About Me

Name: Republican...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Mrs. Edwards: Move On

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:12:31 PM
 By Jonathan Tallman

 


In the past 48 hours, you could not go without noticing that both Senator John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth Edwards, and conservative commentator Ann Coulter are in a war of words.  The debate is over what Ann Coulter said at the CPAC conference earlier this year.  The other day on Good Morning America, Coulter was asked about supposedly calling Senator Edwards a deragatory gay slur.  Coulter says that is not what she said and goes on to say she was making a joke about the recent Hollywood stars going to rehab for racist and prejuidice remarks.  She answered the question by bringing up the comment liberal commentator Bill Maher said on his show concerning Vice President Cheney.  He said that the world would have been better off had the vice president been killed in a terrorist attack.  There was, for the record, absolutely no outrage over those completely insensitive remarks.  Coulter went on to say that next time she wants to criticize Senator Edwards she would just wish that he would die in a terrorist attack.  This was meant to be nothing but a sarcastic response to what a liberal commentator had said about the vice president of the United States. 

Listening to the liberal media, people believe that Ms. Coulter said that she wished he would die in a terrorist attack.  This is a complete distortion of the facts.  I am absolutely no Ann Coulter fan, in fact, she harms the conservative movement in America with some of her verbal attacks, yet, we still can't change the facts.  I would urge anybody to watch the video of the interview on Good Morning America.  Ann Coulter on GMA

I believe that Mrs. Edwards, with all do respect, needs to get over any comment that Ann Coulter makes.  For a could-be president's wife, our possible first lady, to fire away at a private citizen who simply writes columns, is absurd.  As president, John Edwards would have to deal with the most horrible attacks that anybody can go through.  Look at President Bush and all of the attacks that have been brought upon him.  He has been compared to Hitler, called "stupid, an idiot, and dumber than a box of rocks" and a New York politician even said that he should "be shot between the eyes."  Even with these most disgraceful attacks, we have yet to hear First Lady Laura Bush come out and suggest that these people stop their "vicious" attacks.  Why?  Because it is not the job of a spouse of a public figure, especially one whose husband is seeking the Oval Office, to go after those who criticize them or their families.  I could only imagine First Lady Elizabeth Edwards holding a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room demanding that reporters and commentators alike stop criticizing her husband, President Edwards.

I think Mrs. Edwards is simply capitalizing on Ms. Coulter's perceived comments because we are nearing the second deadline for fundraising totals for the quarter.  Last quarter, Senator Edward's showing wasn't too impressive, and he is so hungry to be president, that he will use anything within his power to raise the money to get him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Let Ann Coulter say what she is going to say, and let the Edwards' run for president.  Then both of them can continue doing what they do best.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals Move to Silent Opposition

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:26:26 PM
By Jonathan Tallman:




"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."  To many Americans, that phrase represents one of the great freedoms that this nation was founded on: freedom of speech.  As long as we have been a country, we have had soldiers, politicians, lawyers, and everyday American people stand up to protect that tremendous freedom that we possess.  Regrettably, the Democrats in congress now seek to sensor those who disagree with their point-of-view.  You might think I'm crazy and overreacting, but the facts tell it all.

What I am referring to, is an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine.  This doctrine, put out by the FCC in 1949, set out to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance".  By 1987, the FCC overturned the act because they believed that it not only was a violation of the First Amendment, but that it actually prevented constructive conversations with the nation's toughest issues.  Now, Senators John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, and Dick Durbin are setting out to once again make this law.  Why you ask?  To make broadcasting more fair and balanced.  Wrong!  The Democrats have lost the war of the radio shows, and the only way they can shut down the popular conservative radio shows is by putting these unconstitutional strains on them.  The Democrats' belief; if you can't win the debate, stop the debate.

The Supreme Court stated in the Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo decision that the Fairness Doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". 

The shock of it all, this doctrine won't just deal with radio; it will deal with television, radio, internet, and any other form of broadcasting where a license is required.  That means that any 24-hour news channel needs to abide by these needs.  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will no longer be able to choose whom and what is discussed on their radio shows.  Bill O'Reilly, watch out, you may have just criticized too many Democrats in your time. 

What Democrats fail to realize is that this law will need to apply to their kind as well.  Michael Moore would no longer be able to go on his tireless rants without having the opposition there biting at his ankles.  Television channels couldn't show a Democrat spouting off about the Bush Administration without a Bush fanatic at their heels.

