Over the next 24 hours, I will be part of a very special announcement.
After 7:00 PM (Eastern) today (Sunday, Nov4) you will be able to find it here...
Meanwhile, you can see a sneak preview of our Club's blog here
Our new organization will not be taking a role in the endorsement of a particular Republican candidate, as our focus will be on state and legislative offices. We will have members supporting all GOP Presidential campaigns. If you are interested in running for office or know someone who should be, please contact us ASAP with our information at the website.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
News coming soon
Friends,
I apologize for my absense from this blog for the past three weeks. I have embarked on a special project that has been quite time consuming.
I want to thank everyone for visiting, and I appreciate your support and emails.
I am proud of the progress that Fred has made since his announcement,
and I am pleased to see his West Virginia campaign coming together so well. I am confident that our state will be in the Fred column come February.
The project I am involved in will invovle Republicans from all sides of the presidential primary, and I will be retiring this blog to focus on those very important efforts which I will soon fill everyone in on. I encourage everyone interested in Fred to visit Fred08.com and Gary Abernathy's (his WV campaign director) website: republicangazette.com
Thanks,
Charles
I apologize for my absense from this blog for the past three weeks. I have embarked on a special project that has been quite time consuming.
I want to thank everyone for visiting, and I appreciate your support and emails.
I am proud of the progress that Fred has made since his announcement,
and I am pleased to see his West Virginia campaign coming together so well. I am confident that our state will be in the Fred column come February.
The project I am involved in will invovle Republicans from all sides of the presidential primary, and I will be retiring this blog to focus on those very important efforts which I will soon fill everyone in on. I encourage everyone interested in Fred to visit Fred08.com and Gary Abernathy's (his WV campaign director) website: republicangazette.com
Thanks,
Charles
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Monday, October 01, 2007
A Fine Read
J. Peter Mulhern of the American Thinker weighs in on why he thinks Fred will win in 2008.
First he breaks down what will prevent each of the "big three" running against Fred from winning.
According to Mr. Mulhern, Gov. Romney comes across slick.
Even his greatest admirers usually concede that he is too slick and too packaged to seem entirely trustworthy. As the polling data so far indicates, the great majority of Republican voters are going to choose somebody else when they judge him alongside their other choice.
Then he points to Sen. McCain's fatal flaw, his open defiance of the party on so many issues:
McCain has been at war with the Republican Party for a decade. The idea that he could win the GOP's presidential nomination was never more than a fantasy. His presence in the race will soon become an embarrassment, if it isn't one already.
And he discusses why Rudy would be a disaster as nominee:
With Rudy on the ballot millions of "values voters" would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism's promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Mulhern rightfully dismisses Rudy's chief argument that he can put New York and California in play by appealing to socially liberal urbanites:
Giuliani's supporters like to complain about the petulance of "single issue" voters who would ignore their man's many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giulliani's supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it's natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society's defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn't understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can't choose him as their nominee.
Finally, we learn why he thinks Fred is the best candidate to face Hillary.
Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.
A lot of comparisons have been made to Reagan, and they are unfair as no one can be expected to fill those shoes, but Fred does share one trait with the Great Communicator: He can articulate our agenda and come across as "one of us".
The polls say that dissatisfaction with Washington is at astronomical levels, and I argue that we need someone like Fred that is willing to stand with the voters and against Beltway Politics. Mulhern has a similar observation that Fred is the candidate best suited for this Herculean task.
After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator, as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any "insider" here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that, when it comes to government activity, more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator.
As Republicans, we are blessed to have strong, serious candidates seeking office, but in a time in which our own party's own elected officials have so often betrayed our prinicples (2006 Congressional Election) We need to elect a President who we know will not give in to the pressures of Beltway Politics - we need to elect Fred.
First he breaks down what will prevent each of the "big three" running against Fred from winning.
According to Mr. Mulhern, Gov. Romney comes across slick.
