Froma Harrop writes today in the Providence Journal comparing the Lamont-Lieberman primary against the Laffey-Chafee primary, notably saying, “The great difference between Chafee-Laffey and Lieberman-Lamont is the stakes for the national parties.” Harrop then goes on to say that while Chafee may have voted against confirmation for Sam Alito to the SCOTUS, and against Bush’s tax cuts, and even made it a point to not vote for Bush in the 2004 Presidential election, that he’s still worth something to the GOP. We’ve all heard this argument many times before, mainly following the logic that Chafee, while liberal, still fills an “R” seat and thus must be supported. Harrop then goes on to claim that Republicans abuse their moderates in this intellectully vapid rant:

“The (mostly Northern) moderates that Republican leaders ignore at best and abuse at worst are paying the price for their party’s radical politics. The Sunbelt “conservatives” who run Washington should understand that if the Yankee Republicans go down, they go down with them.”

Harrop ignores the fact that “Sunbelt ‘conservatives’” don’t run Washington; rather, the opposite is true. The House (a notably more conservative chamber) recently succombed to pressure and instead of voting to eliminate the estate tax, as it has many times in the past, settled for a compromise Trifecta bill that would decrease the estate tax while increasing the minimum wage by over $2 an hour. Luckily, Democrats in the Senate refused to grant cloture to the bill in opposition to the oh-so-frightening decrease in the estate tax.

What Harrop and others refuse to acknowledge is that so many “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” Republicans from the Northeast aren’t fiscally conservative at all. Lincoln Chafee is a liberal masquerading as a Republican merely because his father was one.

What Harrop and others label as “radical” policies of conservative Republicans are basic beliefs in the free market; this is shown in conservatives’ opposition to excessive private industry regulation, opposition to socialist wage-fixing in the form of the Minimum Wage that would, in fact, hurt the very poor that the policy seeks to help, and conservatives’ belief in the truths of the Laffer Curve: that is, the higher taxes go, the lower productivity and nationwide economical growth get.

These aren’t very difficult concepts to grasp. Rather, liberals such as Chafee and apologists such as Harrop refuse to recognize that such “radical” policies are what the founding of America was all about (free market, less intrusion by the government, etc.). Not to mention, to compare Lieberman, who has been in the center of his Democratic caucus in the Senate in regards to voting with his party, to Chafee, who has long been a thorn in the GOP’s side and even refused to support the Republican President for his reelection is laughable.

Give me a break, guys. Don’t you get it? The “moderates” in the GOP control Congress; that why the past 6 years have frustrated movement conservatives so much. If “sunbelt conservatives” controlled Congress, why would there be such a push to out Chafee? If his voice was minimal, and the effect of his service so minimalized, why would there be so much carping on the right about his service?

Hey Harrop, get this: this “sunbelt conservative” Congress and President has seen an increase in spending unlike that seen in years, even moreso than LBJ’s Great Society programs. So quit being intellectually dishonest and at least acknowledge the real problem with the national Republican party: the unwillingness of leadership to actually adhere to conservative spending virtues. Don’t act like the “sunbelt conservatives” that you love to tar and feather are getting tired of dissidents to their all-encompassing rule in Congress. The very opposite is true: the grassroots, mainstream, movement conservatives are sick of Republicans acting like Democrats-lite in the legislative and executive branches.

Hopefully this is a mark of good things to come, like Santorum finally overtaking Casey in the polls in PA, and of course Laffey beating Chafee in the RI-Senate Republican Primary. Via Crosstabs:

NJ Sen, Fairleigh Dickinson/Public Mind, Kean (R) 43%, Menendez (D-Incumbent) 39%. Poll conducted Aug. 21-27 among 651 registered voters in New Jersey.

The previous iteration of this poll, conducted in July, had Menendez at 43% and Kean at 40% (which I mistakenly read initially as the results this time; mea culpa).

Could the R’s pick up a seat in Jersey? It certainly looks promising, especially after the recent actions by the state government there.

