Sha-na-na-na!  Sha-na-na-na!  Hey Hey-ey.  Good bye!

July 29 (Bloomberg) — Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington on charges of hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts he received.

Stevens, 84, was charged with seven counts of making false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms from 1999 to 2006 about gifts and renovations on his house.

Stevens’s indictment boosts Democratic chances of winning an Alaska Senate seat for the first time in almost three decades, if he remains a candidate. “If Stevens is on the ballot I would expect Democrats to win the seat,” said Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report.

Bloomberg

This is another tumor about to excised from the body of the GOP.  Gonzales is correct, though.  If Stevens remains on the ticket we will definitely lose this seat so it is imperative that the Republican establishment force this man off the ticket if he will not go willingly.

This has been crossposted at Carolina Politics Online

South Carolina Republicans aren’t planning a statewide meeting to get input into their national party platform, but the party still plans to welcome all suggestions submitted online.

The GOP is inviting people to create an account on the Web site, www.GOPPlatform2008.com, where they can then participate in polls and submit platform ideas.

State GOP Chairman Katon Dawson said the Internet outreach will improve the transparency of the platform process, and he hopes that it will give more people a sense that they own it.

The Post and Courier

They still don’t know???  For God’s sake conservatives have only been screaming about it for how many years now.  They want low taxes, low government spending, a truly free market (not this federally backed crap we have now that is failing), individual responsibility and personal freedom and liberty!  Basically, everything that neither the national party nor the South Carolina Republican Party stands for now, but lies to voters claiming they do!  The Republican Party is obviously run by blind and deaf gimps because this message has been out there from the grassroots for a hell of a long time.  It’s nothing new and the party clearly isn’t listening or simply doesn’t care because just yesterday 21 Republicans in the U.S. Senate and over 100 Republicans in the House voted against Bush’s veto of the Medicare bill that would have cut doctor’s payments with our tax dollars by 10%.  Medicare and Social Security are the two biggest entitlements that are going to bankrupt this country.

I’ve been getting increasingly sick of John Warner.  He really screwed the pooch when he co-wrote that abominable Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act that would have bankrupted our economy and threw millions of Americans into the poor house within the next 20 years.  Now he wants to bring back a national speed limit.

WASHINGTON — An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

The Dallas Morning News

The 55MPH speed limit didn’t stop me from driving 80MPH then and it won’t stop me from doing it now if this tard would actually get it reinstated.  His idea has already gone over like a ton of bricks with the American people.  A 55MPH speed limit is not practical and just like before, everyone will ignore it anyway.  All it will do is cost more time and money in enforcement and unnecessary fines.

John Warner has six months left in office.  He needs to coast through them and just sit back, relax, and shut his mouth.

That’s all I have to say about that.

Finally! I’ve been waiting for these. The annual ratings of the American Conservative Union are out for 2007. Who stood by principle? Who didn’t? Who may as well just become a Democrat? All that and more will be covered. Read on.

Starting with the Senate, there are five Republican Senators who scored a perfect 100 for 2007. I doubt any of these names will surprise you:

• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

The lowest scoring Republican should also be of no surprise. That is Maine Senator Olympia Snowe who scored a 28. She actually scored lower than two Democrats. The highest scoring Democrat has changed this year. In years past it has always been Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) but he was beaten this year by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who scored a 40. John McCain got an 80 for last year. And these so called moderate Democrats have turned out to be not so moderate. Bob Casey (D-PA) showed us how conservative he was with a rating of 8. John Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA) both scored a 16. Evan Bayh (D-IN) got a 12. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) also got an 8.

Presumptive Democrat Presidential nominee Barack Obama (D-IL) scored a 7 and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) scored a big fat ZERO.

In the House there were lots of hundreds! I guess being in the minority makes principle a priority again.

