Free Republic

Heheheh. Labels have whatever meaning the listener attaches to them. It takes a bit more effort to find out what the speaker really means.

It happens on FR all the time, arguments about who is a member of the base, who is a conservative, and so forth. "Compassionate conservative" is just a two word flavor of the same thing - like "strict constructionist" is for judicial nominations.

He's always been one, and open about it. That's what "Compassionate conservative" means.

I disagree. FR would become an arm of the the more monied side. There are already active groups that operate to pull the GOP in a conservative direction, i.e., counterforce to the Republican Main Street Partnership. FR is good as a more or less neutral battleground for those opposing forces to vent and hone their arguments.

And Kyle would be chair of the Judiciary Committee.

I send them back, with notes expressing why there is no donation. I think the party deserves honest feedback.

The silent part peels off the masses, the going liberal part peels off those who watch issues and do more that absorb the MSM news reports.

I have not yet seen an authoritative list. But it is rumored that most of the signatories to the letter are members of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

I think President Bush's move to use Kennedy for that was in complete harmony with (or shows) President Bush's desire for strong federal control of public education. "Choice with control" if you will.

Check also the background of the Margaret Spellings, the current Secretary of the Federal Department of Education.

Hellooooo! The RNC is not averse to supporting liberal-leaning, or even liberal Republicans. It's a natural party function to do so. The RNC supported the Specter campaign, for example, as well as McCain, Snowe, Collins and today, Chaffee.

Giving to the RNC is not for everybody. If the kind of support listed above bugs you, you can give to individual campaigns or to interest groups. Last year, my donations were most to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but I also donated to conservative individual candidates.

-bump-
to an outstanding find and post

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

That hypothetical timeline and chain of events does not change the analysis and conclusion of the indictment.

Libbky to investigators that he did NOT know of Plame, until discussion with reporters in June/July 2003. If he in fact had heard of her before, even from reporters, his answers to investigators would have been different.

IOW, his answer is in the nature of "I first heard of Plame in June/July 1003, and then only from reporters."

The trial process is going to drag out, but I hope the trial evidence and transcripts, etc. are made available on the web. I'm quite curious as to the defense he plans to mount. Amnesia? The testimony wasn't material? No underlying crime? (also known as the "bogus/malicious prosecution" or "nothing but a perjury trap" defense - blame the prosecutor) Misinterpretation of ambiguous testimony? "I'm telling the truth - everyone else is lying"?

Or he may just cop a plea.

Lots of technical details as well as financial details. Jeffers did an outstanding piece of research - or pieces of research, as the material covers many bases.

Old news. Thread below has links to Republican Main Street organizations (there is more than one organization, the splt being useful for plausible deniability purposes).

GEORGE SOROS FUNDING ARLEN SPECTER! - Posted on 04/14/2004
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117486/posts

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272203/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117486/posts

He's got 4 Circuit Court nominees bottled up since Februaray. And all 4 of those were carry-overs from the 108th Congress, being nominated between 2001 and 2003. You were saying???

-bump-

Summary of Circuit Court Nominations

F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech

M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster

C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded

       --S  --  C--  Boyle, Terrence W.       (4th Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Owen, Priscilla          (5th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  Griffin, Richard A.      (6th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  McKeague, David W.       (6th Cir)
       --S  --  -D-  Neilson, Susan Bieke     (6th Cir)
       F--  mR  ---  Saad, Henry W.           (6th Cir)  
       F4S  mR  C--  Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Pryor, William H.        (11th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Brown, Janice Rogers     (D.C. Cir)
       --S  --  CUV  Griffith, Thomas B.      (D.C. Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Kavanaugh, Brett M.      (D.C. Cir)

Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture passed 65-32 on June 7. Confirmed 56-43 on June 8.
Pryor: Cloture passed 67-32 on June 8. Confirmed 53-45 on June 9.
Griffin: Confirmed 95-0 on June 9.
McKeague: Confirmed 96-0 on June 9.
Griffith: Confirmed 73-24 on June 14.
Myers: Out of Committee on March 17.
Boyle: Out of Committee on June 16.

Additional source material

• List of Nominations in the 109th Congress Judiciary Committee
• Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
• Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
• Senators' Memorandum of Understanding - May 23, 2005
• Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
• AP Report Reid wants to filibuster Haynes & Kavanaugh - May 28, 2005
• Fox News Report Reid will filibuster Saad & Myers - May 29, 2005
• Boyle was nominated to 4th Cir. in 1991 too, by GHWB

Funny how some things don't change much ;-)

In other words, he is a self-promoter. As is Ralph Nader, etc. etc. etc.

My narrow point is that casting blame to others for not winning elections is responsibility-avoidance and counterproductive. Political parties are like businesses. If you want the most customers (and there -is- competetition) you need to tailor your product and marketing in order to win. If you don't win, it's your own fault, not the competition's fault.

I blame the GOP for losing to Clinton, twice.

I do. And bear in mind that there is a closely affiliated Main Street Fund or some such. The presence of two organizations was what permitted Specter to mislead the public in his on-air interview with Rush Limbaugh a few (couple? one?) years ago, about having taken money from a group that accepts donations from Soros.

The locals note that it you drop your wallet in Ogunquit, best to kick it to Saco before picking it up.

It's been a common reaction for years - blame the voter instead of adjusting the party. Perot is the most often cited example I can think of. His candidacy is trotted out to justify the loss of the WH to the DEM party. I don't know who the bogeyman was when Dole ran, but you can bet the GOP-party-faithful do not see that loss as a GOP-induced problem either.

Losers tend to look and point outside for blame.