Election 2012

Race Baiting Al Sharpton and the Boobs at MSNBC who Eat It Up

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a great example of how the Left reacts to any innocuous statement about something from a conservative:

NewsBusters puts to rest this crazy race-bating soooo common from the Democrats that really end up destroying language. All “racist” means any longer is that one disagrees with a Democrat. Santorum was speaking to the following issues:

He was talking about Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance, and it was in response to the Ryan budget. And he said this, talking about these three programs: He said, “America is a better country because of these programs. I will go a one step further: America is a great country because of these programs.” Ladies and gentlemen, America was a great country before 1965.

Did this have anything to do with the Voting Rights Act? Or Brown v. Board of Education? Or race?

Not at all, but that’s the impression created by Sharpton and Press.

…(read more)…

Michael Medved Discusses Some Presidential Contender Announcements

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is the first chance Medved has had to really comment on some of the major announcements for candidacy of the Repubs hopping in the race. I have the announcements here:

Tim Pawlenty ~ religiopoliticaltalk.com/​2011/​05/​tim-pawlenty-announces/​

Herman Cain ~ religiopoliticaltalk.com/​2011/​05/​hermandark-horsecain-announces/​

Newt Gingrich ~ religiopoliticaltalk.com/​2011/​05/​newt-gingrich-announces/​

Mitch Daniels Would Choose Condi for his VP Choice (Plus: Likes Bourbon)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Some great posts from Libertarian Republican:

Mitch Daniels met with a group of young Republicans at a local bar in Indiana last week to chat over his potential presidential bid.

From Real Clear Politics, “Getting to Yes for Mitch and Cheri Daniels” May 13:

they asked him who he might like to tap as his vice presidential nominee if he runs.

Hypothetically, he told them, he’d like to pick Condoleezza Rice.

In a 2010 interview with Christianity Today (via kylemcdainell.com), the former Secretary of State was asked about her position on social matters:

I’m generally pretty libertarian in these matters, because Americans are quite good, actually, at finding a way to deal with these extremely divisive and difficult moral issues. And it’s not that I’m a relativist. It’s not that I believe everybody has their own morality. But I do understand that there are different ways of thinking about how these issues are going to play out in people’s lives, and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in governing their own lives. Sometimes when things are out of whack the government has no choice but to step in. But I’m wary of the government stepping in to too many issues

[….] and this:

Meeting with a group of young Republicans to discuss his possible presidential bid on Thursday. As relayed by RCP:

“We are a party of ideas, but more importantly a party that acts on ideas,” he said, adding that in the Hoosier State, there were no forgotten towns or inner cities that are too bleak.

He has obviously given some thought to the area beyond Indiana’s borders, too.

Daniels accepted an invitation from those 55 students to meet at a spacious bar several blocks away after the event; he sipped Woodford Reserve bourbon as he asked them about their own lives and families.

Why Trump Will Fail

Published by Papa Giorgio

Why Trump will fail as a serious Republican candidate (By the way, this is largely with thanks to FreeRepublic via ScottFactor):

Speaking about Bush via and interview with the late Tim Russert about his book:

More important, the Republican Party’s nomination looked ungettable, sure to be captured by George W. Bush. So Trump left the party. “I really believe the Republicans are just too crazy, right?” he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press. “I mean, just what’s going on is just nuts.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2291263)

 

At CPAC, Mr. Trump said, “I’m pro-life,” but in his book, he said,

“I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no.” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2697513/posts)

 

He has recently given very progressive candidates money for their campaign bids

Real estate billionaire Donald Trump gave Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel $50,000 in December 2010, just months before hinting to the media he is seriously contemplating a bid to be the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee. (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/04/trump-donated-50000-to-rahm-emanuels-mayoral-bid.html)

 

On socialized medicine, Mr. Trump stated at CPAC that he would fight to end Obamacare and replace it. Compare that position to what he wrote in his book,

“I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2697513/posts; and, http://www.slate.com/id/2291263)

 

Here’s another position that should make conservatives cringe. Again, from his book, Mr. Trump says,

“One of our next president’s most important goals must be to induce a greater tolerance for diversity. The senseless murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming-where an innocent boy was killed because of his sexual orientation- turned my stomach. We must work towards an America where these kinds of hate crimes are unthinkable.”

First of all, Mr. Trump has the facts wrong in the case of Matthew Shepard. As I have pointed out before, Shepard was not killed because he was a homosexual; he was murdered by a couple of junkies looking to rob him of his money to buy more drugs for themselves. Putting that aside, perhaps Mr. Trump has not thought through the implications of “hate crimes” legislation.

“Hate crimes” laws create a specially protected class of people, which nullifies America’s promised equal protection under the law. All crimes are hateful. Assaulting one person is no worse than assaulting another person, based on what that person is or how he behaves. “Hate crimes” penalties make punishments harsher for people who assault or murder a person who is labeled with the specially protected status, as homosexual deviants are. This is patently un-American and violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2697513/posts)

 

And, he is a birther, something all conservative papers and journals reject (the life blood of the base):