• Trent Franks (R-AZ-02)
• John Shadegg (R-AZ-03)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ-06)
• John Doolittle (R-CA-04)
• George Radanovich (R-CA-19)
• Devin Nunes (R-CA-21)
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-22)
• Ed Royce (R-CA-40)
• Gary Miller (R-CA-42)
• Duncan Hunter (R-CA-52)
• Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO-04)
• Doug Lamborn (R-CO-05)
• Tom Tancredo (R-CO-06)
• John Mica (R-FL-07)
• LynnWestmoreland (R-GA-03)
• Tom Price (R-GA-06)
• John Linder (R-GA-07)
• Nathan Deal (R-GA-09)
• Paul Broun (R-GA-10)
• Phil Gingrey (R-GA-11)
• Bill Sali (R-ID-01)
• Dennis Hastert (R-IL-14)
• Donald Manzullo (R-IL-16)
• Steve King (R-IA-05)
• Richard Baker (R-LA-06)
• Charles Boustany (R-LA-07)
• Tim Walberg (R-MI-07)
• Mike Rogers (R-MI-08)
• John Kline (R-MN-02)
• Michelle Bachmann (R-MN-06)
• Todd Akin (R-MO-02)
• ScottGarrett (R-NJ-05)
• Virginia Foxx (R-NC-05)
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC-10)
• Steve Chabot (R-OH-01)
• Jim Jordan (R-OH-04)
• Robert Latta (R-OH-05)
• John Boehner (R-OH-08)
• John Sullivan (R-OK-01)
• Frank Lucas (R-OK-03)
• Tom Cole (R-OK-04)
• Mary Fallin (R-OK-05)
• Joe Pitts (R-PA-16)
• Gresham Barrett (R-SC-03)
• David Davis (R-TN-01)
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-07)
• Louis Gohmert (R-TX-01)
• Sam Johnson (R-TX-03)
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX-05)
• John Culberson (R-TX-07)
• Kevin Brady (R-TX-08)
• Mac Thornberry (R-TX-13)
• Randy Neugebauer (R-TX-19)
• Michael Burgess (R-TX-26)
• John Carter (R-TX-31)
• Rob Bishop (R-UT-01)
• Robert Wittman (R-VA-01)
• Thelma Drake (R-VA-01)
• Eric Cantor (R-VA-07)
• Doc Hastings (R-WA-04)
• Cathy McMorris (R-WA-05)
• Barbara Cubin (R-WY-AL)

The lowest scoring RINOs were Mike Castle (R-DE-AL) and Chris Shays (R-CT-04) both with a score of 20. The highest scoring Democrat was Gene Taylor (D-MS-04) with a score of 72. I also took interest in some of these supposed “conservative” Democrats that picked up many Republican seats in 2006. Heath Shuler (D-NC-11) got a 44. Nick Lampson (D-TX-22) scored a 20. Tim Mahoney (D-FL-16) scored a 16. Nancy Boyda (D-KS-02) got a 28. Joe Donnelly (IN-02) got a 44.

Fingerprints are considered to be among the most personal of information, and fingerprint databases created and proposed in the name of national security have generated much debate. Recently, “Server in the Sky” — a proposed international database of the fingerprints of suspected criminals and terrorists to be shared among the U.S., U.K. and Canada — has ignited a firestorm of controversy. As have cavalier comments by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that fingerprints aren’t “personal data.”

Yet earlier this week, a measure creating a federal fingerprint registry totally unrelated to national security passed a U.S. Senate committee almost without notice. The legislation would require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries — and not suspected of anything — to send their prints to the feds. The database and fingerprint mandates were tucked into housing and foreclosure assistance bills that on Tuesday passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 19-2.

The measure the committee passed states that “an indvidual may not engage in the business of a loan originator without first … obtaining a unique identifier.” To obtain this “identifier,” an individual is requiredto “furnish” to the newly created Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry “information concerning the applicant’s identity, including fingerprints for submission” to the FBI and other government agencies.

The fingerprint provisions are contained in a “manager’s amendment” that was hammered out by committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn, and Ranking Member Richard Shelby, R-Ala., on Monday and attached the next day to a broader housing bailout bill that had been scheduled for a comittee vote. That bill, the “Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,” expands the lending authority of the Federal Housing Administration and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance the mortgages of troubled borrowers and banks.

The amendment adopted the fingerprint provisions in a section called the “S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act.” The fingerprints will be part of what the amendment calls “a comprehensive licensing and supervisory database.”

And the database would cover a broad swath of individuals involved with mortgage lending. The amendment defines “loan originator” as anyone who “takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain.” It states that even real estate brokers would be covered if they receive any compensation from lenders or mortgage brokers. Since many jobs in both real estate and mortgage lending are part-time and seasonal, even some of the most minor players in the mortgage market may have to submit their prints.

Justifications listed in the bill for this database include “increased accountability and tracking of loan originators,” “enhance[d] consumer protection,” and “facilitat[ing] responsible behavior in the subprime mortgage market.”

