Admit it Rudy… |
… you can’t deny that after watching tonight’s debate, this feeling came to your mind.
“Priceless”January 24th, 2008 | 3 Comments | Posted in Five Brothers Blog, Florida, Humor, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, Rudy
|
Click here to read Josh Romney’s post at the Five Brothers Blog for a “Priceless” laugh.
~Nate Gunderson
Axis of weasel (McCain-Huck-Rudy) has finally turned on each other! |
Rather than focusing exclusively on Mitt!
John McCain not only voted with the Democrats against the Bush tax cuts twice, he’s voted over 50 times for higher taxes. With a record like that, you can’t tell if John McCain will stand up to the Democrats in Washington who want to raise taxes or stand with them.”
Katie Levinson, Rudy Giuliani Communications Director
A press release from Rudy blasts McCain. It goes on to say:
MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR HIGHER TAXES MORE THAN 50 TIMES
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): “We Would Have Had A Much Bigger Tax Cut If It Was Not For John McCain.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “A Conservative Case Against McCain,” National Review, article.nationalreview.com, 1/14/08, Accessed 1/18/08)
In His Twenty-Year Senate Career, John McCain Has Voted At Least Fifty-Two Times For Higher Taxes On The American People – That’s More Than Twice A Year.*
McCain Was One Of Only Two Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush’s 2001 Tax Cuts And One Of Only Three Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cuts. (H.R. 1836, Senate Vote #170, Conference Report Agreed To: 58-33: R 46-2, D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; Lori Nitschke and Wendy Boudreau, “Provisions Of The Tax Law,” CQ Weekly, 6/9/01; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)
And McCain Questioned The “Economic Premises” Of The Bush Tax Cuts. “Nor does McCain spare the rod in rejecting Bush’s tax cuts, especially the $1.37 trillion blockbuster Bush pushed through Congress in 2001, criticizing its economic premises and its likely impact. At best, it’s a long-term economic stimulus, not the immediate boost the economy needs, McCain said. ‘All the predicates for the 2001 tax cuts and all the predictions for its results were absolutely, completely wrong,’ he said. And it will worsen the deficit before it ever helps the economy, he added.” (John Farmer, Op-Ed, “Maverick McCain Maintains A National Constituency,” Newhouse News Service, 2/24/03)
McCain Has Voted At Least Seven Times Against Repealing All Or Part Of Death Tax Through 2002. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, Senate Vote #151, Motion Rejected: 54-44, McCain Voted Nay, 6/12/02; S. 1730, Senate Vote 28, Amendment Agreed To: 56-42, McCain Voted Nay, 2/13/02)
McCain Has Voted Against Capital Gains And Dividends Tax Cuts At Least 5 Times. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43; 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/9/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-49: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1; With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; Alan Ota And Martha Angle, “Senate Clears Tax Cut Package For Bush’s Signature,” CQ Today, 5/23/03)
McCain Sponsored And Voted For A Bill To Raise Cigarette Tax By $1.10 Per Pack. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Tobacco Bill/Strike $755 Billion Payments,” 5/20/98)
LIKE A DEMOCRAT, MCCAIN SAID THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY
McCain: “I Cannot In Good Conscience Support A Tax Cut In Which So Many Of The Benefits Go To The Most Fortunate At The Expense Of Middle-Class Americans.” (Janet Hook, “Congress Sends $1.35-Trillion Tax Cut To Bush,” Los Angeles Times, 5/27/01)
McCain: “I Want To See Tax Cuts, If They Are Necessary, Go To Working Americans, Not The Wealthiest.” (Richard Ruelas, Op-Ed, “McCain Isn’t Saying ‘Oui’ To Bush’s Tax Cut Plan,” The Arizona Republic, 4/25/03)
“And McCain’s Stated Opposition To The Bush 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts Was Largely Based On Socialist, Class-Warfare Rhetoric — Tax Cuts For The Rich, Not For The Middle Class. The Public Record Is Full Of These Statements. Today, He Recalls Only His Insistence On Accompanying Spending Cuts.” (Mark R. Levin, “The Real McCain Record,” National Review, 1/11/08)
IN 2004, MCCAIN SAID HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT EXTENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS
In 2004, McCain Said He Would Not Support Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. McCain: “I would have–I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 4/11/04)
(Thanks David for the headline)
We must go past Michigan with the good fightJanuary 9th, 2008 | 35 Comments | Posted in 2008 Election, Analysis, Commentary, and Editorials, By State, Campaign Trail, Competitors, Rudy, Tancredo
|
It’s been a while since I’ve posted, but I’ve been watching this campaign fight intensely. Usually when I find something to post on, my friends here beat me to the punch, and I applaud their great work. Let me start off in my typical style of eliciting flaming comments at me, I do this as a staunch supporter of Mitt Romney:
Romney will likely not win Michigan. We must accept this and move on, because he can still win the prize.
Why is the firewall we call Michigan most likely lost?