I am the first to say that their is extreme bias in today's news.  CNN, ABC, and of course, CBS, have all favored the liberal line of thinking.  Although it drives me insane that the media doesn't look out for the best interest of peoples' minds by reporting both sides of the story, I cannot bring myself to support such a piece of legislation.  I would love to have fair and balanced news no matter what channel I go to, but I would much rather have the liberal bias spread throughout the television airwaves then take away one bit of freedom from our great Constitution.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Run Barletta, Run!

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:35:50 PM
By Jonathan Tallman 




Looking at the 11th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, I believe there is only one right candidate to take on Congressman Kanjorski, assuming that he finishes his term and seeks reelection.  The one choice who could take on the Lackawanna County Democrat, is Mayor Lou Barletta of Hazelton. 

To begin with, it is quite evident that Hazelton supports what their mayor is doing.  Barletta easily won reelection to a third term winning with over 94% of the vote in the Republican Primary in 2007, as well as winning a write-in campaign on the Democratic ticket by a 2-1 margin.

Why all the popularity for a tough ordinance that many polls say America is opposed to?  The answer is simple: the make-up of the 11th Congressional District.  If there is one thing that is true about Northeastern Pennsylvania, it is that it is made up of hard workers who put in an honest days work everyday.  The people of this area work hard for everything they earn, and they don't rely on others to provide for them.  Farmers, factory workers, and laborers make up this Congressional District.  Illegal immigrants in this area do not meet the same work ethic, for the most part.

It would be an uphill battle for Mayor Barletta to beat the twelve-termer, Kanjorski.  In a 2002 bid for Congress, Barletta received 42% of the vote against Kanjorski, losing by nearly 20,000 votes.  With a nepotic scandal staring Kanjorski in the face, this may just be the year that he could lose his seat to a well-known, respected Republican.

Mayor Barletta has said repeatedly that he does not plan on running for Congress, despite rumors that he has been talking to national Republican leaders in Washington D.C.  Right now, Barletta claims that he just wants to be mayor of Hazelton fighting for the ordinance he built his second term on.  We have heard this before from other politicians who later got into the race.  After all, Barack Obama claimed he wasn't going to run for president up until the end of last year.  As people get talking, and a could-be-candidate sees his own potential taking him somewhere greater, he may just be forced to take up the tough challenge and take on the popular Kanjorski.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack Plays the Values Card

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Monday, June 25, 2007 9:45:03 PM
By Jonathan Tallman




The other day while listening to the news, I heard the newly formed highly-religious Senator Obama claim that religion had been hijacked from far-right conservatives who capitalize on differences rather than similarities.  This may just be another vast right-wing conspiracy where conservatives are trying to derail Obama's campaign.  Like we haven't heard that before.  With all do respect Senator Obama, wake up!

I pondered where Obama would get this idea, and I guess in some essence he is right.  Religious people that attend Church on a weekly basis did vote for President Bush by a 61-30% margin in 2004.  The statistics of how much born-again Christians and Church-goers helped President Bush win reelection is astounding.  Now, the question remains, why would those lousy far-right conservatives in the Christian voting bloc vote for a lousy Republican over the "religious" Democrats?  The simple answer is,  look at what the national agenda is for the Democratic Party.

Here are the obvious reasons religious people wouldn't support Democrats:

1.  Democrats are supported by the ACLU.  One of the major goals of the ACLU has been to derail God from the public sector on all fronts.  They fight to get rid of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, take "In God We Trust" off our money, and not allow any reference to God to be allowed in our nation's schools,courts, and shopping centers.  One of the party's top donors wishes to completely rid God from every facet of the American way of life.  Democrats don't attempt to stand up for protecting God in these respects, either.

2.  Gay marriage.  The Church has been outspoken about gays and their lifestyle for some time now.  In the eyes of the Church, homosexual lifestyles are immoral.  Republicans wish to prevent the homosexual lifestyle from becoming part of the traditional family; Democrats wish to increase homosexualism throughout the American way of life.

3.  ABORTION!  Senator Obama, you are pro-choice, need I say more.  For those Democrats who can't figure out why religious, active church-goes would not support you, look at the most challenging issue of our time.  Overall, Christians believe that abortion is wrong, and that it should not be allowed.  Name five national Democratic leaders who are pro-life.  Do you have them yet?  Of course not.  It would take a lot of research to find that.  I am having trouble thinking of one at the moment.