Open Market

Here we go with another attack on our privacy.  I guess Real ID isn’t enough for Shelby, he has to sit down with Chris Dodd and plot some more invasions into our lives.  Why don’t they just get it done with and print the bar codes on our foreheads already?

They mask this onslaught of our personal liberty as S.A.F.E.  How exactly is storing the fingerprints of employees who work with mortgages going to keep us safe?  In what way is that possible?  Is it going to stop someone from writing a bad mortgage?  Will having someone’s fingerprints on file prevent another subprime housing crisis?  Of course not.  It’s like asking for a DNA swab in order to get your driver’s license.  There is no relevancy.  I’m also curious as to how many degrees this requirement would extend.  I work for a bank even though my job has nothing to do with finance.  Does that mean they want my fingerprints too just because I work there?  That’ll be the day.

And what of Chertoff’s comments?  Fingerprints aren’t personal data?  Last time I checked everyone’s fingerprints were unique.  It doesn’t get more personal than that.  Republicans have really let the Bush Administration slide on this kind of stuff.  This has been one of the most secretive administrations in recent memory and this constant push for more and more government authority over us in the faux name of security is getting ever so frightening.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Republican Senator Ted Stevens is trailing by two percentage points in his bid for re-election. Stevens attracts 45% of the vote while Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) earns 47%. A month ago, it was Stevens with 46% support and Begich at 45%.

Rasmussen Reports

What a greedy old bastard this guy is.  Stevens is 84 years old and embroiled in scandal and trailing his Democratic opponent in a safe Republican state.  But does he retire?  No, it’s all about him.  To hell with the party.

Toomey’s Senate bid would be a rerun of his 2004 Republican primary challenge to incumbent Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, to whom he lost narrowly, 50.8 percent to 49.2 percent. In that campaign, Toomey characterized Specter as a free spender but came up short as the incumbent received endorsements from President Bush, then near the height of his popularity, and then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a beloved figure among social conservatives. In a recent phone interview, Toomey said: “I have not made a decision, but it is something I intend to give very serous thought to after the election this year.” Toomey is keeping his political options open, as he is also considering a 2010 gubernatorial bid.

The Politico

That 2004 primary was one of the most depressing nights of my life.  To come all that way and lose by such a slim margin.

Unless Specter retires I find it unlikely that Toomey will run for the U.S. Senate again. I’m more inclined to see him run for governor of Pennsylvania, which the state will sorely need after eight years of Ed Rendell. Specter will be 80 years old in 2010 and he did claim in 2004 that this would be his last term, but I never believed that and as long as he is still in good health you can count on Snarlin’ Arlen to make another go for it.

Republicans are feeling the heat from Democrats on the Hill and their constituents back home. Caving in to the pressure Senator Isackson (R - GA) is proposing a one time tax credit for new home buyers and homes in foreclosure.

Senator Isakson has introduced legislation (S. 2566) that would provide buyers of either a newly constructed house or one that is in foreclosure or default with a one-time, $15,000 refundable tax credit. The bill would apply to purchases made between February 28, 2008, and March 1, 2009. To qualify, newly constructed houses would have to have been built on or before September 30, 2007. Owner-occupied structures in default or foreclosure must have been in default prior to March 1, 2008, even though the actual sale would take place after that date, although there is no such restriction on foreclosed structures owned by a mortgage company or its agent.

Why is this a bad idea?

The proposal suffers from the following weaknesses:

* As a general principle, an explicit federal subsidy for the purchase of certain homes is both bad tax policy and bad housing policy.

* This subsidy rewards those who have been the most irresponsible. It would benefit homeowners at any income level who either irresponsibly borrowed all of their home equity or took out a loan that they could not repay but hoped to profit from by reselling the property in a rising market. However, those who have made the effort to pay their mortgages on time would not be assisted at all, regardless of their financial circumstances.

* Homebuilders who ignored signs that the market was slowing and built houses in hopes of finding a buyer would get assistance in selling houses that should not have been built in the first place.

* Responsible homeowners who must move for a new job or for family reasons would suffer because the sale of their homes would not qualify for a tax credit, while those of their less responsible neighbors would qualify for one. The potential plight of responsible homeowners could be cited as a reason to expand this credit to all home sales, thus increasing the cost to all taxpayers.

* Since the credit is refunded only after the end of the next taxable year, the money would not be available at the time of purchase. In practice, this limits its effect to those buyers who have the money to make a purchase up front; i.e., upper-income homebuyers.

* By applying the credit only to homeowners in default before March 1, 2008, the bill leaves out those homeowners whose mortgage interest rate will reset after that date. This provision may be intended to reduce incentives for default, but it is so poorly written that it essentially rewards those who were irresponsible early while excluding those who were victims of circumstance after that date.

The natural urge is do something, doesn’t matter what that something is just do something so the people back home think you are doing something. That was a lot of somethings. My point is that Republicans need to stand on their conservative principles and not pass a bill just to pass a bill. If they are going to give a tax credit they need to give it across the board and not restrict it as Senator Isakson has done.

JUNEAU — Some top Republican legislators, including the speaker of the House, say Sean Parnell should resign as lieutenant governor to campaign for Congress, but Parnell says he has no intention of quitting.

Republican Parnell dropped a major surprise Friday at the state GOP convention in Anchorage when he announced he would challenge U.S. Rep. Don Young. Young, also a Republican, has held his congressional seat since 1973.

Anchorage Daily News

As was pointed out to us by newred, Alaska’s Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell, has thrown his hat in the ring to try and take down Congressman Don Young in the Republican Primary. This is good news for conservatives. In my opinion, the Alaskan delegation to Washington is the most disappointing of them all. Alaska is a solid Republican state. Democrats can certainly win under the right circumstances and may very well prevail this year if Parnell does not, but it is solid enough for the GOP that anything less than two Reagan conservatives in the Senate and one in the House is unacceptable. For years we’ve been zero for three on that front.

Young, Stevens, and the Murkowskis have represented everything that is wrong with today’s Republican party. They have no principle to stand on. They are corrupt, engage in political favoritism, and care of nothing more than enriching themselves at the taxpayer’s expense. There have been past challenges against some of them that have not succeeded, but Governor Sarah Palin gave us hope in 2006 when she knocked off former Governor Frank Murkowski in the primary election. Murkowski’s approval ratings were in the toilet and had Palin not mounted a winning campaign the Democrats would have likely taken the governorship from us, similar to Fletcher’s demise in Kentucky this past year.

With Palin’s approval ratings in the 80 percentile, which is just unbelievable, I think Parnell has a better than average chance at beating Young. My only concern is that he is not the only Republican challenger so there is fear of the anti-Young vote being diluted between him and the other challenger, State Senator Gabrielle LeDoux (R-Kodiak). If Young eeks through then this race moves from likely Republican to toss up in November as Young’s disapproval rating is over 50%. Same goes with his porker-in-crime, Ted Stevens, who is also up for reelection in the U.S. Senate and facing an investigation by the FBI.

The problem with career politicians like Young and Stevens is that they don’t know when it’s time to quit. It’s not about the good of the country or the good of the Republican Party; it’s all about them. The Republican establishment cannot be counted on to remedy the situation either. The GOP powers that be seem to prefer shooting themselves in the foot and losing seats than sending ripples through the old boys club, as we saw two weeks ago in Illinois. It’s up to us on the ground to force the changes.

On a related note, a bid to oust the Alaskan Republican Chairman narrowly failed last night by a vote of 167 to 133. The reform movement is definitely present, but last night’s vote shows there are still obstacles in our way.

First there was the alcohol sales on Sunday debate, in which a bill to allow local communities to vote on the matter was gaining traction in the GA General Assembly only to be put to death by Gov. Perdue’s (a supposed Republican) announcement that he’d veto the bill if it reached him.

Now, the Guv decided to show us again his love of big government by opposing tax cuts for Georgians:

“I think the people of Georgia get the joke,” said Gov. Sonny Perdue, ridiculing a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Georgia House of Representatives 166-5 last week to virtually eliminate the property tax on personal cars, trucks and motorcycles.

The joke? What joke? An aside, my source on this is Jim Wooten, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s token conservative writer, and he’s right on the money (pun intended, ha):

While there’s a legitimate debate to be had about how much of our money government “needs,” it’s clear that, like the Democrats before them, Republicans will find a worthy need for every dollar available. They don’t have the courage to accept for themselves the cap on spending that many legislators would impose as spending discipline on local governments. The only real option then is to fund essential needs — and then return the excess collections.

The line of money-seekers is endless when there’s money on the table. To force priorities, limit collections. The House of Representatives, with only five dissenting votes, did that this week. No joke.

