Worried GOP bids to shore up conservative support for Nov.

St. Petersburg Times, FL ^ | Sept. 10, 2006 | WES ALLISON

[pollyannaish]

No better than the petty politics of the left. Same thinking, other side of the ball.

[jrooney]

You can also bet the leaking of classified information would increase because the donks in their warped thinking would conclude America had given them the authority to do what they regarding our national security.

[FairOpinion]

"I will vote straight republican ticket here in Oregon and so is my entire family. It is the best way to send a message to Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, et al."

===

Exactly. The Dems are the real enemy.

[jrooney]

Or same trying to dissuade and discourage republicans not to vote.

[pollyannaish]

LOL. Yes, but they'd have to check with their lawyers first for plausible deniability.

[pollyannaish]

I'd actually put money on that.

[jrooney]

Lawyers, LOL, just like piss baby Clinton. What a tool he is.

[nathanbedford]

Yes I quite agree with you that anyone with a vague script of conservative DNA in his genes and who was fooled and voted for Perot, unwittingly visited eight years of corruption, buffoonery, and grave danger upon the nation.

One thing about Bill Clinton, he could live in a world of utter unreality and indeed impose it on the whole of the country except with respect to one issue, he never deceived himself about how to win votes. He did what it took, and he took the positions necessary to be elected and reelected so many times. Lately the Democrats, although not Bill Clinton, have taken to blaming the electorate for their failures at the polls. It would be very dangerous for us to ape the rats.

If we could not make the case against Bill Clinton and Perot in 1992, it is our fault and not the electorate' s. We can make our case, or rather, we could have made our case, without betraying our principles. Can you imagine how much different things would be today if we had forced votes on drilling and refining and etc. and if we had even come close to managing our borders? If we hadn't taken bribes?

Rather than railing at the voters, let's look first at the professionals whose job it is to advance conservative principles and then present their record of legislation to the country for approval. So far they have done neither.

[pollyannaish]

Ha!

[jrooney]

So would I. They slither into the threads here trying to act like conservatives whom are disgruntled and try and discourage others. If they can't find any extra dead people to vote, they need to keep some of us home in Nov. Isn't going to happen. We will come out in droves like robots to cast our votes, while the donks will hope their masses, aren't drunk, high, in jail or over-sleeping.

[ConservativeMind]

It makes perfect sense why so many conservatives are disillusioned with the idea of voting for idiots.

Of course I'm voting, but I also know many conservatives in my own state (Illinois) who can't stand the idea of voting for a Republican governor who is arguably more liberal than the Democrat. The same holds for national offices in many other states.

When the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat (that is often the case in Illinois), then one can't in good conscience vote Republican.

We had a governor candidate, Poshard, who was a Democrat, but who was a staunch supporter of the NRA and gun rights. I believe he was also pro-life. I voted for the Republican, Ryan, who went against any conservative principles he had, even letting more than 100 death-row inmates get commuted sentences. This Republican now has 6 years of jail before him as of this week.

I would easily vote for a Democrat like Zell Miller than a Republican like Lincoln Chafee or Jim Jeffords. You see, I'm faithful to conservative principles, not a party.

What are you faithful to?

[FairOpinion]

"If they can't find any extra dead people to vote, they need to keep some of us home in Nov"


THAT is indeed the Dem strategy. The Dems in CA actually admitted it, that is what they are counting on, to get Angelides, a genuine socialist elected, and beat moderate Republican, Schwarzenegger who actually stood up quite effectively on key issues to the Dem Legislature.

====

A Recipe for Success (for Angelides) (Conservatives are Angelides' secret weapon)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689690/posts

Here are some things he could do:

o Attack Arnold from the right :

§ Illegal immigration–Arnold has angered the conservative base with some of his comments on this issue. The Angelides campaign, or perhaps an anti-Arnold independent expenditure campaign, could attack Arnold in the mail or on the radio and use Arnold’s own words against him.

§ Taxes/government spending–The state government continues to run what is essentially a deficit and Arnold’s numerous proposals to increase government spending and borrowing turn off Republicans. This line of attack could also mitigate some of the tax attacks against Angelides.




===


"Angelides ... must win 80% of the Dems and a solid majority of the DTS (declined to state) registrants, TO ACCOMPANY THE 15% REPUBLICANS WHO DON'T VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY'S TICKET"

ANGELIDES IS COUNTING ON THEM.


http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/07/new_poll_result.html

====


"He's absolutely willing to prostitute himself on anything," said Angelides adviser Bill Carrick. "How humiliating it must be to be a Republican in this state."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060831/ap_on_el_gu/schwarzenegger_democrats


====

[MNJohnnie]

Perhaps the Conservative Political Suicde Club MIGHT want to consider there will be NO legal way to go back and UNDO the blanket amnesty the Democrats will pass EVEN if Conservatives win back the Congress at some future point.
Not A Guest Worker program, a real full bore legalization of all the illegals.