Even his greatest admirers usually concede that he is too slick and too packaged to seem entirely trustworthy. As the polling data so far indicates, the great majority of Republican voters are going to choose somebody else when they judge him alongside their other choice.
Then he points to Sen. McCain's fatal flaw, his open defiance of the party on so many issues:
McCain has been at war with the Republican Party for a decade. The idea that he could win the GOP's presidential nomination was never more than a fantasy. His presence in the race will soon become an embarrassment, if it isn't one already.
And he discusses why Rudy would be a disaster as nominee:
With Rudy on the ballot millions of "values voters" would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism's promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Mulhern rightfully dismisses Rudy's chief argument that he can put New York and California in play by appealing to socially liberal urbanites:
Giuliani's supporters like to complain about the petulance of "single issue" voters who would ignore their man's many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giulliani's supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it's natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society's defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn't understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can't choose him as their nominee.
Finally, we learn why he thinks Fred is the best candidate to face Hillary.
Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.
A lot of comparisons have been made to Reagan, and they are unfair as no one can be expected to fill those shoes, but Fred does share one trait with the Great Communicator: He can articulate our agenda and come across as "one of us".
The polls say that dissatisfaction with Washington is at astronomical levels, and I argue that we need someone like Fred that is willing to stand with the voters and against Beltway Politics. Mulhern has a similar observation that Fred is the candidate best suited for this Herculean task.
After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator, as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any "insider" here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that, when it comes to government activity, more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator.
As Republicans, we are blessed to have strong, serious candidates seeking office, but in a time in which our own party's own elected officials have so often betrayed our prinicples (2006 Congressional Election) We need to elect a President who we know will not give in to the pressures of Beltway Politics - we need to elect Fred.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Fred on Iran and the UN
From Fred08.com
Thompson: We Won't Ask UN's Permission to Defend Self-Interest
McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson issued the following statement today:
"During last night's debate in New Hampshire, I was appalled that none of the leading Democrats would stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against Iran--a country intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and whose leader has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. A Thompson Administration would stand by Israel and all of our friends in the region. We would not wait for U.N. permission to support an ally or defend our interests abroad. The U.N. has not shown sufficient resolve toward stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions."
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Congress' war against working West Virginians
Democrat John Dingell, Queen Nancy's chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, unveiled a proposal that would devastate our state's economy in the name of global warming.
What exactly does he propose?
An additional 50 cents per gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over 5 years. As a rural state with an already disproportionately high gas tax, our working men and women are more likely to DRIVE to work as our JOBS are spread too thin along rural/suburban areas to use carpooling and we do not have the population to support mass transit. In the private sector, a large portion of our jobs are in the coal mines, natural gas wells, and forests. It is impractical for a lumberjack to telecommute from his kitchen table at a laptop in his pajamas; I don't think you can mine coal in your home office, either.
A $50 a ton tax on CO2 admissions, from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
I don't think I need to tell you what mining jobs mean to West Virginia. If you can't understand this, you are beyond help.
Gradual phase-out of the interest tax deduction on mortgages for homes over 3,000 sq.ft., including an entire elimination for homes of at least 4,200 sq.ft. This too, would disproportionately affect West Virginia. Obviously, we want more people to build and move in bigger homes to support our timber, steel, construction, limestone, and utility industries. Just how small can a 4,200 single story home be? (64 x 64, or a 32 x 32 two story home) I don't think this affects just the "wealthy".
Any of these the three proposals would devastate West Virginia's resource industries. All three proposals becoming law would be unthinkable.
Even by his own admission, if Dingell's proposal became law, misery would follow…
"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
Simply put, the Democrats do not want coal burned to produce electricity, and they do not want more natural gas heating your home. They do not want more our coal used to make steel in the Northern Panhandle, and they do not want our natural gas used in what remains of the already devastated chemical industries in Kanawha and Ohio River valleys.