Right on, Mr. Wooten.

CHESTERTOWN, Md. (WBOC/AP)- Incumbent Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest was defeated Tuesday by state Senator Andy Harris, a year after Gilchrest was one of two Republicans in Congress to vote for a withdrawal timeline in Iraq.

Gilchrest voted to go to war in Iraq but later said he regretted the decision and that President Bush bungled the war.

Harris called Gilchrest too liberal.

Gilchrest called the campaign the most intense of his political career.

He had Republican challengers just a few months after being inaugurated into his ninth term.

After hearing that he had lost, Gilchrest said he needs time to digest the news and determine how he feels about it.

WBOC-TV

I don’t know how Gilchrest feels but I feel pretty darn great!  Gilchrest was like the Lincoln Chafee of the House.  Harris was backed by the Club for Growth and will not disappoint.

With the Super Bowl fast approaching, a senior Republican senator says he wants the NFL to explain why it destroyed evidence of the New England Patriots cheating scandal.

“I am very concerned about the underlying facts on the taping, the reasons for the judgment on the limited penalties and, most of all, on the inexplicable destruction of the tapes,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., in a Thursday letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

ESPN

I am very concerned about the fact that Arlen Specter thinks this is any of his or the government’s business.

This article came out early last year, but it bears reminding: Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP.

I’m not quoting any of it; read any or all of it as you please.

It does come down to a he said/she said situation, but the fact that there is enough substance to merit even writing an article like this about McCain in a respected newspaper is damning. This is the guy who is likely to be the Republican nominee for President? Spare me.

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) clashed late last year during a closed-door luncheon as they debated whether Republicans should take a strong stand against earmarking.

DeMint, the leader of the conservative Steering Committee, called for a renewed emphasis to rein in pet projects, angering Stevens, the notorious earmarker and senior appropriator from Alaska.

At the November meeting of DeMint’s committee, a fuming Stevens called on former Steering Committee heads to convene an unusual meeting to discuss the panel’s future steps, according to one person knowledgeable of the situation.

Calling for a meeting was an “obvious message” by Stevens that he wanted DeMint removed as chairman because of the junior conservative’s relentless push against earmarks, the source said, asking for anonymity because the talks generally occur in confidence.

“He certainly spoke up in some of our Steering Committee lunches and expressed his displeasure,” DeMint said in a recent interview.

“I’ve made a lot of enemies within my own party, but I think some of these folks have the responsibility to show what it means to be a Republican,” said DeMint.

Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Stevens, said his boss was “part of a group of several senators who were simply discussing the general management of the Steering Committee.”

Saunders said Stevens “made no such statement” about DeMint’s ouster, and DeMint could not recall whether the Alaskan sought to remove him from the post. Steering Committee staff declined to comment.

The Hill

If the Republicans really wanted to take back Congress this is how they could do it.  They could make a pledge to completely eliminate earmarks 100%.  Not a single one of them would request another.  They’d prove to the American people that they are going to walk the walk.  This won’t happen, of course, because there are too many in the party more concerned about buying votes for their reelection and you have senile old coots like Ted Stevens who get high off of the power they wield with our tax dollars.   Fortunately, I think 2008 will be the last we see of Ted Stevens.  He’s either going to jail or he is going to be defeated for reelection.

Even though the earmark push faces resistance within the GOP, DeMint and other conservatives say it would be wildly popular with the public and bring the party back to its core roots of fiscal conservatism.

“I think earmarks have basically destroyed the Republican Party,” DeMint said.

DeMint makes me proud to say I live in South Carolina.

As RedState puts it, “The Craptacular Capitulation of a Lame Duck.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush is unlikely to defy Congress on spending billions of dollars earmarked for pet projects, but he will probably insist that lawmakers provide more justification for such earmarks in the future, administration officials said Monday. (story here)

Translation: “Don’t do it again! But I’m going to let you do it just this once…” (Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle snicker with glee)

Fiscal conservatives in Congress and budget watchdogs have been urging Mr. Bush to issue an executive order instructing agencies to disregard the many earmarks listed just in committee reports, not in the text of legislation.

More than 90 percent of earmarks are specified that way, not actually included in the texts. White House officials say such earmarks are not legally binding on the president.

Emphasis mine. The next logical step for a real conservative President would be to gut these non-binding earmarks, right? Well, yeah, but Bush isn’t exactly a conservative President.

Congressional leaders of both parties, who are scheduled to meet on Tuesday with the president, said Mr. Bush would provoke a huge outcry on Capitol Hill if he ignored those earmarks.

Waaaaah! We want our pork and we want it now!

Lawmakers, including the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, have cautioned the White House that a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. Bush’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues, including efforts to revive the economy.

Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks.

Again, all emphases are mine. Heaven forbid a Democratic president striking favors earmarks from a bill! Why? Well, because there’s an “R” next to that legislator’s name!

So it goes. Fiscal conservatism, who needs it?

Fred Thompson was the ONLY candidate (well, serious candidate, Ron Paul did as well) to say outright that he would issue the executive order against these “air-dropped” earmarks.

Ridiculousness like this is why people like me aren’t taking the “but you’ll let Hillary win!!” line when it comes to the “Republican” candidates.

What’s the difference, honestly?

Sen. McCain will interfere in the market (and give taxpayer dollars to people who lose manufacturing jobs - so why would they look for another one?), be against tax reform, embrace Al Gore’s Global Warming Government Expansionist argument, and appoint judges who will side with him on McCain-Feingold - meaning not judges like Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas. He’ll close Guantanamo Bay and argue that intense interrogation of terrorists to save American lives is actually “torture.” Not to mention, he has a temper and a vindictiveness similar to that of the Clintons.

Gov. Romney still supports the federal “assault weapons” ban. He’s an advocate of government mandates for healthcare (see RomneyCare). He recently said he was disappointed that there wasn’t a federal program to help Detroit automakers, and basically pledged to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to “save” Detroit if he becomes President. Michigan voted for him, so they will expect results. He’s a friend of Ted Kennedy. I haven’t even touched his convenient “conversion” to social conservatism - he turns me off enough today with stuff he’s saying now, so his “change of heart” is just icing on the cake.

Huckabee? Do I really have to go to the John Edwards wannabe? Yeah, he’ll be a real strong advocate for fiscal conservatism and limited government, let me tell ya! (snark off). Not to mention he’s one of the most immature, unserious candidates on either side of the race.

If we’re going to give this country to statists, by all means do it under the Democratic banner, not the Republican one.

UPDATE: Stop The ACLU has more of this line of thinking, referencing Stephen Bainbridge and even Rush Limbaugh.

UPDATE II: The Club for Growth has more details on the fallout from this move by the Bush Administration, and a round-up of conservative response around the blogosphere and in the media.

UPDATE III: Michelle Malkin has an excellent round-up of McCain’s ridiculous position on illegal immigration, which I failed to mention originally.

Yes, you read that headline right, it’s true:

The news broke late last night that the Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in the DC Gun Ban case, asking that the Supreme Court overturn the Court of Appeals decision striking down the DC Gun Ban. This is a move of breathtaking idiocy that may have already cost us the election.

Bill Quick responds in his typical take-no-prisoners approach:

We have the first chance in almost eight decades to see the Second finally, legally established an an individual right (and all that potentially entails for liberty) and the farking George W. Bush compassionate conservative administration steps in and stabs us in the back!!!.

This is the same GWB who some time ago announced he would sign a renewal of the assault weapons ban if such landed on his desk.

I’ve had it. We simply can’t trust these bastards. Bush is, of course, a long-established disgrace to the conservative wing of the GOP, and is, in fact, no conservative at all. He is, in fact, of the same ilk as John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani, so if any of these men are elected and later damage the cause of conservatism in the US, conservative voters have only themselves to blame, as I blame myself for voting for GWB, even when it was obvious what he was (no conservative) to those who cared to actually look at his record and his own statements.

I think Mr. Quick sized up the situation well. The Washington, D.C. handgun ban was struck down by an appeals court last March, in a striking victory for citizens. The Supreme Court has chosen to hear the case, meaning either the justices are thinking of either overturning the appeals court or, more likely, setting a firm pro-gun rights precedent by upholding it. It will come down to what side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy wakes up on that morning.

This is another sad departure from conservatism from the Bush Administration, and is sure to tick plenty of people off. Conservative voters need to be mindful of this when choosing their Presidential nominee. You know where I stand, and here’s what Fred has to say on the 2nd Amendment:

I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:

• Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
• Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

By the way, even the New York Times is starting to note what blogs have been saying for days, that Thompson’s debate in the most recent debate was electric and having real effects on South Carolina voters, most of whom were undecided before the debate.

