Ever since Ronald Reagan put together a winning coalition in 1980 of social/religious conservatives, economic conservatives, limited government libertarians, those who believe U.S. defense should be the strongest in the world, and conservative Democrats who are disgruntled with their Party, Republicans have enjoyed the longest era of success they've had in modern times.
It would be redundant for me to enumerate those successes here as I have written often of the resounding success of the Reagan Revolution. Suffice it to say that the Reagan ideology probably saved the Republic from continued decline and eventual destruction.
Yet, all it took to rip this coalition apart was two terms of George W. Bush.
Bush has perhaps pulled off the single biggest hoax in politics since Richard Nixon. He ran twice as a Reagan conservative but has governed as a moderate, elitist Republican in the tradition of his father, George H.W. Bush, and other GOP moderates such as Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford.
During the first Bush term, this fact was hidden by the nation's focus on terrorism and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But during the second term those issues had faded from public consciousness a bit, allowing the light to peer through so as to illuminate the true Bush ideology.
Bush has adhered to the principles of the Reagan Coalition on only two fronts--the tax cuts and abortion. Even when it comes to the War in Iraq, the President has failed to consider the enormous strain his policies have placed on the American military, which was not prepared in terms of overall manpower to conduct two separate fronts in the War on Terror.
Reagan believed that one must first build up the country's military strength in terms of new and effective weapons--and modern gear for the soldiers--and in terms of increasing the number of men and women who serve in the armed forces.
Certainly a President is not always afforded the luxury of having the time to do these things before engaging our military in battle. 9/11 was an event that could not be foreseen in any specific, definite sense. But Bush's failure was not responding to the attack. His mistake is that even after engaging our military we still did not succeed in the necessary strengthening of arms and personnel.
The result is a military that has been drained, used-up, overworked, and under-compensated.
Nonetheless, Bush still presided over a massive increase in the size and scope of government, even as our military suffered. And this is precisely where the President committed what is tantamount to heresy within the Reagan Coalition--a libertarian, small government conservative would not support such a massive buildup of government power and authority.
Add to this the Bush penchant for kicking in the teeth those who put him in office, such as supporting D.C.'s gun ban, allowing the ATF to continue to intimidate, harass, and crush the firearms industry, and failing to stop the flow of illegal aliens into the country and put the clamps on 'sanctuary cities.'
Because of Mr. Bush's willingness to ignore the policies that gave the GOP such enormous success, he has become perhaps the most unpopular President in U.S. history, and he has been dragging down the GOP with him.
For this reason we are stuck with John McCain, who in some ironic twist of fate is probably the one Republican who has the best chance of winning the White House precisely because he has been willing to oppose Bush and his Party on various issues.
Granted, some of McCain's views are certainly anathema to Reagan conservatives, but the public perception is that he is a good guy who thinks for himself. The masses generally do not understand the nuances of policy. All they know is McCain has stood against Bush and other Republicans who are not so popular at present.
The bottom line is that we are stuck with McCain because Bush has nearly destroyed the Reagan Coalition. And if McCain is able to pull in some Democrats with him it won't be because they are 'Reagan Democrats' but because they support some of McCain's more liberal ideas and refuse to support Hillary or Obama because of the ill feelings the Democrats' primary season has evoked.
To be sure, the remnants of the Coalition are still there, although scattered apart in political never-never land. The 'blue dog' Democrats are ample proof of that. All it would take for the Coalition to receive a breath of new life is a candidate who can inspire and rekindle the patriotic spirit that brought us all together in the first place.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Two Easy Targets
Conventional wisdom has it that the Democrats would be unbeatable with a ticket that has both Hillary and Obama on it. However, in the 2008 Presidential campaign we can safely throw out the window conventional political wisdom.
Political Science 101 will not prepare one for the present scenario.
Under normal circumstances it is assumed, and correctly so, that the two top candidates for their particular Party's nomination would make the strongest ticket in the general election. Many assume this would be the case this year in particular with the Democrats, given the fact that one of their two top candidates is a charismatic and photogenic speaker and the other is the spouse of a popular former President.
I beg to differ.
Clinton and Obama offer the Republicans two very easy targets. If the Democrats present the nation with a ticket consisting of both, the only question remaining is, which scandal or liability do we start with today?
And that would be the most difficult decision given that there are so many possibilities from which to choose.
Both of the Democratic candidates have glaring weaknesses. Pennsylvania polls showed us that even most Democrats do not believe Hillary to be trustworthy. Those same polls show that Obama is perceived by a significant number as an elitist snob who says what he has to say in order to appease the sensitivities of a particular group, although he is clearly unable to make gut-level connections with ordinary, average citizens.
And when it comes to political acumen, both candidates have made glaring errors in judgment in terms of strategy and 'off-the-cuff' comments that inadvertently allow voters to see that the real person is a far cry from the public persona.
This has hurt Obama in particular due to the fact that he has gone out of his way to portray himself as the one candidate who is honest, genuine, and has the pulse of what 'the common man' holds dear.
Yet when his guard was down in the friendly confines of like-minded elitists, surrounded by a group of San Francisco Democratic Party liberals, he discloses that 'the common man' is a scared and bitter ignoramus who deals with his emotions by clinging to his guns and religion.
Hillary's disingenuousness is well-known and documented. The only question is, what whopper of a tale will she be caught in next? And, what skeletons still remain hidden in the closet?
Thus, the Republicans are not automatically knocked out of the ballgame with a Hillary-Obama ticket or an Obama-Hillary ticket. In fact, having TWO easy targets may well be twice as advantageous as having one.
Political Science 101 will not prepare one for the present scenario.
Under normal circumstances it is assumed, and correctly so, that the two top candidates for their particular Party's nomination would make the strongest ticket in the general election. Many assume this would be the case this year in particular with the Democrats, given the fact that one of their two top candidates is a charismatic and photogenic speaker and the other is the spouse of a popular former President.
I beg to differ.
Clinton and Obama offer the Republicans two very easy targets. If the Democrats present the nation with a ticket consisting of both, the only question remaining is, which scandal or liability do we start with today?
And that would be the most difficult decision given that there are so many possibilities from which to choose.
Both of the Democratic candidates have glaring weaknesses. Pennsylvania polls showed us that even most Democrats do not believe Hillary to be trustworthy. Those same polls show that Obama is perceived by a significant number as an elitist snob who says what he has to say in order to appease the sensitivities of a particular group, although he is clearly unable to make gut-level connections with ordinary, average citizens.
And when it comes to political acumen, both candidates have made glaring errors in judgment in terms of strategy and 'off-the-cuff' comments that inadvertently allow voters to see that the real person is a far cry from the public persona.
This has hurt Obama in particular due to the fact that he has gone out of his way to portray himself as the one candidate who is honest, genuine, and has the pulse of what 'the common man' holds dear.
Yet when his guard was down in the friendly confines of like-minded elitists, surrounded by a group of San Francisco Democratic Party liberals, he discloses that 'the common man' is a scared and bitter ignoramus who deals with his emotions by clinging to his guns and religion.
Hillary's disingenuousness is well-known and documented. The only question is, what whopper of a tale will she be caught in next? And, what skeletons still remain hidden in the closet?
Thus, the Republicans are not automatically knocked out of the ballgame with a Hillary-Obama ticket or an Obama-Hillary ticket. In fact, having TWO easy targets may well be twice as advantageous as having one.
Monday, February 04, 2008
On the Eve of Super Tuesday
As we stand on the brink of the most significant day in politics, outside of the general election in November, several trends have become clear.
First, John McCain appears to be sailing to the GOP nomination. If the state by state polls are correct, McCain will win big. If he doesn't wrap up the nomination tomorrow, he will certainly be more than well on his way toward winning the required number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Thus, the GOP is in the process of flipping the bird at Reagan conservatives, gun owners, gun dealers and manufacturers, First Amendment stalwarts, and those who believe in the rule of law when it comes to illegal aliens...ALL of the law.
On the Democratic side the picture is murky, but we know that Obama is surging, which could spell big trouble for the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. At this point it appears that there will be no clear winner on Super Tuesday, which means that it may be the Democrats rather than the Republicans who head to a brokered convention in the summer.
All of this, needless to say, holds ominous implications for November. The Republican base, i.e., the conservatives, are disheartened and anything but enthused about the prospects of a McCain ticket. Democrats are as fired up as I have seen them in many, many years.