West Virginia cannot escape the bottom of the heap economically if the Washington Democrats are victorious in their war against coal, timber, and natural gas. Apparently Democrat leaders are not about unleashing capitalism, they are unleashing ON capitalism.
If Byrd, Rockefeller, Manchin, Rahall, Mollohan, and Chairman Casey cannot rebuke their national party leaders over THIS insanity...
What exactly does he propose?
An additional 50 cents per gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over 5 years. As a rural state with an already disproportionately high gas tax, our working men and women are more likely to DRIVE to work as our JOBS are spread too thin along rural/suburban areas to use carpooling and we do not have the population to support mass transit. In the private sector, a large portion of our jobs are in the coal mines, natural gas wells, and forests. It is impractical for a lumberjack to telecommute from his kitchen table at a laptop in his pajamas; I don't think you can mine coal in your home office, either.
A $50 a ton tax on CO2 admissions, from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
I don't think I need to tell you what mining jobs mean to West Virginia. If you can't understand this, you are beyond help.
Gradual phase-out of the interest tax deduction on mortgages for homes over 3,000 sq.ft., including an entire elimination for homes of at least 4,200 sq.ft. This too, would disproportionately affect West Virginia. Obviously, we want more people to build and move in bigger homes to support our timber, steel, construction, limestone, and utility industries. Just how small can a 4,200 single story home be? (64 x 64, or a 32 x 32 two story home) I don't think this affects just the "wealthy".
Any of these the three proposals would devastate West Virginia's resource industries. All three proposals becoming law would be unthinkable.
Even by his own admission, if Dingell's proposal became law, misery would follow…
"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
Simply put, the Democrats do not want coal burned to produce electricity, and they do not want more natural gas heating your home. They do not want more our coal used to make steel in the Northern Panhandle, and they do not want our natural gas used in what remains of the already devastated chemical industries in Kanawha and Ohio River valleys.
West Virginia cannot escape the bottom of the heap economically if the Washington Democrats are victorious in their war against coal, timber, and natural gas. Apparently Democrat leaders are not about unleashing capitalism, they are unleashing ON capitalism.
If Byrd, Rockefeller, Manchin, Rahall, Mollohan, and Chairman Casey cannot rebuke their national party leaders over THIS insanity...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Finally Coming Clean
After a couple of weeks of denials, the New York Times finally came clean yesterday and admitted that it was inappropriate to offer MoveOn.Org a discount to run their disgusting attack on American Hero, General David Petraeus.
He [Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt] quoted Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis as saying the advertising representative who sold the ad failed to make it clear that for the standby rate of $65,000, The Times could not guarantee it would run it on the day of Petraeus' testimony.
That standby rate is offered to political and advocacy groups willing to be flexible about the day their ads run.
That standby rate is offered to political and advocacy groups willing to be flexible about the day their ads run.
"We made a mistake," Mathis was quoted as saying.
And if that wasn't enough, Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt says that the ad violated its own acceptability standards - as if it had any for its leftist allies.
"The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature,"' he wrote, adding that the phrase "Betray Us" was "a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
He quoted Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis as saying the advertising representative who sold the ad failed to make it clear that for the standby rate of $65,000, The Times could not guarantee it would run it on the day of Petraeus' testimony.
That standby rate is offered to political and advocacy groups willing to be flexible about the day their ads run.
"We made a mistake," Mathis was quoted as saying.
Finally, it appears that MoveOn.Org will have to pay the full and fair price for their abomination.
Moveon.org said that it would wire the difference between the standby rate and the full rate of $142,083 to The Times.
"Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad," it said in statement.
They appear to not to be sweating too much about the money, thanks to the deep pockets of George Soros, the chief financier of virtually every national Democrat party organization. (MoveOn.org, Media Matters, ACT, pro-union Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, etc.)
Quite simply, the National Democrat Party is owned by George Soros and his armies of lefty loons.
You can read the Times' Clark Hoyt's editorial here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)