Daily Pundit points out the ‘treachery’ of the GOP in the Senate in this recent unsurprising move.

In a quiet act of defiance, the Senate approved a $555 billion omnibus spending bill that removed legal requirements mandating the federal government fund 854 miles of a double layer border fence spanning America’s southwestern border.
The funding requirement was codified into law when Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Secure Fence Act (SFA) in 2006.
When the spending bill, which combines appropriations for a number of federal agencies, reached the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) attached S.Amdt. 2466 to the measure in order to silently gut the SFA’s spending requirement.

GOP Establishment to constituents, and voters in general: screw you, we’re not building your fence or enforcing the immigration laws like we pledged we’d do. We’re still going to attempt a run-around to bypass the American people and pass a “comprehensive” immigration bill, full of amnesty and other goodies for people who aren’t in the country legally. We indeed deserve the label “The Stupid Party,” because we repeatedly bash our heads into the wall, whining like children when our constituents and the American people demand results against illegal immigration.

I hope everyone possible sees this today and over the primary season. This is a pretty good slap-in-the-face reminder of who to avoid nominating (Giuliani is all about sanctuary cities, Huckabee wanted to give scholarships to illegals and didn’t participate in rooting out illegals in his state, Romney favored the McCain-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty before opposing it once voters started paying attention, and McCain is, of course, McCain).

In all likelihood, GOP primary voters/caucus goers will ignore this and pick someone who will continue the legacy of “compassionate conservativism.” Because hey, a nation with expanding government but apparently no immigration law is great!

Fred Thompson all the way. Ignore the media who has been against his campaign from the start, ignore the pundits who are apparently all offended that Thompson chose to jump in the race in September (John Kerry jumped in during October, but I digress), and ignore anybody who buys into the “he’s lazy!” bullcrap. For once we have a candidate who is truly interested in holding the office not for the prestige and power, but because he has the right ideas about leading the country and has the desire to serve his country in this capacity. He’s chosen to campaign in his own way, dissing moderators with ridiculous requests, then yesterday giving an answer on global warming that is refreshingly un-AlGoreistic (but Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani have all bought into the Inconvenient Scam), and putting out real proposals that make conservatives swoon, all the while rejecting soundbite-driven campaigning.

The annual Repork Cards have been released by the Club for Growth. The scores are based on 50 anti-pork amendment introduced in the House by John Cambpell (R-CA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). Only one amendment actually passed the House out of the 50. 16 Republicans scored a 100%:

24 Republicans scored a 0%. They did not vote for a single pork stripping amendment.

In the Senate the score was based on 15 pork stripping amendments introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (OK) and Jim DeMint (SC). Four Republicans scored a 100% (McCain only cast a vote on two of the amendments):

It was a four way tie for the lowest scoring Republican(s):

The average scores for Republicans were 59% in the Senate and 43% in the House, which are just absolutely pitiful.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), in the midst of a fierce Republican primary fight to hold onto his Eastern Shore-based seat, has also hit rock-bottom with many of his Republican constituents, according to a newly released poll.

The poll, commissioned by state Sen. EJ Pipkin’s campaign, shows 60 percent of likely Republican voters having a negative opinion of the nine-term congressman. That’s nearly doubly his approval rating of 36 percent. Only 29 percent of voters said they would definitely reelect Gilchrest, a dangerously low number.

And Gilchrest only receives 33 percent of the vote against two well-financed primary challengers. Pipkin and conservative state senator Andrew Harris each received 27 percent of the vote in the head-to-head matchup.

The poll, conducted between Dec. 18-19, surveyed 300 likely Republican primary voters in the district and has a 5.7 percent margin of error. It was conducted by the GOP polling firm, McLaughlin and Associates.

Gilchrest, known for his moderate voting record, has been taking increasing flak from conservatives, especially over his position on the Iraq war. He was one of only two Republicans who voted for Democratic-sponsored legislation (that President Bush vetoed) calling for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as early as last fall.

He also has been slammed by the anti-tax Club for Growth for supporting pork-barrel spending in television ads airing throughout the district.

The Politico

I have to wonder what Gilchrest thinks of these poll results.  Is he actually surprised by it?  People don’t elect Republicans to vote like Democrats, so this shouldn’t be shocking to anyone.  He can still survive the primary challenge, though, because he has two opponents not one, which makes it very difficult to oust him.