William F. Buckley, a key conservative voice in America for the last half century, has passed away, persumably to the fiery pits of hell.
Ann Coulter emailed me this morning to share some of her thoughts on the passing of this great man. As many of you know, I have a thing for Ann Coulter. I love her skankiness. Where else but in American could you find a woman who dresses like a hooker and uses the language of a sailor on shore leave to speak so articulately about the conservative cause.
Ann wrote me this morning to reflect on the life of William F. Buckley. (OK, for the sake of full disclosure she wrote me and thousands of others who are signed up for a listserv email blast.) I am providing the link to the entire artice. I hope you have a chance to read the whole thing.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25241
Just in case you don't have time for the whole article I am going to quote and summarize some pieces. It is easy to see why Buckley was revered among conservatives. Highlights from Ann Coulter's article.
Ann reminds us that Buckley was a defender of Joe McCarthy. However he didn't like Eisenhower. Too liberal. "National Review did not endorse a candidate for president in 1956, correctly concluding that Dwight Eisenhower was not a conservative, however great a military leader he had been. "
Buckley did support Joe Lieberman when he ran and defeated incumbent Senator Lowel Weicker. In fact he set up a PAC for Lieberman.
"In a famous exchange with Gore Vidal in 1968, Vidal said to Buckley: "As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself."
Buckley replied: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."
Years later, in 1985, Buckley said of the incident: "We both acted irresponsibly. I'm not a Nazi, but he is, I suppose, a fag."
"When asked if he had "referred to Jesse Jackson as an ignoramus," Buckley said, "If I didn't, I should have."
I hope you will take time to read Ann's entire article.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25241
Conservatives all agree that Buckley was a great American, a role model for our children. And many thanks to Ann Coulter for her reflections on William F. Buckley. She shows us clearly why conservatives liked him so much.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Money Matters
We are coming to crunch time in the Democratic presidential nomination process. The delegates are pretty evenly split between the two candidates, but Clinton hasn't won any of the last 10 states. Obama is on a roll.
Texas and Ohio may well be the final battle. That means one thing. Money. Big money. And probably money spent to be nasty.
It really does matter to me where that money is coming from. Clinton has put out a call for 100 contributors. They would each kick in $100,000. They can avoid the normal campaign limit of $2300 by working through a Section 527 "Swift Boat" group. This is the Clinton plan. And it may get ugly.
Where the money comes from matters to me. That is one reason I favor Obama. He doesn't take money from special interest PACs. He takes nickels and dimes from regular people. That makes it real hard to compete with $100,000 from an individual. Yet Obama is the top money raiser. As I write this he is closing in on ONE MILLION contributions. Incredible.
We live in a time when it seems like our government is bought and sold by organizations with money. What happened to the little guy? Apparently he is alive and well, and contributing to Barack Obama.
Two good candidates. But one has a new philosophy on how to finance campaigns. One is showing that business as usual in Washington might come to an end. This looks to me like the real deal. This is hope that I can believe in.
Texas and Ohio may well be the final battle. That means one thing. Money. Big money. And probably money spent to be nasty.
It really does matter to me where that money is coming from. Clinton has put out a call for 100 contributors. They would each kick in $100,000. They can avoid the normal campaign limit of $2300 by working through a Section 527 "Swift Boat" group. This is the Clinton plan. And it may get ugly.
Where the money comes from matters to me. That is one reason I favor Obama. He doesn't take money from special interest PACs. He takes nickels and dimes from regular people. That makes it real hard to compete with $100,000 from an individual. Yet Obama is the top money raiser. As I write this he is closing in on ONE MILLION contributions. Incredible.
We live in a time when it seems like our government is bought and sold by organizations with money. What happened to the little guy? Apparently he is alive and well, and contributing to Barack Obama.
Two good candidates. But one has a new philosophy on how to finance campaigns. One is showing that business as usual in Washington might come to an end. This looks to me like the real deal. This is hope that I can believe in.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Wisconsin Numbers Should Scare Republicans
The Wisconsin primary numbers are in and Obama has won decisively over Hillary Clinton. He cut into several of her core constituency areas. She appears to be in real trouble in her attempt to caputure the nomination. Ohio and Texas could bring her campaign to an end.
There are other numbers to compare in Wisconsin that seem more telling to me. If you take votes for John McCain, and Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul and roll them all together in one package they still come up short compared to Hillary Clinton. That's right. The entire Republican party can't combine to beat Hillary and she was the big loser in the vote count tonight.
Wisconsin isn't unique. Republicans are uninspired and Democrats are turning out in droves. The difference in numbers between the two parties are incredible.
I think the scent of change is in the air.
There are other numbers to compare in Wisconsin that seem more telling to me. If you take votes for John McCain, and Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul and roll them all together in one package they still come up short compared to Hillary Clinton. That's right. The entire Republican party can't combine to beat Hillary and she was the big loser in the vote count tonight.
Wisconsin isn't unique. Republicans are uninspired and Democrats are turning out in droves. The difference in numbers between the two parties are incredible.
I think the scent of change is in the air.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Michigan Presidential Delegates
It is hard to imagine a bigger mess that we have with two states not having delegates for the Democratic Presidential Convention. With the delegate count so even between Clinton and Obama there is growing disucssion about how we dig ourselves out of this mess.
Yes, the Republicans had the same issue and were way smarter than Democrats in how they handled this. Republicans used a measured response and have easily worked through this. Democrats used the nuclear option on Michigan and Florida and now they have that fallout to deal with. No, it doesn't help to resolve the problem by pointing out that Republicans were smarter than we were.