Maybe the Always Angry might want to keep in mind it was Senate Democrats that filibustered to keep any of the US House Republican Border Enforcement provisions out of the Senate immigration bill.

Why do the Always Angry think firing the ONLY people who have been consistently tough about Border Enforcement (US House GOP) in order to put the Congress in the hands of Democrats (who will vote all most 100% against it) is such a "brilliant" political move for Conservatives? EVEN if their magic fantasy of a political wet dream that Conservatives magically win back the Congress, it will be legally impossible to ram thru retroactive changes to the full Amnesty the Democrats will have passed while they control Congress.

This constant advocation by supposedly "Conservatives" that voters should completely destroy any hope of any part of the Antis position on Immigration actually ever being enacted into Law in order to "teach Bush a Lesson" is simply politically insane. It is the babble of people who either know nothing at all about how politics work or are simply hiding their real political allegiance to the Democrat party under the guise of being "betrayed Conservatives".


I guess the Conservative Political Suicide Club would rather have a Democrat Congress who would legislate these sorts of things when in power.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697413/posts

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
americablog.blogspot.com ^ | September 07, 2006 | John in DC

Posted on 09/07/2006 6:12:34 PM CDT by Mo1

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.







http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1696833/posts?page=1

Senate Rejects New Restraints on Cluster Bombs
FoxNews.com ^ | 9/6/06 | Associated Press


Posted on 09/06/2006 10:22:07 PM CDT by kerryusama04


WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.

Snip


Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy have long sought to keep cluster bombs from being used near concentrated areas of civilians. They say that as many as 40 percent of the munitions fail to detonate on impact — they can still can explode later — leaving innocent civilians and children vulnerable to injury or death long after hostilities have ceased.

[democrats_nightmare]

Despite the fact I am unhappy with the Republicans on immigration and out of control federal spending I am still going to vote for them and be active in 2006. We are at war and turning over power to the defeatist cut and run democrats would cost human lives.

I still get my voice out to the Republicans when they contact me to raise funds and vent at them about their shortcomings....but they are still better than the alternative. You just have to be pragmatic about this issue and look at the whole picture and still vote Republican for national security is at stake.

[goldfinch]

No better than the petty politics of the left. Same thinking, other side of the ball.

You got that right.

[goldfinch]

Now that I know you are a Republican in Illinois, I can understand why you are frustrated. I do not have a major problem with voting for Democrats in local races if they are the more conservative candidate...although the last few times I have done so, I have been disappointed in the way the candidate votes after elected.

I do have a problem when it comes to voting for candidates for U.S. Senate and House because it is extremely important to our nation to keep control of the House and Senate out of the hands of the Democrats. Besides...if you check the voting records, you will find the RINOs are generally more conservative than 'conservative' Democrats.

[RJL]

Concerned that disillusionment among conservatives may keep them home on Election Day

Three weeks left in session before they recess for the elections, NOW they've decided to listen to their base voters.

My suggestion to Republicans is that they may want to talk and dance with those that brought them to the dance, a bit before last call at the bar.

I'll undoubtedly vote, especially if they get border security passed and signed before the elections, but they better get busy getting conservative ideas into law or I think they may be out in the wilderness for another forty years.

[bruinbirdman]

"I can not understand the logic why anyone would punish the GOP and not vote."

Most pseudo-libertarians are asses in elephant clothing. They would just as soon have libs win so they can get drugs legalized as GOP elected for less government (including less drug enforcement). Good libertarians have switched to GOP. What's left over are conniving, duplicitous, infiltrators (think David Brock, both Huffingtons, log cabin guys).

[Dreagon]

I am one of those disgruntled conservatives, more on the social conservative side. And to be blunt I want to see a little more out of the republicans than waving the Democrat/Hillary boogieman around everytime conservatives start demanding a little action from the people they elected.
We busted ass and turned out in droves to get them elected, and watched the corporate conservatives get all their agenda rammed through the house. Yet somehow things we wanted all ended up getting hamstrung, blocked by procedural moves, etc.... funny how that happens.
The way I see it.. the Republicans still have three weeks left in the current session. Lets see them earn my vote.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"How will losing advance their cause"?

---

If the GOP falls much further it won't exist anyway. I never thought I'd live to see a Rudy Giuliani type touted as a viable candidate. I don't think we can let it slide now, and repair damage later, it is time to wipe the RINOs out of the book, all of them.