Thus, my friends, peering into my crystal ball over the next four years I see very dark clouds on the horizon for the United States of America and its liberties. I am not fool-proof in my predictions as most of you know by now. But at present, I simply do not see much to be happy about.
First, John McCain appears to be sailing to the GOP nomination. If the state by state polls are correct, McCain will win big. If he doesn't wrap up the nomination tomorrow, he will certainly be more than well on his way toward winning the required number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Thus, the GOP is in the process of flipping the bird at Reagan conservatives, gun owners, gun dealers and manufacturers, First Amendment stalwarts, and those who believe in the rule of law when it comes to illegal aliens...ALL of the law.
On the Democratic side the picture is murky, but we know that Obama is surging, which could spell big trouble for the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. At this point it appears that there will be no clear winner on Super Tuesday, which means that it may be the Democrats rather than the Republicans who head to a brokered convention in the summer.
All of this, needless to say, holds ominous implications for November. The Republican base, i.e., the conservatives, are disheartened and anything but enthused about the prospects of a McCain ticket. Democrats are as fired up as I have seen them in many, many years.
Thus, my friends, peering into my crystal ball over the next four years I see very dark clouds on the horizon for the United States of America and its liberties. I am not fool-proof in my predictions as most of you know by now. But at present, I simply do not see much to be happy about.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents
People who believe in liberty, the freedom of the individual, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights should swear off of the Democratic Party completely.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
The Party has totally forsaken the founding principles of the United States of America and has sold out to Socialists, neo-Communists, and other statists who believe that government power should always trump the power of the individual. The fact that George Soros' gang of atheist neo-Commies runs the Party, along with those who fund Moveon.org, is ample proof that under no circumstance should conscientious Americans vote for a Democrat.
And this includes those who know how to sound like they support gun rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. during an election. The fact is that even though they may in fact support some of these ideals, their money is coming from those who will demand allegiance to the money source, and the money source is rotten to the core.
Take that dirt-bag in Virginia, Senator James Webb. What a dork. He rang all the right bells while he ran for office, but once elected he had to go as far as to lie about a gun his aide carried into the Capitol for the fear of reprisal by the Democratic Party bosses.
The gun belonged to Webb, which at first he denied, but then admitted months after the incident.
Countless other supposedly 'conservative' Democrats across the nation have fooled their constituents into believing they share the values of those who elect them to office, yet the record shows they routinely cut deals with the devil to survive in a Party where the real power rests with the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Little Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and that lame-brain Howard Dean.
For this reason, conscientious American voters, that is, those who take seriously our nation's founding documents and its original ideals, and who hold as sacred the Founders who risked life and all they owned to give us this shining light of liberty, should forsake once and for all the Democratic Party and vote ONLY for Republicans, or Libertarians, or Independents.
This is by no means a membership drive for the GOP. Frankly, some within the GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. But at least the Party as a whole stands for the Founding principles of this nation.
And frankly, it doesn't interest me in the least as to whether or not you belong to the GOP officially. I certainly don't. I will not hesitate to vote for Libertarians or Independents if the circumstances are right.
The point, however, is that as conscientious voters we can no longer do business with a political Party that has clearly forsaken and scorned ALL of the precepts that true Americans hold dear.
I, for one, will under no circumstance vote for a single one of the bloody traitors. Gone are the days when I can in good conscience do business with even so-called 'conservative' Democrats.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
CBS's Anti-GOP Machine At It Again
If one had listened to the CBS Evening News totally at face value Saturday evening, one would think that the GOP is the one political party in America that is synonymous with scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, and graft.
Ever since we at The Liberty Sphere have taken it upon ourselves to do a periodic reality check on CBS News, highlighting examples of bias, we have discovered that often one has to be most diligent on the weekends when viewership is lower.
This is particularly true with the evening news broadcasts on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the flagship news magazine '60 Minutes.'
It is during these times that often CBS News will slip in some of its most blatantly slanted news stories.
Such was the case Saturday evening. In reporting the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, CBS News proceeded to do a hatchet job--the 2nd this week--on the Republican Party. During the segment on Craig, the reporter stated that the GOP has a 'brand problem,' that the Republican Party is a 'weakened brand,' and that going into the 2008 election cycle the Party is at a distinct disadvantage with the voters because of 'all of the scandals and corruption' involving Republicans over the past few years.
The very same hatchet job was done earlier in the week, as we reported here on The Liberty Sphere.
And once again, the reporter went down the list naming each Republican over the past four years who has been involved in scandals of one kind or another, never once mentioning the fact that Democrats have been knee-deep in corruption of their own making.
The fact that Larry Craig was 'caught' in a sex sting operation, which the police and the government have no business delving into to begin with, only serves to emphasize Democratic hypocrisy. The very party that claims that the government should stay out of the private lives of Americans, particularly their private sex lives, is the first to condemn Republicans such as Craig.
But of course, as long as the Democrats can keep the story of Larry Craig and those dirty rotten scoundrel Republicans at the top of the news, they can slip underneath the radar screen when it comes to Hillary Clinton's five-year relationship with a major fundraiser who was wanted in the state of California for committing crimes.
It turns out that this particular fundraiser had contributed mega-bucks not only to Clinton, but to Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and at least a half-dozen other Democrats.
Attempting to escape any blame or association with corruption, the Democrats who were involved in this dirty money scandal did what they always do when they are caught with their pants down--they 'give the money back,' or in this case 'give it to charity.'
My, what precious angels.
This is precisely what Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did when it came to light he had received illegal campaign funds. He gave the money back, and this supposedly made the illegal activity null and void.
Is this how we as a society treat, say, embezzlers, for example? As long as they 'give the money' back they are automatically absolved of any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
John Conyers, Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, 'promised not to do it again' when it came to light he had broken federal campaign laws.
How do you think you would fare as an ordinary citizen if this were your only defense after being arrested for breaking a federal law? 'Your Honor, I promise I won't do it again if you let me go free and drop the charges.' Yeah, right.
And as for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and William Jefferson, who clearly had their hands soiled with dirty money, little or nothing is being done by the Democratic leadership to address the obvious corruption exhibited by both.
After all, it is the GOP that is the Party of corruption. Any factual information that proves otherwise or doesn't fit the template set by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media must be pushed aside.
The present playbook of the Democrats and their mouthpieces at CBS News and the other networks has George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the Congressional Democratic leadership written all over it.
As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress in November of 2006, this playbook was put together. Inside sources in the Congress reported that the Democratic leadership would immediately launch into a massive media blitz involving countless Congressional investigations into 'GOP corruption.'
The objective would be to so bury the Bush White House and the Republican Party with an endless barrage of charges of corruption that the GOP would go limping into the 2008 general election, leaving the Democrats with a decisive advantage.
Not only has the Democratic leadership followed through with that strategy, but they have successfully enlisted the help of their allies in the mainstream media to bombard the American public with the message, 'Those Republicans are sleazy, but those Democrats are clean.'
My friends, if you believe those Democrats are clean, then you have tweety birds and tooth fairies flying around in your head.
Ever since we at The Liberty Sphere have taken it upon ourselves to do a periodic reality check on CBS News, highlighting examples of bias, we have discovered that often one has to be most diligent on the weekends when viewership is lower.
This is particularly true with the evening news broadcasts on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the flagship news magazine '60 Minutes.'
It is during these times that often CBS News will slip in some of its most blatantly slanted news stories.
Such was the case Saturday evening. In reporting the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, CBS News proceeded to do a hatchet job--the 2nd this week--on the Republican Party. During the segment on Craig, the reporter stated that the GOP has a 'brand problem,' that the Republican Party is a 'weakened brand,' and that going into the 2008 election cycle the Party is at a distinct disadvantage with the voters because of 'all of the scandals and corruption' involving Republicans over the past few years.
The very same hatchet job was done earlier in the week, as we reported here on The Liberty Sphere.
And once again, the reporter went down the list naming each Republican over the past four years who has been involved in scandals of one kind or another, never once mentioning the fact that Democrats have been knee-deep in corruption of their own making.
The fact that Larry Craig was 'caught' in a sex sting operation, which the police and the government have no business delving into to begin with, only serves to emphasize Democratic hypocrisy. The very party that claims that the government should stay out of the private lives of Americans, particularly their private sex lives, is the first to condemn Republicans such as Craig.