“The GOP Looking For A Few Good Candidates,” The Evening Bulletin:

There is also some talk of the Republican Party cross-endorsing Democratic Congressman and Democratic Party Chairman Bob Brady if he throws his hat in the mayoral ring.

Endorsing Brady? Over my dead body…

The only thing that is keeping Republicans in power is that Democrats offer no viable alternative. Well and their own inability to lead as conservatives. John Kerry is using the first page of the Democratic playbook to accuse Republicans of…wait for it, voter intimidation and suppression.

An e-mail from Kerry will be sent to 100,000 Democratic donors Tuesday asking them to support U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland for governor of Ohio. The bulk of the e-mail criticizes Strickland’s opponent, GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, for his dual role in 2004 as President Bush’s honorary Ohio campaign co-chairman and the state’s top election official.

“He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote,” Kerry says in the e-mail, according to a copy provided in advance.

Kerry, D-Massachusetts, conceded the election when he lost Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. A recount requested by minor-party candidates showed Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. But Kerry’s e-mail says Blackwell “used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights.”

Is there any merit to the allegation?

Multiple lawsuits by outside groups were unsuccessful in challenging Ohio’s 2004 election. One case filed by the League of Women Voters is still in U.S. District Court in Toledo. It claims Ohio’s election system discriminates against minority voters.

OK so Democrats claim that Ken Blackwell, who happens to be black, intimidated black voters despite record turnout of black voters. This same tired argument is pathetic. Sadly Republicans in Washington are so inept at governing as conservatives that Democrats actually have a chance to take back the majority in Congress. What a shame.

UPDATE! William makes a great point in the comments.

The real response to these charges lies with William Anthony. Anthony is the Chairman of the Ohio Franklin County Democratic Party (as you might recall, Howard “The Scream” Dean cited Franklin County as one of the prime areas of supposed discrimination) and the Franklin County Elections Board (Dem hypocrisy alert: they decry Blackwell’s involvement with the Bush campaign but overlook Anthony’s chairmanship of the Dem Party in Franklin County).

Anthony testified before . He had this to say:

“Yes, Mr. Chairman, there were long lines to vote in Franklin County – in all of Franklin County. Some have alleged Republicans at the Board of Elections or Matt Damschroder himself intentionally caused these lines and that those precincts in predominantly African-American and-or Democrat precincts were deliberately targeted for a reduction in voting machines. I can assure you Mr. Chairman, both as a leader in the black community, Chairman of the local Democratic Party, and as Chairman of the Board of Elections that not one of these accusations are true. On Election Day, I spent several hours driving around the county in the rain and observed long lines in every part of the county: urban and suburban neighborhoods, black and white communities, Democrat and Republican precincts. These lines were the result of three things and these three things only. First, nearly one hundred thousand more people voted on Election Day 2004 than during 2000 – this is almost a 25% percent increase over the previous presidential election.”

Dems care about minorities only when they parrot their talking points, but when minorities like William Anthony speaks the truth, they ignore them.

Truth is relative (sarcasm intended).

Congrats to Columbus, Georgia in winning the Little League World Series.

Any questions? Donate to Steve Laffey here.

From Politics1 (4th item)

Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey — the social conservative Republican challenging US Senator Lincoln Chafee in the GOP primary — is under fire for columns he wrote for the student newspaper when he attended Bowdoin College in the early 80’s. In his columns, Laffey made remarks such as: “I have never once seen a happy homosexual” and “I say let’s get those pinkos out of the music business and replace them with some tough conservatives.” The Providence Journal, which reported this story Saturday, received copies of the columns anonymously. When asked if he holds these views, Laffey answered “not now, nor then, or ever.” He explains the columns were “sophomoric political satire.” In other columns, Laffey discusses his conservative political views such as a desire for more individual freedoms, a smaller government, increased free trade, and a flat tax. He even admits in once column that his views made President Reagan “look leftist.” Laffey and Chafee face-off in what is expected to be a very close September 12 primary.

This one should win a Poli

Rick must be laughing right now and thinking “Bobby Casey Jr honestly believed he’d be a US Senator…”

The ad hits home on Casey’s inability to do his job, quite effectively, if I do say so myself.

UPDATE: $225 donated to Laffey, so we’re 22.5% of the way there. DONATE NOW!

There are twenty days left until the Chafee-Laffey primary and the fight is on. We are working hard to make sure Laffey pulls out a historic upset but we need YOUR help. Click on the picture below to donate money to Steve Laffey and help him get out his message. Our goal is to raise $1,000 through SaveTheGOP. Its a small goal, but we have to start somewhere. So donate TODAY!

A good article here highlights what I think may be the new breed of North Eastern Republican, the Ronald Reagan populist. Some of the most traction Laffey has recieved has come from his tirades against corporate special interests living off of taxpayer benefits, even taking on “big oil” companies.

If there is to be longterm viability for Republicans in the North East (NJ, NY, RI, CT, ME, MA, VT - NH doesn’t count so much) then it may very well revolve around just this type of message. We may find out on September 12th. If Laffey can pull off this surprise victory and then give Whitehouse a competitive race (within 5 points) in may signal the true end to NE “Rockefeller Republicans” for the more populist ones.

It will still be a different breed of Republicans then you find in the South (less religious emphasis) or the West (lest libertarian emphasis) but maybe similar to those of the rustbelt states and upper midwest that are seeing resurgence (MI, MN, WI).

NOTE: Rumors are floating that the NRSC just bought another $100,000 of air time against Laffey in RI!!!!! Donate to Laffey here and complain to the NRSC here or even better call them at (202) 675-6000..

I heard rumors he was a RINO, but here is his first ad, and its a good one.

I guess buying a state jet and appointing your daughter to the Senate will get you the boot in Alaska.

Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, stung by accusations of arrogance and stubbornness, lost his bid for a second term Tuesday after polling last in a three-way GOP primary.

Sarah Palin, a former Wasilla mayor, won the Republican nomination for governor after capturing 51 percent of the vote. Former state legislator John Binkley came in second with 30 percent and Murkowski polled just 19 percent.

I am not sure of Sarah Palin’s conservative credentials but the Alaskan GOP was sure of Murkowski’s shortcomings. The BP pipeline shutdown didn’t help either. Palin will face Democrat Tony Knowles, a former two-term governor, in November.

President Bush made some excellent points in today’s press conferance. He struck down countless straw men that the anti-war left love to put up, stating clearly that his administration has not questioned anybody’s patriotism, but reiterating the fact that their worldview is flat-out wrong and misguided. As pissed off as I get over Bush’s domestic policies, it’s statements like these that remind me once again why I am glad that he won reelection in 2004:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier. Do you agree with those in your party, including the Vice President, who have said or implied that Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and then as a message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You’re welcome. What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. That’s what we’re saying. It’s an honest debate and it’s an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in. In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable.

I fully understand that some didn’t think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat — if you think it’s bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region. Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that’s what we’re saying.

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live. It’s like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge’s opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and that’s why we’re appealing it. And I have no — look, I understand how democracy works: quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine; that’s fine, it’s part of the process. But I have every right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn’t see the world the way it is, we’ll continue to point that out to people.

And, therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don’t see the world the way we do. They see, maybe these are kind of isolated incidents. These aren’t isolated incidents, they’re tied together. There is a global war going on. And somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn’t law enforcement, in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We’re facing extremists that believe something, and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work with others to defeat this enemy. That’s the call. And we — in the short run, we’ve got to stop them from attacking us. That’s why I give the Tony Blair government great credit, and their intelligence officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this attack.

But you know something — it’s an amazing town, isn’t it, where they say, on the one hand, you can’t have the tools necessary — we herald the fact that you won’t have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, an attack would occur, and they say, how come you don’t have the tools necessary to defend the people? That’s the way — that’s the way we think around this town.

And so we’ll — Jim, we’ll continue to speak out, in a respectful way, never challenging somebody’s love for America when you criticize their strategies or their point of view. And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they’re trying to say is, we’re not patriotic, simply don’t listen to our words very carefully, do they?

What matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different point of view. And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period. And they’re wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We’re not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we’ll complete the mission in Iraq. I can’t tell you exactly when it’s going to be done, but I do know that it’s important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I’m concerned.

I found that succinct and clear excerpt from the conference at the Corner at NRO. You can see the full transcript of the conference here.

And by the way, I just love how he said, “Fancy digs you got here” when opening the conference. Its so non-Kerryesque that it makes me feel all warm inside just knowing we don’t have somber, depressing, unanimated John Kerry giving these conferences now. If nothing else, at least we can watch them and get a little chuckle.

I have had my differences with Chuck Hagel, but I have to say Amen to this, Chucky. Amen….

Hagel, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Sunday that the GOP today is very different party from the one when he first voted Republican.

“First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta,” said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. “I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It’s not what it used to be. I don’t think it’s the same today.”

Hagel asked: “Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in ‘68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined — fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?”

His frustration does not lead him to think Democrats offer a better alternative. But Hagel wants to see the GOP return to its basic beliefs.

“I think we’ve lost our way,” Hagel said. “And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable.”

Associated Press

Hello everyone,

The election is a mere 82 days away and I need your help in my race up here in Pennsylvania. We’re waging a tough grassroots campaign in a swing district in the Pittsburgh suburbs. You can visit my webpage here. We have already knocked on several thousand doors across the district, but we need your help. This weekend we are going to be doing a massive lit dropping effort so if you live in or around Pittsburgh or can get here for the weekend we NEED your help. Contactme to get involved.

Here’s how you can help:
1. Join Mark’s Army and volunteer your time during the weekends in the run up to the election
2. Donate to the campaign
3. Make phone calls from home in support of Mark, contact Alex to find out how

I need your help to make sure we can send a strong message that enough is enough to politicians everywhere. Thanks.

My one time hope of ousting quite possibly the most incompetent governor in Pennsylvania history has slowly eroded away over the summer. While I have met Lynn Swann in person multiple times and believe him to be a decent man in his intentions, I can no longer deny that his gubernatorial bid has been one of the worst run campaigns I have ever witnessed, even worse than the Mike Fisher gubernatorial campaign of 2002, and that one was pretty bad.

The latest poll, released today, shows Rendell with a commanding 19 point lead over Swann. The Quinnipiac University survey has Rendell with a 57 to 38 percent lead among likely voters.

Rendell, a veteran - and prolific - fund-raiser, is also leading Swann in the money race. The governor has outraised Swann 4-to-1, with $13.7 million in his campaign account as of mid-June to Swann’s $3.2 million.

Philadelphia Inquirer

Swann has put his foot in his mouth many times in the form of television blunders and the hiring of too many stooges who are entrenched in the corrupt GOP in Harrisburg, which has turned many conservatives off to his candidacy. What’s really hurting him more than anything, though, is his campaign’s failure to communicate his vision to the people. A recent poll done by Quinnipiac (I can’t find it now, of course, to link it) found that 38% of voters didn’t know enough about Swann’s positions to form an opinion of him. This is actually an improvement from earlier in the summer when that number was over 50%. I don’t know how his campaign staff can not be attuned to this reality. Swann has a little over two months left and he and his staff better get cracking if they don’t want to suffer an embarrassing loss.

This is the first time in Pennsylvania history that we have an actual shot at knocking off an incumbent governor. It’s never happened before and doesn’t look like it will happen this time either. As I predicted earlier this year, it appears the corrupt State Republican Party has backed the wrong horse.

Praise be to Senator Santorum for standing strong against the embarrassing McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. By opposing any amnesty, no matter how sugar-coated, Santorum has shown his dedication to representing the will of his constituents in this matter. A recent Strategic Vision poll shows that 79% of Pennsylvanians are against granting amnesty to illegal aliens and a whopping 82% of Pennsylvanians favor the building of a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border. Santorum’s challenger, supposed conservative Democrat, Bob Casey Jr, approves of the McCain-Kennedy sham, accenting even more the reason why Pennsylvania voters should choose to stick with Rick in November. Senator Specter and President Bush should also take note of these numbers coming out of the Keystone State.

10. Do you favor granting amnesty to illegal immigrants currently living in the United States?
Yes 14%
No 79%
Undecided 7%

11. Do you favor building a wall at the southern border of the United States to secure the southern border with Mexico?
Yes 82%
No 10%
Undecided 8%

Strategic Vision

An article highlighted on SteynOnTheWorld takes the question even further by asking, “War isn’t the answer so much as a question: What are you? And is what you are worth defending?”

This delves to the heart of the Global War on Terror, the Israeli response to acts of aggression against its sovereignty, and the general worldwide response to terrorist acts. If war must come, and come it will, how are we going to view it? Are we going to turn and run from it, depending on pacifist fantasies to make everything okay, or meet the threat head-on and take care of business?

An important excerpt from the article, giving us an oft-repeated history lesson about fascists from the past and how previous “realists” dealt with them:

Do you know the name Jim Callaghan? No reason why you should. He was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom before Mrs Thatcher. In fact, he’s the reason the Brits wound up electing Mrs Thatcher. Very nice chap. Affable, decent, modest. But he once confided to a friend of mine that he thought Britain’s decline was irreversible and that the government’s job was to manage it as gracefully as possible. He wasn’t alone in this: an entire generation of Britain’s political class, on both sides of the aisle, felt much the same way. So their instinct, when confronted with a crisis, was to “manage” it rather than solve it.

This method of thinking is precisely the problem with the so-called “strategies” and “diplomatic solutions” espoused by the Ned Lamonts and John Kerrys of today’s world. The question with them isn’t whether we are at war or not; rather, the question to them is how we can manage an unstoppable, unimaginable, violent threat to our civilization - and their answer is all too often to stay cautious, to appease those who want to hurt civilized peoples, and to use a “carrot and a stick” to attempt to reason with people such as the dictator of Iran who call for the elimination of Israel yet is considered a less threat than George W. Bush by leftists who insist that there is a “middle ground” between appeasement and absolute destruction of terrorist cells. The very people who insist that there is no “global war on terror,” in my belief, are those who in their hearts know that such a war is in fact the reality, yet insist upon denying it repeatedly to hedge their bets for either one of two reasons: 1) they have such an ingrained “blame America first” dogma that they subconsciously believe the terrorists have a just cause to fight for, or 2) are scared to death of the possibilities that such a war presents and would rather go the appeasement route in order to better serve mankind (a theory that is grossly miscalculated - see Chamberlain, Neville).

“Cowboy Diplomacy,” for all its nuanced guffaws and laughs around a beer the “peace at any price” crowd may have, is the only way to deal with this threat. These people (people is a loose term; a better term would be “barbarians” or “genocidal maniacs”) will not negotiate. Sorry to spill the beans, Kerry, Lamont, et al, but there is no other way than complete and utter destruction of those who want to establish a fascist Islamic Caliphate. You can make all the statements you want decrying “preemptive warfare”; the point remains that this war is here, whether you like it or not, and only a hawkish foreign policy view is going to handle it appropriately to protect our way of life.

There is no negotiating with a breed of animals who insist upon the total genocide of a civilization or a race. In the end, the only way is to meet them, as they wish, on the battlefield. Initally, the only way to deal with them is to either convert them to a sane way of thinking, or to do as they desire and fight them and defeat them. It has been shown time and time again that the al Qaida types, the Taliban types, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, refuse to be converted. They have strayed so far down their delusional path that there is no return. They must be defeated.

God Bless our troops, and God Bless the mission that they are set out to do.

I’m sure my fellow Georgia Tech Jackets are familiar with the lawsuit filed by Tech CR Chair Ruth Malhotra against Tech this year concerning campus speech codes. Well, a judge has ordered Tech to change its speech codes for housing. While the changes do not affect the entire campus, they are a significant victory against speech censorship that is common at many universities today.

Peach Pundit has the story.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution portrays the situation in a very different light, though (go figure). Go to the Peach Pundit story for an excerpt, as the AJC site requires registration. (Unless you want to use BugMeNot)

Show your disdain by participating in the 28th Annual Mooning of Amtrak.

H/T: Club for Growth