So, who is shocked by this? I said this was a huge setup.
The real tragedy is that it may have worked.
So, who is shocked by this? I said this was a huge setup.
The real tragedy is that it may have worked.
Has anyone heard the caterwauling from the democrats about high gas prices lately. Wonder why that is?
Nancy Pelosi, May, 2007:
Hillary Clinton, May, 2008:
From Frank “The Laut” Lautenberg (D-NJ), April, 2008: “This week, the price of oil and gasoline both hit new record highs – almost $120 for a barrel of oil and more than $3.50 a gallon for gas. These out-of-control prices mean that hundreds of thousands of Americans are driving to work and spending too much of their day just earning back the cost of their commute. The American people deserve to know why this happened,” Lautenberg said.
He added, “It’s long past time to change our national priorities. We know there’s little hope that President Bush will suddenly wake up and see the light. But unfortunately, his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand by his side, with the oil and energy companies – for the status quo and against the American people… The best way to ensure that gas prices remain high is to vote Republican this fall.”
Democrats and the Media on high gas prices, 2012:
Evidently the “American People” don’t deserve to know what is now happening.
With gas prices higher than they’ve ever been at this time of the year (doesn’t bode well for the summer) and the dems controlling two thirds of the government, how would Frank have us vote this November?
I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.
Rick Santorum opposed TARP.
He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.
He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.
He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.
He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.
Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.
I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.
And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.
If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t
It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”
For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.
And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.
From Madeleine Morgenstern of The Blaze:
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) had a strong message Saturday for President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Get the hell out.”
West made the comments during a speech at a Palm Beach County GOP event in West Palm Beach.
“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.
The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.
“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”
As the audience cheered and many rose to their feet, West added, “Yeah I said ‘hell.’”
“This is not about 1 percent or 99 percent. This is about 100 percent. It’s about 100 percent America. And I will not stand back and watch anyone defame, degrade or destroy that which my father fought for, my older brother, my father-in-law, myself, my nephew and all my friend still in uniform,” he said.
“I will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it. If that means I’m the No. 1 target for the Democrat Party, all I got to say is one thing: Bring it on, baby.”
For the longest time I called Newt a convenient Conservative, meaning he spoke as a conservative when it was popular & convenient to do so. Whenever he started to get pushback, he was able to eruditely move back toward the mushy middle.
He has fooled me for the last time. I have had enough. I will not support Newt. If he becomes the nominee, of course I will vote for him, holding my nose, once again. I would vote for Spongebob Squarepants rather than Obama.
During last night’s debate Gingrich morphed into a George Bush, compassionate conservative clone. His answer to an illegal immigration question jolted me out of my mesmerized state. I guess I should thank him for snapping me back to reality.
He argued the children of illegal immigrants should not be ripped away from their families. He said that he did not believe Americans wanted to take people who have lived in the country for 25 years and expel them over a crime committed long ago.
He exclaimed that we would have a hard time explaining the uprooting of an entrenched illegal that has been here for 25 years, working, paying taxes, with a family & children in school. He added that he doesn’t see how the republicans, who claim to be the party of the family, could destroy families that have been here for a quarter of a century?
I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining it. It’s quite easy. Here it is.
Mr. or Ms. Illegal; You’ve broken the law for 25 years. Now you’ll finally be punished. It will be your choice to break up your family because of it. Here’s a solution; Take your family with you.
For illegal aliens to live & work in this country, there are only 2 possible scenarios, both unlawful (3, if you count MS 13). You are either committing tax evasion by working here illegally or committing identity theft (fraud) by using someone else’s Social Security number to pay said taxes. Pick your poison.
John Adams said, “ We are a nation of laws, not of men”. Obey the law or change the law. Don’t just ignore the law.
I also don’t wish to hear that Ronald Reagan did it.He screwed up. He believed the lies that were told to him by the democrats about sealing the border, which of course, never happened. Shame on him for believing the dems. He made a mistake.
A few more questions: What if they have been here for less than 25 years? 25 seems like a rather arbitrary number.
What if, after all this time, they still can’t speak English?
When citizens get sentenced to prison, don’t they get ripped from their families? What if the illegal has no family?
In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney said that illegals should be able to sign up for residency & a path to citizenship. Newt didn’t go that far. He was very careful not to mention anything about citizenship, just someway to make them legal.
This is pulled directly from Newts New Hampshire Campaign emailing, The Daily Newt: “Newt does not believe we have a binary choice between forcibly deporting 11 million people or letting them all stay. Newt recognizes that in some cases where people have lived in the United States for 20-25 years, have had children here, have joined churches and civic groups, and have OTHERWISE lived law-abiding lives, we are unlikely to forcibly deport them but find a way to make an exception for such families, and regularize their status without providing citizenship.”
It continues, “One idea for how to handle such humanitarian exceptions proposed by Gingrich is to empower local communities with the authority to allow those with long-established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, kind of like Selective Service System boards, we will send home those without 20-25 years of residency here and family and community ties.”
Yes, and once they somehow become legal or “regularized”; of course it will end there. No one will ever push it to the next logical conclusion, citizenship. Right.
Mr. Speaker; Madame Pelosi is waiting for you to join her on the couch again.