But of course, as long as the Democrats can keep the story of Larry Craig and those dirty rotten scoundrel Republicans at the top of the news, they can slip underneath the radar screen when it comes to Hillary Clinton's five-year relationship with a major fundraiser who was wanted in the state of California for committing crimes.
It turns out that this particular fundraiser had contributed mega-bucks not only to Clinton, but to Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and at least a half-dozen other Democrats.
Attempting to escape any blame or association with corruption, the Democrats who were involved in this dirty money scandal did what they always do when they are caught with their pants down--they 'give the money back,' or in this case 'give it to charity.'
My, what precious angels.
This is precisely what Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did when it came to light he had received illegal campaign funds. He gave the money back, and this supposedly made the illegal activity null and void.
Is this how we as a society treat, say, embezzlers, for example? As long as they 'give the money' back they are automatically absolved of any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
John Conyers, Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, 'promised not to do it again' when it came to light he had broken federal campaign laws.
How do you think you would fare as an ordinary citizen if this were your only defense after being arrested for breaking a federal law? 'Your Honor, I promise I won't do it again if you let me go free and drop the charges.' Yeah, right.
And as for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and William Jefferson, who clearly had their hands soiled with dirty money, little or nothing is being done by the Democratic leadership to address the obvious corruption exhibited by both.
After all, it is the GOP that is the Party of corruption. Any factual information that proves otherwise or doesn't fit the template set by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media must be pushed aside.
The present playbook of the Democrats and their mouthpieces at CBS News and the other networks has George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the Congressional Democratic leadership written all over it.
As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress in November of 2006, this playbook was put together. Inside sources in the Congress reported that the Democratic leadership would immediately launch into a massive media blitz involving countless Congressional investigations into 'GOP corruption.'
The objective would be to so bury the Bush White House and the Republican Party with an endless barrage of charges of corruption that the GOP would go limping into the 2008 general election, leaving the Democrats with a decisive advantage.
Not only has the Democratic leadership followed through with that strategy, but they have successfully enlisted the help of their allies in the mainstream media to bombard the American public with the message, 'Those Republicans are sleazy, but those Democrats are clean.'
My friends, if you believe those Democrats are clean, then you have tweety birds and tooth fairies flying around in your head.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Senator Larry Craig to Resign Today
Under enormous pressure from state voters and top Republicans at the national level, sources close to Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig indicated that the Senator intends to resign from his Senate seat on Saturday.
Craig had pleaded guilty to a lesser misdemeanor charge when he was arrested in June in a police sex sting operation at an airport men's room. The particular men's room in question had been known to be a gathering place for homosexual men who were looking for sexual encounters.
With the 2008 election cycle drawing near, Republicans could ill afford a major scandal, particularly when it involves what many of Party's voting base consider to be a hot-button item.
Among the Party's national leadership and the grassroots rank-and-file back home, the overwhelming consensus was that Craig resign.
Immediately after news broke on Thursday that Craig's days in the Senate may be numbered, speculation ensued concerning who would be his replacement in the U.S. Senate. Quickly the name of Ryan Horsley, owner and manager of Red's Trading Post--the oldest gun store in Idaho--surfaced as a strong contender.
The U.S. Constitution mandates that in the case of a vacated Senate seat, the Governor of the state in question appoints a person to fill out the term of the person who vacated the seat.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter has several potential choices--U.S. Representative Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, Lieutenant Governor James Risch. and Ryan Horsley, among others.
If Otter chooses Simpson, the vacated House seat would be filled by a special election ordered by the Governor, according to the U.S. Constitution. Ryan Horsley has indicated interest in the House seat, but he would need to put together a campaign and win the majority of the votes in his district.
This should not be hard to do given Horsley's name-recognition and popularity within that House district.
However, Fox News is reporting that Governor Otter is leaning toward appointing Lieutenant Governor Risch to the Senate seat. In the past Risch had indicated he would be interested in running for the U.S. Senate should Craig decide to retire.
The Governor's office, however, is insisting that Otter has not come to any firm decision concerning Craig's seat and that no promises have been made to anyone. One source close to the Governor stated that all options are still on the table, and furthermore, it is inappropriate to discuss replacements before Craig has resigned.
Politics is a meticulous cat-and-mouse game with various nuances that color and influence choices. In the case of Senator Craig, while it is lamentable that hypocrisy seems to be so central to his political career, in many ways it is even more lamentable that the private lives of our elected representatives seem to be more important than their stance on the issues.
Larry Craig has been one of the most reliable and solid advocates for Second Amendment rights in America today. For that we can be very grateful.
Craig had pleaded guilty to a lesser misdemeanor charge when he was arrested in June in a police sex sting operation at an airport men's room. The particular men's room in question had been known to be a gathering place for homosexual men who were looking for sexual encounters.
With the 2008 election cycle drawing near, Republicans could ill afford a major scandal, particularly when it involves what many of Party's voting base consider to be a hot-button item.
Among the Party's national leadership and the grassroots rank-and-file back home, the overwhelming consensus was that Craig resign.
Immediately after news broke on Thursday that Craig's days in the Senate may be numbered, speculation ensued concerning who would be his replacement in the U.S. Senate. Quickly the name of Ryan Horsley, owner and manager of Red's Trading Post--the oldest gun store in Idaho--surfaced as a strong contender.
The U.S. Constitution mandates that in the case of a vacated Senate seat, the Governor of the state in question appoints a person to fill out the term of the person who vacated the seat.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter has several potential choices--U.S. Representative Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, Lieutenant Governor James Risch. and Ryan Horsley, among others.
If Otter chooses Simpson, the vacated House seat would be filled by a special election ordered by the Governor, according to the U.S. Constitution. Ryan Horsley has indicated interest in the House seat, but he would need to put together a campaign and win the majority of the votes in his district.
This should not be hard to do given Horsley's name-recognition and popularity within that House district.
However, Fox News is reporting that Governor Otter is leaning toward appointing Lieutenant Governor Risch to the Senate seat. In the past Risch had indicated he would be interested in running for the U.S. Senate should Craig decide to retire.
The Governor's office, however, is insisting that Otter has not come to any firm decision concerning Craig's seat and that no promises have been made to anyone. One source close to the Governor stated that all options are still on the table, and furthermore, it is inappropriate to discuss replacements before Craig has resigned.
Politics is a meticulous cat-and-mouse game with various nuances that color and influence choices. In the case of Senator Craig, while it is lamentable that hypocrisy seems to be so central to his political career, in many ways it is even more lamentable that the private lives of our elected representatives seem to be more important than their stance on the issues.
Larry Craig has been one of the most reliable and solid advocates for Second Amendment rights in America today. For that we can be very grateful.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Dilemma of the Libertarian-Leaning Voter
During a speaking engagement some time ago I fielded a question from the participants concerning my political preferences. The question was this: given that you are obviously libertarian in your views, why, then, do you tend to support Republican candidates?
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
SHOCKER! Only 3% Approve of Congress on the War
Zogby International released a new poll on August 1 which shows that public approval of Congress when it comes to handling the War in Iraq has dipped to a shocking low of 3%.
President Bush received a 24% approval rating on the War in the same poll.
Thus, the one issue that Democrats used to beat Republicans over the head in the 2006 elections has come back to haunt them. At no point during the War in Iraq was the Republican controlled Congress treated to such contempt.
This news is bound to strike fear in the hearts of the Democratic nominees for President, as well as Congressional and Senate Democrats. The Democrats were counting on the War to catapult them into the White House in 2008 and increase their slim majorities in the House and Senate.
Not so fast.
The public, according to the Zogby poll, has 21% more confidence in President Bush' handling of the War than in that of Congress.
And this is not the only bad news for the Democrats. The public overwhelmingly favors supporting our troops by keeping funding at current levels. 42% believe that Congress should continue to fully fund the War, 34% would attach requirements for gradual withdrawal to such funding, while a mere 18% support cutting all funding and bringing the troops home immediately.
The polling data comes on the heels of a series of op-eds in major newspapers last Sunday that quote vehement critics of the War as saying that there has been a distinct turn-around in the past month in Iraq and that the U.S. is certainly capable of winning outright.
These critics were considered close allies in the Democrats' fight to pull the troops out. Now that there has been a marked improvement in Iraq, many believe that the plug has just been pulled on the Democrats' 'slam-dunk' issue.
Thus, my friends, it is way too early to give up hope on the 2008 elections. Not only is there a better than 50-50 chance we will keep the White House, but our prospects for retaking control of Congress get better by the day.