So, Senator Obama and the Democratic leadership:  if you wish to get those "lousy church-goers" to support and vote for you, believe in God, publicily, and support those things that your heart tells you are right.  I am not saying that Democrats are not religious, but they are not devoted unashamedly publicly.  The fact is, Americans look for God in their everyday life, and they look for a candidate that believes in such.  Those Democrats who fear special interest groups like the ACLU who are controlling the party, will never have the audacity to support the Christian values our Founding Fathers built this nation upon.  Until the Democrats and Obama fix that, they shouldn't be counting on any majority religious vote anytime soon. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vice President Santorum?

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:05:07 PM
By Jonathan Tallman
 




At first glance, the idea of seeing the title vice president in front of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's name, seems like some far-right conservative's pipe dream.  Any intelligent political advisor working for one of the Republican candidates for president may want to keep his name on the short-list of possible running mates, assuming that their candidate wins the Republican Nomination.

Senator Santorum lost his seat in the Senate to Bob Casey in the 2006 Election.  Santorum only managed to garner 41% of the vote.  The Senator left after two terms with many controversies following behind.  For a presidential candidate, Santorum's previous statements and this humiliating defeat in 2006, would be sure to crush any hope of being president.  Controversy does not keep nominees' running mates from becoming vice president, however.

Vice President Dick Cheney had quite a past when then Governor George W. Bush chose him to be his running mate in 2000.  Cheney was a career politician and a former CEO of an "oily" company that brought in millions for the former congressman/chief of staff/secretary of defense.  Was it a a risky move for Governor Bush to choose somebody with such a controversial past?  Absolutely not, Americans don't vote for the bottom of the ticket, they vote solely  for who is at the top of the ticket.

This is the reason Senator Santorum could possibly become vice president, assuming that a Republican wins the White House in 2008.

Senator Santorum's support among conservatives is astounding.  Any candidate who is not considered "conservative enough" for the right-wing of the party, should look to Senator Santorum as the cure.  Having him on the ticket wouldn't hurt the Republican presidential candidate with the average American voter, but it certainly would make conservatives happy knowing that there is a conservative Republican who is within earshot of the new president.

Three candidates stand out most to conservatives as traitors to the party; former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain.  All three have questionable pasts in the eyes of the far-right of the party.  That is why, with Senator Santorum on the ticket, they could garner many more votes from the most enthusiastic Christian conservatives.

The question will obviously be raised, will Senator Rick Santorum accept such an offer should it arise?  Recently after his defeat, he said his wife would kill him if he ran for president, but nothing was ever said about being a running mate to a presidential nominee. 

Santorum recently said that the only Republican that he could not support for president would be Senator McCain.  If he were to be offered the position, however, his point of thinking may change.  After all, Santorum has been a man for the Republican Party for some time now, and I doubt that he would risk Republicans losing the White House if he knew he could do something to prevent it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Swann in 2008?

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:12:03 PM
By Salena Zito
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, June 24, 2007




In the summer of 2004, Lynn Swann stood on a sweltering stage in front of several thousand party faithful in Latrobe. Stalling for a delayed President Bush, he joked that wouldn't he and Latrobe native Arnold Palmer, standing to his right, "make the perfect ticket for governor of Pennsylvania in 2006?"

The response was deafeningly positive.

Three summers and one failed attempt at governor later, according to a variety of inside sources Swann is contemplating another run for office, in a considerably less dramatic fashion.

Swann, who lost to Gov. Ed Rendell last year, now has an eye on Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District.


Despite his rookie status and less-than-stellar campaign, he was the only Republican to win the 4th District in 2006 -- which is part of the reason why U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart are now referred to as "former."

If he decides to run, he would take on freshman congressman and Democrat Jason Altmire of McCandless.

Swann's first decision-making hurdle is whether he wants to go to Washington or to stick around Pennsylvania and run for governor again. His second hurdle is the congressional seat's former occupant, Melissa Hart, who is coy about whether she wants to take back her seat. Look for her to run a poll to test the waters of her electability.

Most insiders not-so-quietly agree that Hart gave up her seat to Jason Altmire; in a horrible year for Republicans, she allowed Altmire to define her as a clone of President Bush and Santorum. Failing to draw a contrast, refusing to respond with accurate information about who he was and why Altmire would be wrong for the district, Hart gave it away in the end.

Soured by the outcome of that particular campaign, GOP stakeholders in Washington have turned to Swann as a candidate who could win back the district.

For its part, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is just as invested in retaining Altmire's services as congressman. It made him a member of its aggressive Frontline program, which is dedicated to spending resources on "purple" House seats, districts that could swing for either party.

Experts on both sides agree a Swann-Altmire race would cost $3 million to $5 million in candidate and party money, ranking it in the top five House races for 2008.

