New Hampshire debate and Fred Thompson

An editorial in the Union Leader of New Hampshire has decided the GOP primary will hinge on their debate, scheduled for September 5.  For some reason the editorial board seems to think that it matters in this national debate.  Fred Thompson will announce when he thinks it’s appropriate to do so.  I would also submit that just because a candidate has announced doesn’t mean that it makes sense to participate in the New Hampshire debate.

In terms of delegate counts New Hampshire is small, 24 delegates, so why put so much importance on a state that has a smaller delegate count than Wyoming?  Yes it’s early, yes they have a state law mandating that it be first in the country.  Now don’t misunderstand every state is important, every vote is important but for the Union Leader to act like New Hampshire is somehow superior to all the other states is ludicrous.

Now why does the Union Leader care anyway?  This just another liberal newspaper that is trying (and succeeding) to get national attention by threatening Fred Thompson that he is somehow alienating New Hampshire voters if he doesn’t show up and give them what amounts to two minutes.

There is almost no value in these debates anyway, the numbers have shown that no body watches them I would be perfectly happy with no primary debates, let the candidates do speeches, public appearances, etc.  People get much more out that when they go listen to candidates directly rather than they sound bite, media driven debates.

Everyone else has jumped into this race way too early so they are criticizing the one candidate who is respecting people and their willingness to tolerate politics

My Response To Mr. Hart

Here is my response to Mr. Justin Hart, a prominent Romney supporter who takes issue with my article- a Conservative Superiority Exclusive!

Mr. Hart,
In response to your post, I have chosen to address your points one at a time.

· First, a flip-flop is where a candidate takes a political stance on one issue, changes his mind and changes his position back to the original. While the case can be made that Romney has changed his position on abortion — this is not a flip-flop (unless he were to change back). In the case of Senator Craig this is certainly not a flip-flop.

You accuse me of calling former Governor Mitt Romney a flip flopper, which I never did. I accused him of pandering, and opportunism. I even mentioned that I had been slow to call out Romney on his perceived flip-flops. You obviously didn’t read close enough to understand my points in the first place which are A) I don’t trust Mitt Romney as a judge of character at this point, B) I think he’s an opportunist, and C) I am not a fan of the CEO mentality.

· Second, calling on the sensitivities of Craig’s spouse and children to condemn Romney’s criticism of Craig is silly and irrelevant. If Romney did anything less than point out Craig’s admitted failings he would run the risk of skirting the issue. Note here, if Craig had the courage to admit the incident in June, there would be no rush to condemnation. I suppose by extension Tommy would recommend that the GOP Senate avoid anything that might offend the already fragile psyche of Craig’s family. I empathize with their troubles but we can do nothing less than condemn Craig for this incident. (personally, I think Craig is flat out lying)

Wrong again, Mitt Romney named Craig to be one of his representative liaisons in the senate. That is a position that is not of little importance. You obviously didn’t read my prior post about Senator Craig, in which I did basically call out the entire GOP leadership in the senate.
You said, “If Craig had admitted in June about this.” Justin, the bottom line is that Craig’s behavior has been public knowledge since 1982, when he was accused of providing cocaine to congressional pages and having sex with them. You obviously didn’t check the source I provided which the link to a broadcast from NBC news tonight report that same year. Justin, that’s not a local broadcast, but NBC news. Like I said originally, if Romney wasn’t aware of this behavior, then he is not the CEO I thought him to be. [Read more]

Fooled Me Once, Mitt, but You Won’t Fool Me Again

Note: As a contributor to more than one site, I am posting this here first to gauge the reaction. This piece is strong in rhetoric, but I feel it’s fair. My reason for debuting it at conservative superiority is that hopefully Brandon won’t mind my rather strong feelings on the subject discussed, and if they are to harsh, he will correct them without killing my account! These are my personal feelings on the matter, and not necessarily views agreed upon by the website administrator.

Fool Me Once? Shame on You Mitt, Because It won’t Happen Again

Today, former governor Mitt Romney might very well have lost my vote. I’m not talking about my primary vote, since I wasn’t going to vote for him there anyhow. I am talking about my general election vote. Why, you ask? Well, let me explain. I don’t think I can hold my nose and presume he is the lesser of two evils anymore. Although I’ve never been of a big fan of the former governor from Massachusetts, I have been slow to publicly accuse him of pandering and flip-flopping in the past. Today, he went beyond mere pandering, and crossed that line. Last night when I was posting on the Larry Craig affair, I even went back and changed my post because someone accused me of using the situation to attack Romney by linking to articles that connected him to Craig. I was, at the time, disturbed by the fact that Romney pulled the youtube video of Craig endorsing him, but I was willing to let that slide. Today’s actions, I can not and will not let go without calling it for what it is.

Now here is my beef (analysis courtesy of Jonathan Martin)…

Craig was one of Romney’s top two backers in the Senate and had worked to round up support there for the former governor. After Craig’s bathroom encounter was reported, the Romney campaign moved to distance itself from the Idahoan, issuing a terse statement last night that it was no longer associated with Craig and that it didn’t want the senator to be a distraction.

But the candidate himself went much further today, seeking to tie Craig’s alleged search for a gay liasion to the broader pattern of corruption permeating Washington in recent years.

“I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton,” Romney told Kudlow, in remarks reported on the network’s First Read blog. “I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we’ll just forgive and forget.”

“And the truth of the matter is, the most important thing we expect from… an elected official is a level of dignity and character that we can point to for our kids and our grandkids, and say, `Hey, someday I hope you grow up and you’re someone like that person.’ And we’ve seen disappointment in the White House, we’ve seen it in the Senate, we’ve seen it in Congress. And frankly, it’s disgusting.”

[Read more]

Poverty rate declines under Republican Administration

For the first time that I can recall the AP is reporting (via FoxNews) that the poverty rate has declined during a Republican Administration. This in itself is news but AP couldn’t stop there, they had to make the obligatory statement that people living without health insurance also increased to 47 million. This is absolute bull but it has been the MSM line for too many years now, it assumes that there are 47 million people out there who would sign up for health insurance if it were free, or provided by the government on the backs of all the taxpayers.

 

There is also this little tid bit in the story: “In 2005, the poverty rate dipped from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.” Of course it wasn’t significant; a republican was in the White House. When will the liberals over at the AP realize that people don’t believe the garbage they print and we largely only use it for its comedic value.

Racists at CNN try to pick new AG

CNN proving again that they are nothing but racist libs basically demanded that President Bush pick former Deputy AG Larry Thompson as Gonzales’ replacement over at the Justice Department. Now I freely admit I know nothing about Larry Thompson, don’t know what he stands for, what he has done and the commentary by Roland Martin at CNN gives us none of those important details. What does Mr. Martin give us you might ask?

“Thompson was also widely respected when he was the top U.S. attorney for the northern District of Georgia. Democrats and Republicans both like him, and that’s a good thing today.

Another plus? He’s African-American.”

Then Mr. Martin goes on to make the token statement that makes liberals feel objective.

“Sure, people should be appointed based on qualifications, but he has that. His race is an added element.”

Now personally, I don’t know Larry Thompson, he’s undoubtedly a good man and Bush may nominate him and if he’s qualified then great. I don’t care what color he is, I don’t care what race he is, and my only question is if he is qualified for the job. Being a certain color or race doesn’t have any bearing on if he is qualified to be Attorney General. Only to liberals and CNN is your color or race a qualification or disqualification as the case may be.

DNC doesn’t want to count Florida votes

Am I the only person that found the need to laugh uncontrollably at the news that the DNC has decided that voters in Florida won’t count for the Democratic convention? I thought the votes should be counted?

Next Page »