Here is the full report on the Zogby poll:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343
President Bush received a 24% approval rating on the War in the same poll.
Thus, the one issue that Democrats used to beat Republicans over the head in the 2006 elections has come back to haunt them. At no point during the War in Iraq was the Republican controlled Congress treated to such contempt.
This news is bound to strike fear in the hearts of the Democratic nominees for President, as well as Congressional and Senate Democrats. The Democrats were counting on the War to catapult them into the White House in 2008 and increase their slim majorities in the House and Senate.
Not so fast.
The public, according to the Zogby poll, has 21% more confidence in President Bush' handling of the War than in that of Congress.
And this is not the only bad news for the Democrats. The public overwhelmingly favors supporting our troops by keeping funding at current levels. 42% believe that Congress should continue to fully fund the War, 34% would attach requirements for gradual withdrawal to such funding, while a mere 18% support cutting all funding and bringing the troops home immediately.
The polling data comes on the heels of a series of op-eds in major newspapers last Sunday that quote vehement critics of the War as saying that there has been a distinct turn-around in the past month in Iraq and that the U.S. is certainly capable of winning outright.
These critics were considered close allies in the Democrats' fight to pull the troops out. Now that there has been a marked improvement in Iraq, many believe that the plug has just been pulled on the Democrats' 'slam-dunk' issue.
Thus, my friends, it is way too early to give up hope on the 2008 elections. Not only is there a better than 50-50 chance we will keep the White House, but our prospects for retaking control of Congress get better by the day.
Here is the full report on the Zogby poll:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
When Elephants Fly
The GOP finds itself in unfamiliar territory during this election cycle. Fundraising by Republican candidates has lagged far behind that of the Democrats. Some sources suggest that Democrats have out-raised Republicans 10-to-1.
Normally it is the Democrats who are lagging behind in fundraising for the Presidential election.
This raises several uneasy questions for the GOP.
Is George W. Bush now so thoroughly unpopular with the electorate that a Republican will be elected to the White House in 2008 only when elephants fly?
Is the electorate, including most Republicans, terribly unhappy and unmoved by the slate of candidates put up by the Republicans so far?
Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so wildly popular with the electorate in general that people are hypnotically opening their wallets and purses to empty their pockets into the coffers of the Democrats?
The obvious fact is that an unpopular President can potentially be a significant liability in an election.
Richard Nixon's standing with the public had so deteriorated in 1974 that the midterm Congressional elections that year proved to be a near-death march for the GOP.
Jimmy Carter was such a joke in American politics in 1980 that Republicans swept to power in the U.S. Senate and succeeded in electing Ronald Reagan to the White House.
And who can forget Harry Truman's dismal approval ratings that nearly cost him the Presidency in 1948 and led to his decision not to run again in 1952? Democrats suffered in Congressional elections during the 50s for the first time since 1932.
The thing that sets this election apart from some of the ones cited above is that President Bush is not running. That fact may not be enough to save the GOP from some losses, however.
It depends on how much the electorate blames Republican Senators and Congressmen for the War in Iraq.
Although the Democrats have worked feverishly to distance themselves from their own votes for the War in 2002, the fact remains that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were bipartisan decisions.
Thus, if the electorate is intent on fixing blame, it must go to BOTH Parties.
Despite widespread public disapproval of the manner in which the Bush Administration has conducted the War, voters will not necessarily hold that against GOP candidates.
The problem is that so far none of the declared candidates have energized the electorate.
Fred Thompson could change all of that. Rumors swirled that he would announce his candidacy on July 4, but this was merely a rumor. He chose that date to announce that his campaign headquarters would be in Nashville, Tennessee once he declared.
Thompson plans to announce in September, after the next Republican debate. This gives him a chance to stay above the fray and use his campaign exploratory committee to raise funds without the stringent federal regulations imposed on the fundraising of a declared candidate.
Ron Paul is another GOP candidate who could easily energize the electorate if he begins to catch on with the public. As an anti-war Republican, his views may resonate with voters who oppose the War in Iraq. Yet Paul is a dyed-in-the-wool stalwart of liberty that is entirely refreshing in modern politics.
Despite the success of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in raising campaign cash, this is very often no indication of how popular a candidate is with the electorate as a whole. It is not unusual for candidates with the most money to fizzle once the primaries are underway.
And we must remember that 48% of the electorate has an entirely negative view of Hillary Clinton. 50% say they will under no circumstances vote for her. Her negatives are higher than any Republican candidate. And with 50% of voters saying there is no way they would ever vote for her, all the money in the world will do her no good.
The same goes for Obama. He can raise money, turn heads, and attract attention like a Hollywood paparazzi magnet. Yet he barely registers 10% support among the general public.
My hunch is that neither Clinton nor Obama are nearly as popular as their campaign cash suggests.
And this means that elephants may well fly in November of 2008.
Normally it is the Democrats who are lagging behind in fundraising for the Presidential election.
This raises several uneasy questions for the GOP.
Is George W. Bush now so thoroughly unpopular with the electorate that a Republican will be elected to the White House in 2008 only when elephants fly?
Is the electorate, including most Republicans, terribly unhappy and unmoved by the slate of candidates put up by the Republicans so far?
Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so wildly popular with the electorate in general that people are hypnotically opening their wallets and purses to empty their pockets into the coffers of the Democrats?
The obvious fact is that an unpopular President can potentially be a significant liability in an election.
Richard Nixon's standing with the public had so deteriorated in 1974 that the midterm Congressional elections that year proved to be a near-death march for the GOP.
Jimmy Carter was such a joke in American politics in 1980 that Republicans swept to power in the U.S. Senate and succeeded in electing Ronald Reagan to the White House.
And who can forget Harry Truman's dismal approval ratings that nearly cost him the Presidency in 1948 and led to his decision not to run again in 1952? Democrats suffered in Congressional elections during the 50s for the first time since 1932.
The thing that sets this election apart from some of the ones cited above is that President Bush is not running. That fact may not be enough to save the GOP from some losses, however.
It depends on how much the electorate blames Republican Senators and Congressmen for the War in Iraq.
Although the Democrats have worked feverishly to distance themselves from their own votes for the War in 2002, the fact remains that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were bipartisan decisions.
Thus, if the electorate is intent on fixing blame, it must go to BOTH Parties.
Despite widespread public disapproval of the manner in which the Bush Administration has conducted the War, voters will not necessarily hold that against GOP candidates.
The problem is that so far none of the declared candidates have energized the electorate.
Fred Thompson could change all of that. Rumors swirled that he would announce his candidacy on July 4, but this was merely a rumor. He chose that date to announce that his campaign headquarters would be in Nashville, Tennessee once he declared.
Thompson plans to announce in September, after the next Republican debate. This gives him a chance to stay above the fray and use his campaign exploratory committee to raise funds without the stringent federal regulations imposed on the fundraising of a declared candidate.
Ron Paul is another GOP candidate who could easily energize the electorate if he begins to catch on with the public. As an anti-war Republican, his views may resonate with voters who oppose the War in Iraq. Yet Paul is a dyed-in-the-wool stalwart of liberty that is entirely refreshing in modern politics.
Despite the success of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in raising campaign cash, this is very often no indication of how popular a candidate is with the electorate as a whole. It is not unusual for candidates with the most money to fizzle once the primaries are underway.
And we must remember that 48% of the electorate has an entirely negative view of Hillary Clinton. 50% say they will under no circumstances vote for her. Her negatives are higher than any Republican candidate. And with 50% of voters saying there is no way they would ever vote for her, all the money in the world will do her no good.
The same goes for Obama. He can raise money, turn heads, and attract attention like a Hollywood paparazzi magnet. Yet he barely registers 10% support among the general public.
My hunch is that neither Clinton nor Obama are nearly as popular as their campaign cash suggests.
And this means that elephants may well fly in November of 2008.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Fred Thompson Bid Picking Up Steam
Washington, DC (TLS). Since Senator Fred Thompson announced yesterday that he is forming a Presidential candidacy exploratory committee, it seems that many who as yet have been sitting on the fence are jumping on the Thompson bandwagon.
Some of these supporters have a strong independent bent and tend to have a deep level of distrust for both Democrats AND Republicans.
But, as The Liberty Sphere reported months ago, a Fred Thompson candidacy has much that is attractive to such independent voters. Thompson is a different kind of candidate who will run a different kind of campaign. He is not afraid of innovation, including using the Internet and V-logs to send instant campaign videos to millions of voters.
