the MSM, and the educational system K-PhD, and the State Department, has made some incursions into the Republican Party, particularly the Senate.
There's some bad people on the Hard Left, obviously, and I believe they are most likely blackmailing people using the 293 boxes of FBI files Hillary got illegally during the Clinton administration (they have the files, confirmed by the FBI guys who sent them).
I think we need to get some good new candidates and challenge DeWine and Chafee, two traitor-Senators who are up for election in 2006, in their primaries. I'm calling for a national Conservative effort on this. And we have to vet these candidates good, because the full resources of the MSM will be spent looking for every speck of dirt on them.
As far as the 72-hour Texans, the reason I asked is that a group of them came here to Pittsburgh and took a couple of pictures with me included here in our Bush Victory Center in an area of the city known as Shadyside (on Shady Avenue). This was my first campaign, and I sure would like to have a copy of one or both pix(e-mailed or mailed.) If that was possible. I get no help on this end, if you know what I mean.
I see...
But you must admit the selection of John Kerry of all the democrats to run against him is a bit fishy.. Literally no one had as many soft spots as Kerry NO ONE, running against a president AT WAR.. quite convenient, I would say..
Looks quite "planned" to me.. Lieberman just might have WON.. or even any of the others in a stretch.. Heck AL Gore received half the votes of the voting public.. and he is a known moron even by democrats..
Notice lately Newt shilling for Hillary.. IF Newt is compromised... Why not Georgie.?. also Bob Barr working for the ACLU.?... Incestuous is the nicest term I would use.. If treason is next to impossible to indite or convict as it is now.. there must be much of it going on.. Why not.?. It is veritably defacto LEGAL.. and there are no laws against sedition.. thats LEGAL TOO..
** Sidebar...
What the hell does, "I'm a Unite'er NOT a Divide'er ", mean anyways, the very next administration after 8 years of Clinton.. at least 5 years of his "Unite'ing" pretty much SHOWS what it means, I think.. And I'm NOT amused.. THIS King has NO clothing..
He's NAKED..
Mrs. Texan was in Ohio but if they were from Travis county or Austin freepmail me and I'll be glad to put you in touch with somebody that might be able to help.
Since you know Allen, two questions if you know...
1. What does Allen believe about Jesus?
2. What does Allen beieve about abortion?
"But you must admit the selection of John Kerry of all the democrats to run against him is a bit fishy.. "
I admit it. I noticed the Newt thing too.
If a Democrat had won in 2004, Hillary's chance of being President would have been significantly diminished. She couldn't have tried till 2012, when she would be getting pretty old. She couldn't run herself in 2004, she needed more time to "re-invent" herself.
That, combined with some other things that happened (mainly the fact that the Swift Boat Vets gained access to the MSM, something that never happens to anyone talking about HillaryCrimes) makes me suspect that Hillary may have engineered the Dem defeat in 2004.
The Hard Left has penetrated deeply into our society and they are quite ruthless.(see Hillary’s Secret War, The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists, by Richard Poe, WND Books, 2004.)
It seems plausible that they have somehow "got to" Newt.
That Bush is another matter is obvious to me. He has his weaknesses, but the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and his superb performance on the War on Terror make it clear which side Bush is on vis a vis the Hard Left.
Point well taken. But as impressive as Condi is, the nation doesn't feel quite as indebted to her.
Do your own homework. It's out there.
Huh? The Swift Boats Vets were virtually ignored by the lamestream media. They actually had to raise funds to get their messages heard. That's simply mind boggling. The only coverage they really received was when Kerry and friends called them liars and the like.
Bush is performing no war against anything.. his cabinet is.. He just might BE a moron with good people advising him.. except a few bad choices like Colon Powell <<- which probably WAS his own idea also Colins son as head of the FCC, which made that place a useless wreck (cBS investigating THEMSELVES?).. Wonder how Colin Powell did UNDER CLinton.. was he promoted?..
I think the Mexican border is Bush's weak spot.. displaying hes a moron "handled" by someone else.. Lots of other weak spots as you say, but the border displays advice(or handling) for an agenda over his head.. The debates with Kerry proved Bush is not too smart.. but his handlers knew that Kerry was the only one he had a chance with.. Lieberman would have killed him.. even Howie would/could have won the debates..
Actually I'm beginning think the war is a diversion from the massive domestic issues.. Hillary is handled, Bush is handled; and to deem honest ideological differences between them would be a good canard by the handlers.. hiding the real intentions.. and plan when they are both just "material" for the Dialectical materialists..
Did I say the war was just a "diversion".. or yes I did..
Because its looking exactly that way.. The War has over ridden any other domestic issues.. that are slowly moveing left'er as we post.. What a plan.. its is working.. The people are confused, Bush is confused, and America rots ever more deeply into socialism while "thinking" the country becoming MORE conservative.. when it AIN'T..
The Federal sales tax or even a flat tax is looming as a reality. Both can be morphed into a VAT easily after the intial passing of it.. What I wonder is.. Will Bush be the one to propose it?.. or will Hillary be the one?.. Because the VAT is definitly on its way.. and will be hailed as a CONSERVATIVE IDEA.. <<- the En-Franceing of America..
James Monroe in 1820 (his reelection) and Calvin Coolidge in 1924.
And I got that without even right-clicking on the maps and looking at the image properties.
Alabama was not yet a state in 1808.
From yesterday's Richmond Times Dispatch for anyone concerned that no one outside of the conservative movement and Virginia knows George Allen.....
"Allen has gotten mention in news reports beyond Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia recently. He has been speaking out not only against judicial filibusters but also in support of John R. Bolton, Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, and on other matters.
"Between May 22 and mid-Friday (5/27), there were 112 individual articles that mentioned Allen; 35 on Wednesday alone; and Associated Press articles mentioning him were picked up by 340 newspapers Wednesday, Thursday and Friday."
Sounds like good national coverage to me.
"Point well taken. But as impressive as Condi is, the nation doesn't feel quite as indebted to her."
I certainly agree and had no intention to imply otherwise (though I might have been more clear that way.) Condi Rice has served her country well, but her contribution is not in the class of those two men. Few Americans could ever make the claim to be on that level.
"Huh? The Swift Boats Vets were virtually ignored by the lamestream media. They actually had to raise funds to get their messages heard. That's simply mind boggling. The only coverage they really received was when Kerry and friends called them liars and the like."
If memory serves me, their ad was replayed repeatedly on Fox (for free) as a news item. I'm pretty sure that is correct, but if I am wrong I need to find out about it. I don't have cable, so i am working from memory of news reports about Fox coverage.
"Warner doesn't regard Allen highly."
The info on Allen just keeps getting better.
"Sounds like good national coverage to me."
Yes it does. I need to retract my speculation that Allen is not being forthcoming about his positions. It's just that the national stage is a small one, and a person, even one as prominent as Sen. Allen, can only edge onto it slowly, unless they are a beknighted Lefty of course.
"He just might BE a moron with good people advising him.."
I can sympathize with some things you say, others are off the wall, in my opinion.
You can't do as well as Bush has done in a time of crisis and be a moron. Clearly, Bush has some quite real intellectual limitations and his debate performances were (considering all 6 in both campaigns) atrocious.
As far as the border issue, I agree with you on the centrality of the issue, disagree about why Bush has had a zero response.
Bush cut his eye teeth in Texas politics. One of his best tricks was being a Republican in Texas who divided the Hispanic vote. He repeated the stunt in 2004. (By some analyses, its what won him the election.)
It's called "politics" and it is one of the things Bush has a talent for. While "politics" is frequently reviled, it is one of the skills a democracy depends on for its existance, since disagreement is rampant, by definition. Some people with this skill err on the side of being forgiving and trusting and Bush has made this mistake with Clinton and Putin, respectively.
Bush, having done so well in this area, is loathe to reverse course and alienate Hispanic voters. However, he has made no statement so far. He can reverse what we all know his course is quite easily and deny he ever had the other course, if he decides to. I suspect he will do so.
If I'm right, watch him do it, and re-consider, if you will, the tag of "moron." One advantage guys like that have is that others underestimate him. I suspect the most famous person to do so was Osama bin Laden himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.