Why shouldn’t Mitt win Michigan? He grew up there and called it home and George Romney was a great multi-term governor. Why may he not win? Michigan is an open primary which means independents and democrats can vote in the Republican primary, just like New Hampshire. Why would a democrat vote in the GOP primary? Because Michigan lost all it’s democratic delegates in shifting up it’s primary date. Only Hillary Clinton remains on the ballot for democrats, thus she is a shoe in. So what will independents do on Jan 15th? They will vote for McCain and some for Romney. We’ve seen tonight how some of them tend to vote. Who would democrats vote for in the GOP primary? Huckabee. He has the least amount of money and they want to face him as the easy candidate to beat in the general. Thus, there will be a piling on affect in the Michigan primary of independents for McCain and democrats for Huckabee and Romney will have an uphill battle. I pray I’m wrong and will gladly eat crow if I am. Is all lost? No. We can work to get the numbers out in Michigan, but we must work hard and press on, and not be discouraged if it’s lost.
Is all lost with Michigan?
No! No! No! Fox News be slammed for saying so. It’s just not true. There is no GOP front-runner in the true meaning of the term. We have good candidates which are fracturing the vote. I know many have written off Giuliani, but he has just started his national advertising. I believe that this contest is all about delegates and very little about momentum. Momentum got Huckabee a low third place finish just above Giuliani. Wyoming created no momentum, but it gave Romney more delegates than New Hampshire gave McCain. It’s time to play the GOP battle for delegates and forget about momentum, the compressed schedule just doesn’t allow for it, neither does the long haul with so many viable candidates. In my opinion, this fight goes on way past Feb 5th and possibly on to a brokered convention on Sept 1st, but even if the nominee is determined before the convention, it won’t be over on Feb 5th. Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani (after Feb 5th) will be competing with Romney’s continual strong 2nd place showings which have netted him many early delegates. Don’t count out the potential strong Feb 5th showing of Romney either, he will likely win more than four states (I include my home state of Colorado as Tancredo has endorsed Romney and we saw the success of the Olympics in Utah). These states will net him over 100 delegates which is formidable when combined with his current 30. That will place Romney in a close second if Giuliani is able to pull out the wins he is expecting after Feb 5th. We could see Giuliani’s 153 delegates to Romney’s 130 delegates and the race goes on well past the 5th.
What about Florida and South Carolina?
These are two states that Romney is not in a strong second place and could hurt him on the delegate count. That is true, but remember these states have half their delegates removed by the RNC for breaking primary date rules. Yet, can’t the GOP nominee restore all the delegates to those states? Yes, but will we have a nominee? Sounds like a chicken and the egg problem to me in restoring those delegates. This will be the case if a rare brokered convention occurs.
This is one amazing race to the GOP nomination! Romney has a chance to win things even with Michigan going down in a horrible independent and democrat smear of our primary. We need to keep our chins up and fight through to the end, especially when the media (and Fox News for that matter) declare the end every weekend from now until the summer.
Nathan W.
Fredheads for Romney!January 8th, 2008 | 3 Comments | Posted in 2008 Election, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Rudy
|
This is a great post:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/a_texan/2008/jan/07/why_this_fredhead_is_supporting_romney_tomorrow
This Fredhead is supporting Romney tomorrow. I have been a supporter of Fred Thompson, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, for nine months now. I support him because he is the most solid, most throughtful representative of the broad conservative coalition that is the key to Republican victory in November. Indeed, it is the unity in this coalition that an essential defense of each of its elements, not only in the upcoming election, but in the years to come.
All conservatives—whether they be interested in conserving our national security against the threat of jihadism, conserving our economy and property-rights against increasing taxes, spending, and regulation, conserving parental rights, traditional marriage, and the rights of unborn children to merely live, conserving our right of self-government against judicial activism, or conserving our national integrity and sovereignty against waves of illegal immigration–face a grave threat from the current leaders of the Democratic Party.
The current leadership of the Democratic Party is campaigning on a radical platform of retreat-and-defeat in the Battle of Iraq, increased taxation, increased federal spending, increased federal regulation, opposition to any protection for the unborn, enthusiasm for activist judges, and indifference, or even hostility, to securing our borders. They are ahead in the polls. If current trends continue, they will control both the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Such a result will deliver a serious blow to all elements of the conservative coalition.
Still, I am not supporting Thompson in tomorrow’s primary. And were I blessed to be a citizen of New Hampshire, I would vote for Romney, for the following reasons.
1. Romney is also a thoughtful representative of the broad conservative coalition, even though he has not been so for very long.
2. Thompson is unlikely to win the nomination, so it is extremely important that a viable alternative endure.
3. None of the other candidates credibly represent the broader conservative coalition. Certainly not Huckabee, certainly not Giuliani. McCain kinda-sorta does, but he has a LONG history of advancing policies and making statements that indicate indifference, if not hostility, to various elements of the coalition.
4. A Romney loss might be the beginning of the end for him. And with Thompson remaining a long shot–even in South Carolina (where he’s a distant fourth in current polling), the race will effectively come down to McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani.
5. Thompson will not be materially weakened by losing what little support he currently has in New Hampshire. He has publicly declared himself all but out of the race in New Hampshire. He will retain whatever viability he still has to make his stand, perhaps his last stand, in South Carolina.
So, I ask all New Hampshire conservatives, especially any Fredheads up there, to strongly consider casting a ballot for Governor Romney tomorrow.
From just seconds ago:January 6th, 2008 | 17 Comments | Posted in 2008 Election, Debate, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, New Hampshire, Politics, Rudy
|
Hope you had a chance to watch this this morning
[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]