Many have compared Thompson to Ronald Reagan, but we feel that this is a bit unfair. Let's face it, there will never be another Ronald Reagan, just as there will never be another Lincoln. But Thompson has that broad, widespread appeal that Reagan exhibited.
And it is a big mistake to write him off as just another actor. Before he was an actor and before he became a U.S. Senator, Thompson was a highly skilled and respected attorney, having served the nation during the Watergate hearings.
One blogger in particular, which you will see below, has even started his own movement of sorts called, 'Spread Fred.' Click here to read his interesting take on why he is now supporting Thompson after having been on the fence:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=206
Some of these supporters have a strong independent bent and tend to have a deep level of distrust for both Democrats AND Republicans.
But, as The Liberty Sphere reported months ago, a Fred Thompson candidacy has much that is attractive to such independent voters. Thompson is a different kind of candidate who will run a different kind of campaign. He is not afraid of innovation, including using the Internet and V-logs to send instant campaign videos to millions of voters.
Many have compared Thompson to Ronald Reagan, but we feel that this is a bit unfair. Let's face it, there will never be another Ronald Reagan, just as there will never be another Lincoln. But Thompson has that broad, widespread appeal that Reagan exhibited.
And it is a big mistake to write him off as just another actor. Before he was an actor and before he became a U.S. Senator, Thompson was a highly skilled and respected attorney, having served the nation during the Watergate hearings.
One blogger in particular, which you will see below, has even started his own movement of sorts called, 'Spread Fred.' Click here to read his interesting take on why he is now supporting Thompson after having been on the fence:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=206
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Fred Thompson Takes a Step Closer
Washington, DC (TLS). Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson took the first step on Wednesday toward announcing his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination by forming an exploratory committee.
The former Senator and current star of TV's 'Law and Order' certainly looked like a candidate and sounded very Presidential at a press conference on Wednesday as he made the announcement.
'A Jet Pilot' has more information on the Thompson move here:
http://ajetpilot.blogspot.com/2007/05/law-and-order-star-eyes-08-fundraising.html
The former Senator and current star of TV's 'Law and Order' certainly looked like a candidate and sounded very Presidential at a press conference on Wednesday as he made the announcement.
'A Jet Pilot' has more information on the Thompson move here:
http://ajetpilot.blogspot.com/2007/05/law-and-order-star-eyes-08-fundraising.html
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Reagan 'Inner Circle' Supports Fred Thompson
Washington, DC (TLS). During Ronald Reagan's climb up the political ladder, and his subsequent attaining of the Presidential office, he was able to assemble around him a group of highly loyal and astute aides and political operatives. Among these are Michael Dever, Edwin Meece, and former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker.
The Liberty Sphere has learned that the Reagan 'inner circle,' as they are called, are backing former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson's bid to become the Republican nominee for President.
In addition, sources tell us that Nancy Reagan herself is supporting Fred Thompson.
This news is significant in that all of the Republican Presidential nominees have, in one way or another, attempted to link themselves to Ronald Reagan. Yet not everyone who makes that claim truly fits the bill.
Reagan embraced religious conservatives. He also embraced non-religious conservatives. He reached out to socially conservative 'blue collar' Democrats. In short, he was able to piece together a massive coalition of various groups who shared one common ideal--the belief that America's greatness lies in HER PEOPLE and not in big government.
Big government conservatism would be an oxymoron to Reagan.
Fred Thompson embodies all of the Reagan ideals--small government, lower taxes, a strong defense, pro-life, a belief in the autonomy of the individual, and an undying optimism and belief that America's greatness can only be preserved by a constant diligence against the forces of oppression and anti-freedom.
Having been a part of 'the Reagan Revolution' as far back as the early 1970s, when I began working for Young Americans for Freedom, naturally I have a great amount of respect and affinity for the Reagan inner circle. The Reagan people appear to be of the same mind when it comes to the Republican nomination.
Early on, The Liberty Sphere threw our support behind Duncan Hunter. We still believe he is a good man who is the best candidate among those who have declared. However, this was before Fred Thompson suggested he may be interested in running.
Mr. Hunter, I am sorry to say, has had trouble raising the necessary funds to be competitive. This goes for most of the candidates. If Fred Thompson announces his candidacy, this writer would enthusiastically throw our support behind Thompson.
The Liberty Sphere has learned that the Reagan 'inner circle,' as they are called, are backing former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson's bid to become the Republican nominee for President.
In addition, sources tell us that Nancy Reagan herself is supporting Fred Thompson.
This news is significant in that all of the Republican Presidential nominees have, in one way or another, attempted to link themselves to Ronald Reagan. Yet not everyone who makes that claim truly fits the bill.
Reagan embraced religious conservatives. He also embraced non-religious conservatives. He reached out to socially conservative 'blue collar' Democrats. In short, he was able to piece together a massive coalition of various groups who shared one common ideal--the belief that America's greatness lies in HER PEOPLE and not in big government.
Big government conservatism would be an oxymoron to Reagan.
Fred Thompson embodies all of the Reagan ideals--small government, lower taxes, a strong defense, pro-life, a belief in the autonomy of the individual, and an undying optimism and belief that America's greatness can only be preserved by a constant diligence against the forces of oppression and anti-freedom.
Having been a part of 'the Reagan Revolution' as far back as the early 1970s, when I began working for Young Americans for Freedom, naturally I have a great amount of respect and affinity for the Reagan inner circle. The Reagan people appear to be of the same mind when it comes to the Republican nomination.
Early on, The Liberty Sphere threw our support behind Duncan Hunter. We still believe he is a good man who is the best candidate among those who have declared. However, this was before Fred Thompson suggested he may be interested in running.
Mr. Hunter, I am sorry to say, has had trouble raising the necessary funds to be competitive. This goes for most of the candidates. If Fred Thompson announces his candidacy, this writer would enthusiastically throw our support behind Thompson.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Why John McCain Will Never Be President
Washington, DC (TLS). Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has begun to become unraveled a bit as the campaign heats up. There is yet a long, long way to go toward the Republican nomination, yet the candidate is already showing signs of strain under the pressure.
On Monday, for the second time in less than a week McCain went ballistic on a fellow Republican over disagreements on the Kennedy-McCain-George W. Bush Immigration Reform bill. Responding to Mitt Romney's continued attacks on the provisions of the bill, McCain went neanderthal by saying, 'Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard.'
Not only was the statement terribly ill-advised, but the context and timing were near-suicidal politically.
McCain has made no friends among those multi-millions of Americans who have serious concerns about the nation's safety and security in the midst of an immigration policy that is raging out of control. Americans largely do not like what they see, and they suspect that most politicians in Washington are simply not listening to their concerns.
McCain, along with Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, and many more, are some of the worst offenders. So is George W. Bush.
Thus, when McCain compares Mitt Romney's opposition to a bill that grants amnesty to illegal aliens who work here to a hayseed rednecked hillbilly with a varmint gun, driving 'them thar foreigners' off his property, he has immediately lost his connection with the vast majority of the population.
The thing is, this is the 2nd time in less than a week that McCain has gone ape over the immigration bill, at the expense of another fellow Republican. In that particular exchange, McCain was overheard hurling several denigrating expletives at his colleague in the midst of a heated argument about border security and immigration control.
Americans come away from these kinds of displays with the distinct impression that McCain is simply not in touch with the American heartland on this issue. And they certainly are leery of a candidate for President who cannot listen to opposing points of view without blowing his stack.
Thus, it is our opinion that the candidacy of John McCain is, for all intents and purposes, over. His candidacy never caught on like it did in 2000, and he has lagged behind in fund-raising. Giuliani is clearly running circles around McCain when it comes to capturing the loyalty of moderate Republicans--McCain's ONLY major source of support.
It's been a very bad week for John McCain--a week that may well go down in history as the week that ruined his chances for being President.
On Monday, for the second time in less than a week McCain went ballistic on a fellow Republican over disagreements on the Kennedy-McCain-George W. Bush Immigration Reform bill. Responding to Mitt Romney's continued attacks on the provisions of the bill, McCain went neanderthal by saying, 'Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard.'
Not only was the statement terribly ill-advised, but the context and timing were near-suicidal politically.
McCain has made no friends among those multi-millions of Americans who have serious concerns about the nation's safety and security in the midst of an immigration policy that is raging out of control. Americans largely do not like what they see, and they suspect that most politicians in Washington are simply not listening to their concerns.
