Free Republic

Al Gore to Become World’s First Global Warming Billionaire

The bad move is the playing the victim and accusing chicanery on the left without sufficient evidence.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Hoffman's statement except political strategists who follow the unwritten rules of their timid imaginings.

Hoffman broke the rules to begin with by running third party. That is the kind of unscripted, bold action lacking from the typical Republican mindset.

Bad move IMHO

This isn't chess. Do you understand that liberals are waging war on America? Who cares what they think. The survival of our country is at stake.

I say we fight.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush says he's not running for president in 2012 -- but he's not closing the door completely.

Bush says he's not running for anything "right now."

"I'm just very disturbed by the rapid change of who we are as a nation, or the attempt," Bush says.

Typical weaselly trial balloon rhetoric.

He wants to run.

Yes, Michael Steele agrees with Cheney on marriage—which is to say, both men oppose preserving marriage through a federal marriage amendment.

GQ MAGAZINE, MARCH 11, 2009

GQ: Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?

Michael Steele: Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

GQ: So you think it’s a state issue?

Michael Steele: Absolutely. Just as a general principle, I don’t like mucking around with the Constitution. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don’t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I’ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that’s exactly what a republic is all about.

GQ: Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

Michael Steele: Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

Yes I thought that was an odd addition to Donohue’s statement.

Quite shocking, in fact.

"The problem with pro-life zealots ..."

Perhaps the problem is that too few of us are zealous.

Zeal against injustice is no vice.

Many parents who kill their children believe they are saving them from some future suffering.

From the same culture that teaches some children are "better off aborted."

Can anyone doubt that a disrespect for God and the rights He gives all children is the root of this evil?

Non sequitur.

The outcomes of elections depend on the people.

But does that really mean anything.

You were the one who said it would.

Personally, all I care about is what the man says. He's right on the mark.

I agree with you, too, that Obama is far from unbeatable now by a real conservative who can win the war of ideas.

If Alan Keyes is such a potent candidate for the Republican party, why hasn't he ever won a Republican primary? Why hasn't he ever come close?

That's not true.

Senate Republican Primary Election Results, Maryland, 1992:

 James H. Berry	        3%
 John J. Bishop	        4%
 Joseph I. Cassily	8%
 Joyce Friend-Nalepka	3%
 Herman J. Hannan	1%
 Stuart Hopkins	        2%
*Alan L. Keyes	        46%
 Martha S. Klima	10%
 William H Krehnbrink	1%
 Scott L. Meredith	2%
 Ross Z. Pierpont	6%
 Edward R. Shannon	2%
 S Rob Sobhani	        6%
 Romie A Sonqer	        3%
 Eugene R Zarwell	3%

Mr Keyes had 95,706 votes or 46 percent in the Republican contest with all 1,593 precincts reporting. His nearest challenger in the 15 candidate field was Baltimore County state Del. Martha Klima who received 20,075 votes or 10 percent.

I guess you'll find this pretty meaningful.

Sorry, I should have been clear. I was talking about the 2004 Illinois Senate race. It was stacked for Obama by the Illinois media. Polls already had Obama beating every possible opponent after Jack Ryan dropped out (who was going to lose to him anyway).

These folks rewrite history now, as if the race was Keyes’ to lose. There was no opportunity for anyone but Barack Obama to win.

Ergo, my position that he didn't destroy Obama.

You asked roamer_1 to prove that Keyes beat Obama in the debates. The proof of that is well established.

To address the other matter of "destroying" Obama in the election: I assert that no one could have beat him, given his unfair advantage. The media gave him "rock star" status early on. The man then rode that wave to the White House--despite being a lowly state senator just five short years ago.

This is obvious to everyone.

That's easy:

MODERATOR: Would you please assess where the U.S. stands diplomatically? Do we have a bad reputation now?

OBAMA: Well, I think that this administration has not been very good at what's been called the exercise of "soft power." You know, all of us recognize and reserve the right of the United States to exercise its military power in the national interest and for our national security--but we also have to recognize that a lot of our power comes from our ideals, our belief in freedom, our belief in democracy, our belief in the ability to work things through in a manner that comports with whatever frameworks of international law that have been shaped. And I think that, unfortunately, this administration has tended to be dismissive of any international efforts--and in his campaign, I think you witness it with a general disdain for, quote unquote, "globalism." In some cases, this is just a function of us trying to have conversations with our allies so that we can move more effectively.

KEYES: See, I think the great problem is that you cannot give a soft response to a hard threat. It would be kind of like trying to meet a bayonet with a spaghetti noodle. And it's not going to help the people of this country to survive.

After 9-11, we were faced with a hard threat. We had lost thousands of people, and we had to move aggressively. The belief that Afghanistan was enough is a belief based on a failure to understand the global infrastructure of terror--so that you deal with the threat that has hit you instead of with the threats that will hit you later if you neglect to preemptively move against their bases of support.

It is precisely in order to create a situation in which maybe people who would be otherwise supportive of this bloodthirsty threat will respond a little better to your overtures that you move with decision against regimes like the Iraqi regime that had shown itself disposed to support terror, to fund terror, to be part gleefully of the global infrastructure of terror--and to act against them before they have the opportunity to act against you.

We all know Keyes won that debate. He did a better job defending the Bush policy than the administration did at the time. Problem is, he didn't win the election because no one was going to beat Barack Obama. The media (and fellow forces of evil) made sure of that.

Posting his hate speech only dignifies him and his show.

In this case, I don't think you have to worry.

We . have . lived . as . if . in . a . trance.

We . have . lived . as . people . in . fear.

And . now . our . rights . and . freedoms . in . peril,

We . awaken . to . learn . that . we . have . been . afraid . . . .

Of the wrong thing.

— Keith Olbermann, Oct 2006
_________________________________________________

Alam Keyes leads off by saying Obama is a radical communist, and that it is clear now that that is what he is, a month out from the inauguration! [chortles] What exactly has Obama done in the past month to show he is a radical communist??

— Keith Olbermann, Feb 19, 2009

_________________________________________________

Thank goodness we have nothing to fear out from our communist leader!

Idolatry.

Whether exoneration through the courts is accomplished or not, that was not the goal of President Bush.

He even took a shot at them on his way out: His action “does not diminish the seriousness of their crime.”

Typical.

Playing both sides.

Bush didn't pardon the men for their crimes, but decided instead to commute their prison sentences because he believed they were excessive and that they had already suffered the loss of their jobs, freedom and reputations, a senior administration official said.

The action by the president, who believes the border agents received fair trials and that the verdicts were just, does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes, the official said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95QC3480&show_article=1