Thanks to a political-climate change, Altmire got a bit of a free ride the last time. But he has wisely positioned himself, according to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly, as the sixth most conservative Democrat in the House, a good fit for the district.

To really stake out that seat as his, he must pick one big policy item and get it passed in the House, something perhaps dealing with health care or veterans issues.

Swann has a couple important things on his side -- an ability to raise cash and perfect name identification. Yet he has more obstacles to overcome. He has to prove to voters that he has learned a heck of a lot since 2006. Forget the buses with his image shrink-wrapped on them; this is about handshakes, a total bone-up on local issues and establishing an early, clear definition of his positions on the Iraq war, Social Security and federal spending.

Swann is in a party where the brand has been shredded. He is tied to an unpopular president and may be running for office in a Congress that has a 14 percent approval rating.

If he jumps into the race, he must get beyond running uphill and run as though the seat was open by characterizing Altmire as just a default winner in 2006.

One of the hardest things a congressional challenger running against an incumbent must do is to convince people they made an error in the last election.

But that must be the agenda for any Republican Party candidate trying to retake the House.

Salena Zito is a Trib editorial page columnist. Call her at 412-320-7879. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Bush: Lead the Party

Posted by Republican Majority 2008 on Saturday, June 23, 2007 11:06:32 PM
By Jonathan Tallman 




When January 20, 2009 comes upon us, the 24-hour news cycles will welcome the new President of the United States.  They will also begin evaluating the presidency of George W. Bush.  Will that new president be a Republican or a Democrat?  That is the question that will remaim for many more months to come.  At the rate the Grand Old Party is headed now, however, it is becoming evident that Republicans may be in for even heavier losses than in 2006.  Right now, more than ever, President Bush must stand up to ensure that his party keeps control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and regains control in the House and Senate.  Here is my three point plan to ensure Republicans gain power in Congress.

First of all, the recent immigration bill that is being debated has completely alienated the most conservative members of the Republican Party.  If the immigration bill that is trying to be pushed through Congress eventually passes, President Bush may be held responsible for the ensuing losses on November 4, 2008.  President Bush has to produce a bill that will quell the voices coming from the far-right.  To do this, he needs to first forget about what to do with the illegal immigrants here.  The more important thing for him to do is to produce a tough border act that will close the border to all illegal immigrants.  This will be highly favorable to the conservatives, who feel that both Republicans and Democrats have failed in their constitutional duty to protect the borders of this nation, and the American people as a whole.  Second step in the legislation process, compromise the guest worker program.  Conservatives will never tire until that atrocious legislative amnesty is gotten rid of.  Republicans would stand behind a bill that would not involve the guest worker program, and party unity will allow the bill to pass.  Conservatives will still feel cheated, but only by President Bush, not the party.

Second, President Bush and Republicans in Congress need to "sell" the War in Iraq to the American people.  It has become quite clear that Americans are becoming antsy with Iraq, and that they have lost faith that Republicans know how to deal with such issues.  In both 2002 and 2004, Republicans had great support with national security issues, now that advantage has shrunk dramatically.  President Bush needs to go on a nationwide tour from July until September announcing the progress that America has made, and criticize those Democrats, especially those vying for the White House, that they are defeatists who have voted against our troops and are aiding the enemy.  President Bush cannot do it alone, however.  He will need Senator Joseph Lieberman to join him on this tour, as well as more liberal Republicans like Arlen Specter.  Finally, when September rolls around, Congress will begin investigating whether the surge President Bush and the commanders on the ground favored, worked.  The day Congress intends to announce their findings, President Bush should schedule his address to the nation from the Oval Office that night.  This will prevent the press from making the Congress' finding a story for a couple of days.  Instead, they will have to go from covering Congress, to covering and interpreting President Bush's address to to the nation all in the same day.

Lastly, President Bush and the Republican party must run completely opposite of the Democratic Party on crucial issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage while compromising on issues like social security, healthcare, tort reform, and alternative energy.  Republicans must work to show Americans that they are the party that is willing to put partisan politics to the side and fight for the average American.  Democrats won in 2006 more so because of Americans being tired of the corruption and partisan politics than over Iraq.  The fact that Congress' approval rating is at 32% should be encouraging news for disheartened Republicans.  That is lower than President Bush's approval rating at about 34-38% and the 109th Congress' approval rating of 35%.  A public war on the Democratic party establishment and the far-left nuts that control the Democratic Party from the daily liberal blogs could help Republicans in '08. 

If Americans feel like the Democrats have done nothing to change the status quo in Washington, and that Republicans have learned their lessons from 2006, they may just be willing to vote the Grand Old Party back to power. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »