Yeppers, that's me!
Too bad they can't vote.
Reason(s):
Collins,
Snowe,
Hastings,
And a handful more.
I told him that we would be giving directly to the candidates we support from here on out, not to the party.
Jake
That's odd, especially right after a successful election season.
</sarcasm>
I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm not having second thoughts about voting for Bush. The deficit existed before he was re-elected and the alternative was much worse.
Reason(s):
Collins,
Snowe,
Hastings,
And a handful more.
I told him that we would be giving directly to the candidates we support from here on out, not to the party.
Jake
Definition of Lame Duck:
person holding office after his or her replacement has been elected to the office, but before the current term has ended. In the American presidency, the period after election day in November and the swearing-in of the new President in January is known as the lame duck period
Since this seems to be a common definition of 'lame duck president', I do not understand why the press keeps referring to Bush as a 'lame duck'.
Yeah, let's let the Democrats run things. They always do a superb job.
-end sarcasm-
Canada needs to get its own house in order.Maybe then I will listen to their opinion of Republicans.
With all due respect, Mr. Mehlman I feel I must be candid with you as a loyal Republican. At least the Democrats are showing some spine and doing what they do best. It is the Republicans that anger me and I am not alone. What exactly is Senator Frist waiting for? What did "we" win when we reached 55 Republican Senators? When are we going to start acting like we have a sizeable lead and force our mandate down their throats. Let them scream and complain-it's what they do.
I understand I am not a sizeable donor and am just a voice in the wilderness, but if you listen very carefully you will hear that I am not alone. Yes, I will still vote Republican straight down the line in every election. Yes, I will continue to donate a couple of hundred bucks. Yes, I will drive my Cuban in-laws to the voter booth so they can thumb there nose at Castro and vote Republican. But I do it with less enthusiasm. I can be taken for granted. I am not so sure that other voters can. Why would they come out in droves like they did in '04? when they were defending Dubya. They will not be as energized in '06. The libs will be. I know-I work in an office full of them.
Bush does what Congress does. If Congress passes it, he signs it. All we've got to do is make a more conservative Congress and we'll get our results.
I will continue to support the GOP because I fear far more the alternative.
Anyone remember "Let Reagan be Reagan" back in the 80's? Porous borders, deficit (social, not defense) spending, tax increases (TEFRA), amnesty for illegals, spongy response to Soviet moves in Poland, death of Marines and pullout from Beirut - all were issues back then.
Not saying the issues aren't serious now, and acknowledging that dems had control of congress during the 80's, but perspective is always helpful.
I'm just surprised that anything by Alan Caruba is allowed to stay up here.
Canada Free Press......
Seal the borders
Enforce our immigration laws (= deport every single illegal alien)
pass the PRESIDENT's energy legislation
and act like the RNC is in the majority we gave them last election
Donations to conservative organizations and think tanks are in sharp decline.
Yep.
It's called the Not.One.Dime campaign.
To hell with Frist, to hell with Thune, and to hell with the GOP if they wait until the session is half-over before finding their spine or other significant parts of their anatomy. The GOP campaigned on judicial nominations as the second-highest priority for the Senate, and the electorate rewarded them with a healthy gain of four seats, remarkable for an election in which the incumbent president won by a tight margin. After spending a record amount of money on supporting Republican candidates, the electorate has sat back and watched as the Democrats, led by Harry Reid, have uncorked one lunatic manuever after another: challenging Ohio's slate of electors, holding up Condoleezza Rice's nomination while people like Mark Dayton outright call her a liar, and attempting to extort the White House into giving up its Constitutional assignment of nominating the judges the President sees fit for Senate approval.
What has this bunch of Republican milquetoasts done? Nothing.
Why? Apparently, they've changed their priorities since the election. No longer are judicial nominations the leading priority. In fact, they've done everything they can to backpedal from the frightening spectre of Harry Reid, for Pete's sake. Now they claim that they want to pass as much legislation as they can before the vote on nominations comes up ... meaning that the judges are actually the lowest priority for Frist and his band of merry cowards.
News flash: if we can't reverse the generations-long trend of increasing judicial activism, the act of passing legislation will eventually be rendered meaningless. The judges, as we have seen, will simply continue to legislate from the bench, ignoring Congress and the Executive and transforming us from a representative democracy to a secular mullahcracy, where lifetime appointments in black robes make all the decisions for us.
That's what the Republicans warned about when they campaigned in 2002 and 2004. Now it's time to step up and do something about it -- but despite their greater numbers and a clear signal from the electorate that rejects obstructionists (see Tom Daschle's enforced retirement), the GOP suddenly quails at the thought of taking action.
I have been a loyal member of the GOP since I cast my first vote. I have worked campaigns and championed candidates well before I ever posted anything on my blog at CQ. However, with the defection of John McCain and the lack of any real response from party leadership on the issue, I have to take a stand and demand either action or accountability -- and this is the time to do it.
Not. One. Dime. The next time Ken Mehlman sends you a request for money, that's the message he needs to get back. We ponied up in 2004, and in 2002, and in 2000. The GOP not only has not delivered, its current leadership won't even try. Frist and Rick Santorum claim they don't have the votes. Balderdash -- they don't have the leadership to get the votes. I'm not going to fund or support people who won't try to win, especially when the issue is so important.
Not. One. Dime. We're not in an election year, so this makes it easy for the Republicans to get this message to party leaders. No balls, no Blue Chips, boys. I don't mean just for the Senate, either. I mean for the entire Republican party. Feeding a fever may be good medicine, but feeding a failure only makes it last longer. Perhaps hunger will work where courage has so obviously failed.
Not. One. Dime. And when a vote does come, those Republicans who wind up supporting the minority's extortion over the majority in defiance of the Constitution will never see another dime from me -- but their opponents will, at every level of contest. Honestly, with Republicans like these in the Senate, we may as well have Democrats.
Not. One. Dime. If Bill Frist can't lead the GOP, then let's get rid of him now and find someone with the stomach for it. As long as he dithers, he'll never see a dime out of me for any election. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have more guts and could pull the troops in line better; maybe we should give her a try as Majority Leader for a while.
It's time to send a real message to the Republicans about their priorities and their lack of leadership. This fight has been brewing for months, and it should have already been resolved by now. If they can't hack it, then we will find -- and fund -- the leaders who can.
The thing the authors don't understand that this is a temporary phenomenon - it will end just as soon as the Senate GOP leadership gets off the pot and confirms Bush's nominees.