A
AnAmericanCitizen
Guest
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:05 GMT, Bjorn <was-walmart-greeter@postamerica.net> wrote:
>Posted by Bobby Eberle
>January 29, 2008 at 7:35 am
>
>Conservatives have a special relationship with the New York Times, the
>newspaper that has been caught in scandal after scandal and which is
>the epitome of extreme liberalism. Remember the full page ad by
>MoveOn.org against Gen. David Petraeus that appeared in the New York
>Times? We later learned that the paper "accidentally" gave MoveOn.org
>a discounted rate.
>
>Time and time again, the New York Times has attacked conservatives and
>their beliefs. The paper went full-out in its support for the amnesty
>bill in the U.S. Senate, saying it would be a "legislative achievement
>for the new Democratic leaders in Congress." Now, the Times has come
>out with its recommendations for president of the United States. The
>Times is talking.... and I'm listening...
>
>In a recent editorial, the New York Times chose Sen. John McCain as
>its pick for the GOP presidential nomination. The Times, that beacon
>of liberalism, says of McCain, "He was an early advocate for battling
>global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental
>American values in the immigration debate."
>
>Fundamental American values? Are they serious? Fundamental American
>values are notions such as respecting the rule of law and believing
>that a primary role of the federal government is to protect U.S.
>borders.
>
>The Times notes, "With a record of working across the aisle to develop
>sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader
>range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field." Just
>exactly what "sound bipartisan legislation" is the Times referring to?
>Two pieces of legislation which come to mind and which bear McCain's
>name are McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and McCain-Kennedy
>Immigration Reform.
>
>McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. With McCain-Feingold, America was
>given legislation that was a direct assault on First Amendment rights.
>It was not conservative at all. And for this legislation, McCain chose
>to team up with Sen. Russ Feingold -- a senator who has a lifetime ACU
>Rating of 11.8.
>
>With McCain-Kennedy, the Senate tried, not once, but multiple times to
>defy the will of the American people by turning a blind eye to
>America's laws and American sovereignty by attempting to grant amnesty
>to millions of illegal aliens. McCain teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy
>who has a lifetime ACU rating of 2.5.
>
>Now, on the one hand, Sen. McCain is bashing Gov. Mitt Romney for
>"flip-flopping," while on the other hand he's saying that he "learned
>his lesson" and has changed his position on immigration reform and
>supports border security first. Do you believe him? Sorry, I don't.
>
>Sen. McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 82.3. What's more problematic
>than just his score, as compared to his Arizona counterpart Sen. Kyl
>(96.6), is that McCain's rating continues to go down. His 2005 rating
>was 80, and his 2006 rating was 65.
>
>Then, there is the issue of judges and Sen. McCain's involvement in
>the so-called "Gang of 14." The deals organized by this group meant
>the jettisoning of qualified conservatives so that other "more
>acceptable" candidates could get a vote. As John Fund of the Wall
>Street Journal recently noted, "Mr. McCain has told conservatives he
>would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to
>the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel
>Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' Therein lies
>the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain."
>
>Conservatives might not have the next Ronald Reagan in the current
>line-up of candidates, but we haven't had a Ronald Reagan since....
>Ronald Reagan. We didn't have a Reagan in 1988, 1992, or 1996. We
>certainly didn't have a Reagan in 2000 or 2004. But we do have a
>choice.
>
>The election looks more and more like it is coming down to McCain and
>Romney. The Florida primary battle shows just how close things are.
>Reps. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are out, so is former Sen. Fred
>Thompson. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's "strong" stand he was to make
>in Florida is fading, and so is the campaign of former Gov. Mike
>Huckabee. Also, despite being the "people's choice" as I hear from
>angry supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, he has yet to win any contest, and
>he won't. This leaves McCain and Romney.
>
>What we've seen over the past 7 years is what the establishment will
>do to the conservative movement, and it has been tragic. McCain has
>been a part of that establishment for decades, and if someone believes
>that he will actually "change Washington," that person is clearly
>misinformed. Out of Romney and McCain, the clear problem-solver is
>Romney. With the economy on shaky ground, we need someone who has
>proven himself to meet a payroll, build a business, and lead. I
>believe Romney is that person.
>
>But, if you don't believe me, that's OK. Just look at the endorsements
>that have been coming from the McCain campaign in recent days.
>Endorsements like pro-amnesty Sen. Mel Martinez and a host of
>establishment Republicans. Oh, and of course, there's that New York
>Times endorsement. Enough said.