McCain, along with Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, and many more, are some of the worst offenders. So is George W. Bush.
Thus, when McCain compares Mitt Romney's opposition to a bill that grants amnesty to illegal aliens who work here to a hayseed rednecked hillbilly with a varmint gun, driving 'them thar foreigners' off his property, he has immediately lost his connection with the vast majority of the population.
The thing is, this is the 2nd time in less than a week that McCain has gone ape over the immigration bill, at the expense of another fellow Republican. In that particular exchange, McCain was overheard hurling several denigrating expletives at his colleague in the midst of a heated argument about border security and immigration control.
Americans come away from these kinds of displays with the distinct impression that McCain is simply not in touch with the American heartland on this issue. And they certainly are leery of a candidate for President who cannot listen to opposing points of view without blowing his stack.
Thus, it is our opinion that the candidacy of John McCain is, for all intents and purposes, over. His candidacy never caught on like it did in 2000, and he has lagged behind in fund-raising. Giuliani is clearly running circles around McCain when it comes to capturing the loyalty of moderate Republicans--McCain's ONLY major source of support.
It's been a very bad week for John McCain--a week that may well go down in history as the week that ruined his chances for being President.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Buckley Warns Iraq May Bury Republicans
Washington, DC (TLS). The quintessential conservative intellectual, the venerable William F. Buckley, is warning today in a special article in National Review that the War in Iraq has the potential of burying the Republican Party.
All of the signs point to a Republican free-fall of historical proportions over one single issue--the war. The Rasmussen organization, in its latest poll, indicates that the number of people who call themselves Republicans is at its lowest point in 6 years. The only issue that is precipitating the exodus is the War in Iraq.
Public sentiment has turned against the war and against the President. It wasn't so much that they did not see the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but they simply do not believe the Bush administration has conducted the war in an effective and efficient manner. They wanted us in and out in timely fashion.
Buckley indicates that Bush may well be the demise of the Republican Party, not because people do not like him personally but because of the stubbornness exhibited in the face of a growing catastrophe in Iraq, which seems to have no end in sight.
Admittedly, I have been one of the President's most ardent supporters in the War on Terror. I believed that Saddam Hussein had to go. But, I also trust the wisdom of William F. Buckley, who for 50 years has been a steady voice of reason, reliability, and resilience on the conservative side of politics.
In short, I take Buckley's latest warning very seriously. His voice must be heard and heeded in the highest levels of the Republican Party.
Read Buckley's article here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=
All of the signs point to a Republican free-fall of historical proportions over one single issue--the war. The Rasmussen organization, in its latest poll, indicates that the number of people who call themselves Republicans is at its lowest point in 6 years. The only issue that is precipitating the exodus is the War in Iraq.
Public sentiment has turned against the war and against the President. It wasn't so much that they did not see the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but they simply do not believe the Bush administration has conducted the war in an effective and efficient manner. They wanted us in and out in timely fashion.
Buckley indicates that Bush may well be the demise of the Republican Party, not because people do not like him personally but because of the stubbornness exhibited in the face of a growing catastrophe in Iraq, which seems to have no end in sight.
Admittedly, I have been one of the President's most ardent supporters in the War on Terror. I believed that Saddam Hussein had to go. But, I also trust the wisdom of William F. Buckley, who for 50 years has been a steady voice of reason, reliability, and resilience on the conservative side of politics.
In short, I take Buckley's latest warning very seriously. His voice must be heard and heeded in the highest levels of the Republican Party.
Read Buckley's article here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Electability Factor--A New Look at Rudy
Washington, DC (TLS). Many conservative groups are taking a new look at Rudy Giuliani. The key issue at play--electability. Many believe that of the announced candidates, Giuliani is the one most likely to defeat either Hillary or Obama in November of 2008.
At the present time, they have the facts on their side.
Take Hillary, for example. In New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Giuliani beats Hillary by ELEVEN POINTS in a head-to-head matchup, if the election were held today. In Florida, the race is tighter, but Giuliani is still ahead. In Ohio the two are in a dead-heat.
What does all of this mean? It means that Giuliani is strong in those states where Republicans have been weak in the past four Presidential elections.
It is for this reason that many staunch conservative groups, evangelical Christians included, are taking a second look a Rudy Giuliani. When compared to Hillary or Obama, Giuliani is a Jerry Falwell conservative.
All of this information assumes that Fred Thompson is not in the race, since he has not announced. It is generally believed that Thompson would also run a very strong campaign against Hillary and Obama.
Read the entire report here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070424b.html
At the present time, they have the facts on their side.
Take Hillary, for example. In New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Giuliani beats Hillary by ELEVEN POINTS in a head-to-head matchup, if the election were held today. In Florida, the race is tighter, but Giuliani is still ahead. In Ohio the two are in a dead-heat.
What does all of this mean? It means that Giuliani is strong in those states where Republicans have been weak in the past four Presidential elections.
It is for this reason that many staunch conservative groups, evangelical Christians included, are taking a second look a Rudy Giuliani. When compared to Hillary or Obama, Giuliani is a Jerry Falwell conservative.
All of this information assumes that Fred Thompson is not in the race, since he has not announced. It is generally believed that Thompson would also run a very strong campaign against Hillary and Obama.
Read the entire report here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070424b.html
Sunday, April 22, 2007
The Case for a Fred Thompson Candidacy
Washington, DC (TLS). As they say in politics, things can change overnight. But in these days of instantaneous coverage on the Internet and the primaries moving up to February of 2008, things can change on a dime.
We still have some time to go before we can make any definitive commitment to THE one candidate who can unite libertarians, conservatives, and others who adhere to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We still like Duncan Hunter, but as the days go by, unless Hunter can begin to amass a war chest that will make him competitive, the likelihood of his being the Republican nominee slowly fades.
Despite Newt Gingrich's popularity with conservatives, and despite his obvious gifts and grasp of the issues, he nonetheless has some negatives that make me nervous...particularly if he is in a showdown with Hillary Clinton. I am not certain that the general population would go for Newt.
This bring us to Fred Thompson. As we have reported on The Liberty Sphere, Thompson's immediate popularity after the mere hint he may run has given conservatives reason to hope again. There are many reasons why Fred Thompson should throw his hat into the ring.
First, Thompson has instant name and face recognition. With that comes free coverage that all the money in the world can't buy. Wherever he goes there is an entourage of admirers and news reporters. The man simply creates a sense of excitement wherever he goes.
This means the campaign cash will most definitely come rolling in.
Second, Thompson has all the right qualities libertarians, conservatives, and independents are looking for--populist appeal, charisma, the quiet but firm resolve of a strong leader, great communication skills, and a very public and no-nonsense support for gun rights, border security, immigration reform, tax cuts, a strong military presence in a dangerous world, and an intent to appoint judges who demonstrate that they have reverence for and are restrained by the U.S. Constitution.
And that means that original intent is the primary guiding principle in interpreting the Constitution.
Third, Thompson doesn't need to be President. This is more important than most people realize. When one reads the writings of the great American statesmen of the past, one gets the strong notion that these men did not enter the public arena because they had some burning personal or selfish desire to be 'career politicians.' They were constrained to enter politics because of the burning issues of the day that had to be addressed.
We have been stung far too many times by career politicians who have had a selfish desire their entire lives to either be President or serve in the Congress. These offices should never be occupied by the power-hungry, but sometimes they are. Ambition can be a good thing, but only to a degree. Selfish ambition in politics is dangerous.
Fred Thompson is not driven by some overriding personal and selfish need to be President. He has had a very successful career both as an attorney and as an actor. One gets the sense from Thompson that he is considering entering the race because of a great need, and because citizens who love liberty and freedom--and who believe in the ultimate wisdom of the Constitution--sincerely want him to run.
In this manner he is more like Ronald Reagan than anyone in the field of candidates in either Party. Reagan did not live to be President. He did not crave the power and attention. He had already made his mark and was quite successful--and wealthy--when he entered politics.
But the burning issues of the day beckoned to him. The people who love liberty called to him. And he answered that call magnificently.
It is hoped that Fred Thompson will hear that same call, that same beckoning.
Political pundit and campaign guru Dick Morris has a stunning article on Thompson this week at Townhall.com. Morris says that Thompson needs to jump in the race NOW rather than later, or else it may be too late. Read how Morris makes the case for an immediate Thompson candidacy, and how an announcement now will more than likely catapult him to front-runner status:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/04/20/run_fred,_runnow!