There seems to be three options being considered.
Use the January Primary results - Hillary broke the rules and stayed on the ballot. With only one viable candidate on the ballot and the word from DNC that NO delegates would be seated the Michigan voters stayed home in droves. It wasn't a real election. Now Hillary supporters want to break the rules again and seat these delegates. That will give her delegates she desperately needs to win the nomination. Gov. Granholm appears to be supporting this option.
Stick with the DNC Rules - According to the DNC we were electing zero delegates in January. January was not a valid or representative election. Michigan sends no delegates to the convention. This option leaves Michiganders voiceless in a hotly contested race.
The "Do Over" Option - Local leaders and activists seem to want a chance to have a real vote. Many are calling for a traditional Michigan caucus which would select delegates for the convention. This is the same process that has been used in Michigan for many years. This will let Michiganders have a say in choosing our next president. It also opens the doors to the idea that if you don't like some election results you just keep redoing the election until it turns out the way you want.
Three Choices. They are all losers.
The first option rewards a rule breaker, asks the DNC to do a flip flop on its own rules, and allocates delegates based on an election that wasn't a real election.
The last option is the fairest in my mind, but will also damage the party the most. Some people predict Obama would win in a do-over. Clinton supporters may argue that to change the rules would cause the election to be stolen from them. This is sometimes know as the "Splitting the Party" option. Our do-over election will also face criticism from all over the country. If you don't like the results of one election just keeping elections until you get the results you want. This sounds more like a third world country than Michigan. Florida had hanging chads in 2000. Michigan can have the "Do-Over" in 2008. It make take a terrible situation and make it worse.
The second option is probably the best. I hate it. It leaves Michiganders voiceless. However, in the name of party unity it may be the best. Everyone plays by the same rules all the way along from the January primary until the July convention. The rules don't get changed in the middle of the game resulting in an advantage to one candidate or the other. This option sucks. It is also the best option as far as I can tell.
2008 is the year of the Democrats. Our nation is ready to put the Republicans behind us. January 2009 should reveal a Democrat being sworn in as President of the United States. The only thing that can stop our success is our ability as Democrats to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Ready... Aim...
Yes, the Republicans had the same issue and were way smarter than Democrats in how they handled this. Republicans used a measured response and have easily worked through this. Democrats used the nuclear option on Michigan and Florida and now they have that fallout to deal with. No, it doesn't help to resolve the problem by pointing out that Republicans were smarter than we were.
There seems to be three options being considered.
Use the January Primary results - Hillary broke the rules and stayed on the ballot. With only one viable candidate on the ballot and the word from DNC that NO delegates would be seated the Michigan voters stayed home in droves. It wasn't a real election. Now Hillary supporters want to break the rules again and seat these delegates. That will give her delegates she desperately needs to win the nomination. Gov. Granholm appears to be supporting this option.
Stick with the DNC Rules - According to the DNC we were electing zero delegates in January. January was not a valid or representative election. Michigan sends no delegates to the convention. This option leaves Michiganders voiceless in a hotly contested race.
The "Do Over" Option - Local leaders and activists seem to want a chance to have a real vote. Many are calling for a traditional Michigan caucus which would select delegates for the convention. This is the same process that has been used in Michigan for many years. This will let Michiganders have a say in choosing our next president. It also opens the doors to the idea that if you don't like some election results you just keep redoing the election until it turns out the way you want.
Three Choices. They are all losers.
The first option rewards a rule breaker, asks the DNC to do a flip flop on its own rules, and allocates delegates based on an election that wasn't a real election.
The last option is the fairest in my mind, but will also damage the party the most. Some people predict Obama would win in a do-over. Clinton supporters may argue that to change the rules would cause the election to be stolen from them. This is sometimes know as the "Splitting the Party" option. Our do-over election will also face criticism from all over the country. If you don't like the results of one election just keeping elections until you get the results you want. This sounds more like a third world country than Michigan. Florida had hanging chads in 2000. Michigan can have the "Do-Over" in 2008. It make take a terrible situation and make it worse.
The second option is probably the best. I hate it. It leaves Michiganders voiceless. However, in the name of party unity it may be the best. Everyone plays by the same rules all the way along from the January primary until the July convention. The rules don't get changed in the middle of the game resulting in an advantage to one candidate or the other. This option sucks. It is also the best option as far as I can tell.
2008 is the year of the Democrats. Our nation is ready to put the Republicans behind us. January 2009 should reveal a Democrat being sworn in as President of the United States. The only thing that can stop our success is our ability as Democrats to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Ready... Aim...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Telecom Immunity
On February 12, 2008 the Senate approved a sweeping measure that would expand the government's clandestine surveillance powers, delivering a key victory to the White House by approving immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that cooperated with intelligence agencies in domestic spying after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Here is how the votes break out:
Supporting Immunity for Telecom Companies
Pres. George Bush (R)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) MI
Opposing Immunity
Sen. Carl Levin (D) MI
Sen. Barack Obama (D) IL
Not bothering to Vote
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) NY
Fortunately the Democrats in the House have more resolve. They seem willing to vote the courage of their convictions in opposition to immunity and in favor of personal freedom.
Supporting Immunity for Telecom Companies
Pres. George Bush (R)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) MI
Opposing Immunity
Sen. Carl Levin (D) MI
Sen. Barack Obama (D) IL
Not bothering to Vote
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) NY
Fortunately the Democrats in the House have more resolve. They seem willing to vote the courage of their convictions in opposition to immunity and in favor of personal freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