>
>--------------
>Posted by Bobby Eberle
>January 29, 2008 at 7:35 am
>
>Conservatives have a special relationship with the New York Times, the
>newspaper that has been caught in scandal after scandal and which is
>the epitome of extreme liberalism. Remember the full page ad by
>MoveOn.org against Gen. David Petraeus that appeared in the New York
>Times? We later learned that the paper "accidentally" gave MoveOn.org
>a discounted rate.
>
>Time and time again, the New York Times has attacked conservatives and
>their beliefs. The paper went full-out in its support for the amnesty
>bill in the U.S. Senate, saying it would be a "legislative achievement
>for the new Democratic leaders in Congress." Now, the Times has come
>out with its recommendations for president of the United States. The
>Times is talking.... and I'm listening...
>
>In a recent editorial, the New York Times chose Sen. John McCain as
>its pick for the GOP presidential nomination. The Times, that beacon
>of liberalism, says of McCain, "He was an early advocate for battling
>global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental
>American values in the immigration debate."
>
>Fundamental American values? Are they serious? Fundamental American
>values are notions such as respecting the rule of law and believing
>that a primary role of the federal government is to protect U.S.
>borders.
>
>The Times notes, "With a record of working across the aisle to develop
>sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader
>range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field." Just
>exactly what "sound bipartisan legislation" is the Times referring to?
>Two pieces of legislation which come to mind and which bear McCain's
>name are McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and McCain-Kennedy
>Immigration Reform.
>
>McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. With McCain-Feingold, America was
>given legislation that was a direct assault on First Amendment rights.
>It was not conservative at all. And for this legislation, McCain chose
>to team up with Sen. Russ Feingold -- a senator who has a lifetime ACU
>Rating of 11.8.
>
>With McCain-Kennedy, the Senate tried, not once, but multiple times to
>defy the will of the American people by turning a blind eye to
>America's laws and American sovereignty by attempting to grant amnesty
>to millions of illegal aliens. McCain teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy
>who has a lifetime ACU rating of 2.5.
>
>Now, on the one hand, Sen. McCain is bashing Gov. Mitt Romney for
>"flip-flopping," while on the other hand he's saying that he "learned
>his lesson" and has changed his position on immigration reform and
>supports border security first. Do you believe him? Sorry, I don't.
>
>Sen. McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 82.3. What's more problematic
>than just his score, as compared to his Arizona counterpart Sen. Kyl
>(96.6), is that McCain's rating continues to go down. His 2005 rating
>was 80, and his 2006 rating was 65.
>
>Then, there is the issue of judges and Sen. McCain's involvement in
>the so-called "Gang of 14." The deals organized by this group meant
>the jettisoning of qualified conservatives so that other "more
>acceptable" candidates could get a vote. As John Fund of the Wall
>Street Journal recently noted, "Mr. McCain has told conservatives he
>would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to
>the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel
>Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' Therein lies
>the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain."
>
>Conservatives might not have the next Ronald Reagan in the current
>line-up of candidates, but we haven't had a Ronald Reagan since....
>Ronald Reagan. We didn't have a Reagan in 1988, 1992, or 1996. We
>certainly didn't have a Reagan in 2000 or 2004. But we do have a
>choice.
>
>The election looks more and more like it is coming down to McCain and
>Romney. The Florida primary battle shows just how close things are.
>Reps. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are out, so is former Sen. Fred
>Thompson. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's "strong" stand he was to make
>in Florida is fading, and so is the campaign of former Gov. Mike
>Huckabee. Also, despite being the "people's choice" as I hear from
>angry supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, he has yet to win any contest, and
>he won't. This leaves McCain and Romney.
>
>What we've seen over the past 7 years is what the establishment will
>do to the conservative movement, and it has been tragic. McCain has
>been a part of that establishment for decades, and if someone believes
>that he will actually "change Washington," that person is clearly
>misinformed. Out of Romney and McCain, the clear problem-solver is
>Romney. With the economy on shaky ground, we need someone who has
>proven himself to meet a payroll, build a business, and lead. I
>believe Romney is that person.
>
>But, if you don't believe me, that's OK. Just look at the endorsements
>that have been coming from the McCain campaign in recent days.
>Endorsements like pro-amnesty Sen. Mel Martinez and a host of
>establishment Republicans. Oh, and of course, there's that New York
>Times endorsement. Enough said.
>
>--------------