We still have some time to go before we can make any definitive commitment to THE one candidate who can unite libertarians, conservatives, and others who adhere to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We still like Duncan Hunter, but as the days go by, unless Hunter can begin to amass a war chest that will make him competitive, the likelihood of his being the Republican nominee slowly fades.
Despite Newt Gingrich's popularity with conservatives, and despite his obvious gifts and grasp of the issues, he nonetheless has some negatives that make me nervous...particularly if he is in a showdown with Hillary Clinton. I am not certain that the general population would go for Newt.
This bring us to Fred Thompson. As we have reported on The Liberty Sphere, Thompson's immediate popularity after the mere hint he may run has given conservatives reason to hope again. There are many reasons why Fred Thompson should throw his hat into the ring.
First, Thompson has instant name and face recognition. With that comes free coverage that all the money in the world can't buy. Wherever he goes there is an entourage of admirers and news reporters. The man simply creates a sense of excitement wherever he goes.
This means the campaign cash will most definitely come rolling in.
Second, Thompson has all the right qualities libertarians, conservatives, and independents are looking for--populist appeal, charisma, the quiet but firm resolve of a strong leader, great communication skills, and a very public and no-nonsense support for gun rights, border security, immigration reform, tax cuts, a strong military presence in a dangerous world, and an intent to appoint judges who demonstrate that they have reverence for and are restrained by the U.S. Constitution.
And that means that original intent is the primary guiding principle in interpreting the Constitution.
Third, Thompson doesn't need to be President. This is more important than most people realize. When one reads the writings of the great American statesmen of the past, one gets the strong notion that these men did not enter the public arena because they had some burning personal or selfish desire to be 'career politicians.' They were constrained to enter politics because of the burning issues of the day that had to be addressed.
We have been stung far too many times by career politicians who have had a selfish desire their entire lives to either be President or serve in the Congress. These offices should never be occupied by the power-hungry, but sometimes they are. Ambition can be a good thing, but only to a degree. Selfish ambition in politics is dangerous.
Fred Thompson is not driven by some overriding personal and selfish need to be President. He has had a very successful career both as an attorney and as an actor. One gets the sense from Thompson that he is considering entering the race because of a great need, and because citizens who love liberty and freedom--and who believe in the ultimate wisdom of the Constitution--sincerely want him to run.
In this manner he is more like Ronald Reagan than anyone in the field of candidates in either Party. Reagan did not live to be President. He did not crave the power and attention. He had already made his mark and was quite successful--and wealthy--when he entered politics.
But the burning issues of the day beckoned to him. The people who love liberty called to him. And he answered that call magnificently.
It is hoped that Fred Thompson will hear that same call, that same beckoning.
Political pundit and campaign guru Dick Morris has a stunning article on Thompson this week at Townhall.com. Morris says that Thompson needs to jump in the race NOW rather than later, or else it may be too late. Read how Morris makes the case for an immediate Thompson candidacy, and how an announcement now will more than likely catapult him to front-runner status:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/04/20/run_fred,_runnow!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
SUPREME COURT BANS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS
Washington, DC (TLS). In a decision that clearly signals the fact that Roe v. Wade is not a license for wide-open abortion-on-demand, the Supreme Court today issued a ruling that denotes a clear victory for pro-life forces around the country.
The barbaric and gruesome procedure known as 'partial birth abortion' has been banned.
This late-term procedure is used as a means of killing an infant by partial delivery. The abortion doctor delivers the infant's head only, leaving the rest of the body inside the mother. At this point a hole is drilled into the head of the infant, whereupon the brain is sucked out of the skull using a suction devise. Then, the rest of the baby is delivered dead.
Abortion foes have long insisted that this procedure is indicative of a culture of barbarism at its worst--an example of how inhuman the abortion industry can be.
And they were right.
Today, the Supreme Court agreed.
Pro-life forces hailed the decision today as a victory for humanity, for the unborn, and for basic human dignity. Republican Presidential candidates in one accord also hailed the decision, including Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.
Barack Hussein Obama, however, stated, 'I strongly disagree with the decision.'
This is not surprising. The Illinois Democrat and Presidential candidate has consistently voted for abortion on demand throughout his political career, including support for this most barbaric of procedures known as partial birth abortion.
While the other Democratic candidates have not yet opined on the decision, you can be assured that they too will express their displeasure. There is not a single pro-life candidate on the Democratic side.
Hillary in particular will be most displeased. During her husband's tenure in the White House, the Clintons vigorously opposed measures introduced by Republicans during the 90s to stop the practice of partial birth abortions.
As for today's ruling, those of us who value innocent human life can chalk one up for the precious unborn. The Supreme Court can be congratulated for introducing just a bit of sanity into the horrendous state of the nation's abortion industry.
The barbaric and gruesome procedure known as 'partial birth abortion' has been banned.
This late-term procedure is used as a means of killing an infant by partial delivery. The abortion doctor delivers the infant's head only, leaving the rest of the body inside the mother. At this point a hole is drilled into the head of the infant, whereupon the brain is sucked out of the skull using a suction devise. Then, the rest of the baby is delivered dead.
Abortion foes have long insisted that this procedure is indicative of a culture of barbarism at its worst--an example of how inhuman the abortion industry can be.
And they were right.
Today, the Supreme Court agreed.
Pro-life forces hailed the decision today as a victory for humanity, for the unborn, and for basic human dignity. Republican Presidential candidates in one accord also hailed the decision, including Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.
Barack Hussein Obama, however, stated, 'I strongly disagree with the decision.'
This is not surprising. The Illinois Democrat and Presidential candidate has consistently voted for abortion on demand throughout his political career, including support for this most barbaric of procedures known as partial birth abortion.
While the other Democratic candidates have not yet opined on the decision, you can be assured that they too will express their displeasure. There is not a single pro-life candidate on the Democratic side.
Hillary in particular will be most displeased. During her husband's tenure in the White House, the Clintons vigorously opposed measures introduced by Republicans during the 90s to stop the practice of partial birth abortions.
As for today's ruling, those of us who value innocent human life can chalk one up for the precious unborn. The Supreme Court can be congratulated for introducing just a bit of sanity into the horrendous state of the nation's abortion industry.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Dobson Snub of Fred Thompson
Washington, DC (TLS). Evangelical Christian leader James Dobson recently stated that while Fred Thompson is definitely conservative and espouses views that Dobson's listeners support, there are concerns about 'whether or not he is a Christian.'
Former U.S. Senator and actor Fred Thompson has suggested in recent days that he would consider entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Thompson's announcement has enlivened disheartened conservatives who have lamented the lack of viable conservative candidates in the Republican field. In the two weeks or so since Thompson indicated he may run, there has been a 'draft Fred Thompson' movement afoot among Republicans, including some with far-reaching influence and deep pockets.
Dobson, however, expressed hesitation over the possibility.
No doubt Dobson's listeners value a Christian candidate. As the most widely influential evangelical Christian on the scene today, Dobson's radio program, 'Focus on the Family,' is carried by over 2000 radio stations and boasts an audience of over 40 million listeners, most of whom are very politically active and support candidates who espouse traditional values.
Dobson's presumption that Thompson is not a Christian seems a bit over the top, however.
A Thompson spokesman responded to Dobson's remarks by stating that Thompson is, indeed, a Christian, having been baptized into the Church of Christ. A Dobson spokesman clarified the evangelical leader's remarks by stating that Dobson was not suggesting that the group to which Thompson belonged was not Christian but that Thompson had never spoken openly about his faith.
Evangelical Christians believe it is vital that followers of Christ give verbal assent to their faith. However, historically this has never been viewed as a license to pass judgment on a person's faith or lack thereof. Those matters are usually left up to the individual and God.
It is no secret that Dobson prefers Newt Gingrich, who recently confessed to Dobson's audience that he had an adulterous affair while serving as Speaker of the House. However, Newt has some negative baggage. Gun Owners of America is rather cool toward a Gingrich candidacy due to the difficulty of getting the Speaker to place on the docket bills of vital interest to gun owners. In addition, outside of conservative Republican circles, Newt's negatives tend to be rather high.
This is not to say that Newt would be snubbed by Republicans if he threw his hat into the ring or that he would not make inroads into the general population. He is certainly intelligent and articulate enough to bring people on board with him.
Yet so far no conservative candidate has created the excitement and the 'buzz' that Thompson has managed to create by merely suggesting that he 'might' run. Columnist Mona Charen wrote today that there are numerous reasons that a Thompson candidacy may be the only viable hope for a Republican win in 2008, not the least of which is his appeal to independents.
The bottom line is that Dobson's analysis of Fred Thompson's faith may not be a very important factor, not even to Dobson's listeners. Evangelical Christian voters today are intelligent, informed, and well-read. Their level of sophistication is such that an opinion expressed by a beloved evangelical leader will be viewed as nothing more than just that--an opinion.
Conservative voters are well-aware of the nature of politics. They are not looking for sainthood but for someone who shares their values, their ideals, their world-view. Above all they want someone who respects their faith.
Absolutely nothing in Fred Thompson's history or political career even remotely suggests that his views will not resonate with the vast majority of conservative evangelical voters.
Former U.S. Senator and actor Fred Thompson has suggested in recent days that he would consider entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Thompson's announcement has enlivened disheartened conservatives who have lamented the lack of viable conservative candidates in the Republican field. In the two weeks or so since Thompson indicated he may run, there has been a 'draft Fred Thompson' movement afoot among Republicans, including some with far-reaching influence and deep pockets.
Dobson, however, expressed hesitation over the possibility.
No doubt Dobson's listeners value a Christian candidate. As the most widely influential evangelical Christian on the scene today, Dobson's radio program, 'Focus on the Family,' is carried by over 2000 radio stations and boasts an audience of over 40 million listeners, most of whom are very politically active and support candidates who espouse traditional values.
Dobson's presumption that Thompson is not a Christian seems a bit over the top, however.
A Thompson spokesman responded to Dobson's remarks by stating that Thompson is, indeed, a Christian, having been baptized into the Church of Christ. A Dobson spokesman clarified the evangelical leader's remarks by stating that Dobson was not suggesting that the group to which Thompson belonged was not Christian but that Thompson had never spoken openly about his faith.
Evangelical Christians believe it is vital that followers of Christ give verbal assent to their faith. However, historically this has never been viewed as a license to pass judgment on a person's faith or lack thereof. Those matters are usually left up to the individual and God.
It is no secret that Dobson prefers Newt Gingrich, who recently confessed to Dobson's audience that he had an adulterous affair while serving as Speaker of the House. However, Newt has some negative baggage. Gun Owners of America is rather cool toward a Gingrich candidacy due to the difficulty of getting the Speaker to place on the docket bills of vital interest to gun owners. In addition, outside of conservative Republican circles, Newt's negatives tend to be rather high.
This is not to say that Newt would be snubbed by Republicans if he threw his hat into the ring or that he would not make inroads into the general population. He is certainly intelligent and articulate enough to bring people on board with him.
Yet so far no conservative candidate has created the excitement and the 'buzz' that Thompson has managed to create by merely suggesting that he 'might' run. Columnist Mona Charen wrote today that there are numerous reasons that a Thompson candidacy may be the only viable hope for a Republican win in 2008, not the least of which is his appeal to independents.
The bottom line is that Dobson's analysis of Fred Thompson's faith may not be a very important factor, not even to Dobson's listeners. Evangelical Christian voters today are intelligent, informed, and well-read. Their level of sophistication is such that an opinion expressed by a beloved evangelical leader will be viewed as nothing more than just that--an opinion.
Conservative voters are well-aware of the nature of politics. They are not looking for sainthood but for someone who shares their values, their ideals, their world-view. Above all they want someone who respects their faith.
Absolutely nothing in Fred Thompson's history or political career even remotely suggests that his views will not resonate with the vast majority of conservative evangelical voters.
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Liberty Sphere Top Stories for Monday
GOOD MORNING!
Scroll down for these stories and commentary on The Liberty Sphere this Monday morning.
**Fred Thompson, well-known actor and former U.S. Senator may run for the Republican Presidential nomination. This will change the face of the entire race.
**Newt Gingrich confessed to James Dobson that he had an affair in the 1990s. Will this help or hurt?
HAVE A GREAT DAY, EVERYONE!
Scroll down for these stories and commentary on The Liberty Sphere this Monday morning.
**Fred Thompson, well-known actor and former U.S. Senator may run for the Republican Presidential nomination. This will change the face of the entire race.
**Newt Gingrich confessed to James Dobson that he had an affair in the 1990s. Will this help or hurt?
HAVE A GREAT DAY, EVERYONE!
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Lieberman Equation
Washington, DC (TLS). Senator Joseph Lieberman's recent hint that he may switch to the Republican Party if the Democrat majority in the Senate votes to limit funding for the War in Iraq has set Washington abuzz with speculation and rumor. It is no secret that Lieberman has been one of President Bush's most reliable allies in the War on Terror and its tributaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, no one really expected the Connecticut Democrat to actually consider switching Parties, in spite of the fact that Democrats abandoned Lieberman in his last Senatorial bid in favor of an ultra-Leftwing anti-war extremist by the name of Ned Lamont. Lieberman proceeded to run as an Independent and trounced Lamont in the November election.
In spite of a very public and humiliating snub by his own Party, including longtime colleague Chris Dodd, who supported Lamont, Lieberman stated that when the new Congress convened he would take his seat as a Democrat, presumably so that he would be in line for a committee chair.
And this highlights an interesting and intriguing scenario that one could describe as 'the Lieberman equation.' Presently, the Democrats hold a razor-thin majority in the Senate. Should Lieberman bail and jump over to the Republican side of the aisle, not only would there be a major power shift in Congress that would put Republicans in control of the Senate, but Lieberman would still be in line for a powerful committee chair due to his seniority.
Thus, either way, Lieberman will remain as a major power broker, placing him in the driver's seat either as a Democrat or as a Republican.
And this, my friends, is the thing that has Washington abuzz. Naturally the Democrats loathe the thought of losing control of the Senate, particularly when that loss is propelled by a defection of one of its most enduring, and beloved, members. On the other hand, Republicans privately can hardly contain their glee over the prospects of not only having the Connecticut Senator among their ranks but taking power away from the Democrats so soon after the 2006 elections.
Thus, all eyes are on Lieberman and the equation he holds in his hands--the balance of power in the Senate which will most definitely effect the course of the nation over the next few years.
This is a no-win situation for the Democrats. The mere fact that one of their own venerable Senators from the traditionally liberal northeast would even suggest the possibility of a defection raises the specter of the extremist factor yet again. In the minds of the voters the Democrats have moved so far to the Left that even Lieberman can't abide their shenanigans.
And this may well shape up to be one of the biggest political stories of the decade.
However, no one really expected the Connecticut Democrat to actually consider switching Parties, in spite of the fact that Democrats abandoned Lieberman in his last Senatorial bid in favor of an ultra-Leftwing anti-war extremist by the name of Ned Lamont. Lieberman proceeded to run as an Independent and trounced Lamont in the November election.
In spite of a very public and humiliating snub by his own Party, including longtime colleague Chris Dodd, who supported Lamont, Lieberman stated that when the new Congress convened he would take his seat as a Democrat, presumably so that he would be in line for a committee chair.
And this highlights an interesting and intriguing scenario that one could describe as 'the Lieberman equation.' Presently, the Democrats hold a razor-thin majority in the Senate. Should Lieberman bail and jump over to the Republican side of the aisle, not only would there be a major power shift in Congress that would put Republicans in control of the Senate, but Lieberman would still be in line for a powerful committee chair due to his seniority.
Thus, either way, Lieberman will remain as a major power broker, placing him in the driver's seat either as a Democrat or as a Republican.
And this, my friends, is the thing that has Washington abuzz. Naturally the Democrats loathe the thought of losing control of the Senate, particularly when that loss is propelled by a defection of one of its most enduring, and beloved, members. On the other hand, Republicans privately can hardly contain their glee over the prospects of not only having the Connecticut Senator among their ranks but taking power away from the Democrats so soon after the 2006 elections.
Thus, all eyes are on Lieberman and the equation he holds in his hands--the balance of power in the Senate which will most definitely effect the course of the nation over the next few years.
This is a no-win situation for the Democrats. The mere fact that one of their own venerable Senators from the traditionally liberal northeast would even suggest the possibility of a defection raises the specter of the extremist factor yet again. In the minds of the voters the Democrats have moved so far to the Left that even Lieberman can't abide their shenanigans.
And this may well shape up to be one of the biggest political stories of the decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)