Thursday, April 24, 2008

Judges and the ultra-aggressiveness of the democrats

Two issues here. The first is judges. If the GOP wants to make up some ground, this is the issue to go with. If you want to unite the base, fight on judges. From the Wall Street Journal:

Republican Arlen Specter has the right idea in requesting a discharge petition to confirm Peter Keisler on the D.C. Circuit, plus Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Keisler, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, is one of the most qualified nominees to the bench. He's done stints as acting Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's Civil Division. Messrs. Matthews and Conrad are both well qualified and would be assets on the Fourth Circuit, which hears many of the country's most important terrorism cases.
The problem is that Democrats would rather fill pending vacancies with candidates who are either their patronage choices or pass muster with liberal interest groups. That's already happened on the Fourth Circuit, where last month President Bush nominated Virginia Supreme Court Justice Steven Agee to appease Virginia Senator Jim Webb, the Democrat driving this "compromise," and Republican John Warner. The loser was well-respected Duncan Getchell, who was forced to withdraw.

(snip)

All of this deserves more political elevation this year, not least because it will affect the next President. John McCain is supporting Mr. Specter's plan, and urging the confirmation of Messrs. Keisler, Conrad and Matthews for the Memorial Day deal. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren't. The two Democrats are only inviting trouble for themselves if they should make it to the White House. Republicans are sure to invoke the Harry Reid precedent to derail their nominees.
GOP Senators need to use their minority rights now to insist that Democrats honor their pledge by confirming three bona fide Bush nominees. Democrats are hoping to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency, and the GOP should use the leverage it has while Mr. Reid still wants to get things done. Republicans need to make judges an issue so voters understand that the stakes on the federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, couldn't be higher in 2008.


One guy I have begrudgingly respect for is Chris Van Hollen at the DCCC. While we have inept jokers running the NRCC and NRSC, they put their sonovabitch types there. That is what we need to do. From "The Hill"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/van-hollen-using-fear-as-a-weapon-2008-04-23.html

Time and again this cycle, negative information about GOP candidates has been pushed early on in the race or even before they enter the race, with the purpose of keeping them from even making the effort to run.

In an interview with The Hill on Monday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chairman credited the expansive effort with sending some of the 29 incumbent Republicans into retirement and, more recently, discouraging non-incumbents.
“There are two pieces to that: One is putting pressure on incumbent Republican members to make the decision to retire, and the other is to put pressure on candidates that they’re trying to recruit and convince them that it’s not a good idea to run against one of our incumbents,” Van Hollen said.

(snip)

On Monday, former Arizona Senate President Ken Bennett turned down GOP entreaties to run for Congress. It was the second time he said no to the race, and he joined a long list of public figures who have come to the same conclusion.

Democrats had been circulating a 2006 assault plea by Bennett’s son that involved sodomizing boys with broomsticks. Bennett denied the effort had anything to do with his decision, but he’s hardly been the only one on the receiving end of Democrats’ hardball politics.

A local blog, PolitickerAZ.com, posted a DCCC memo detailing Bennett’s alleged vulnerabilities, including his son’s assault plea, and Bennett later spoke to the blog about the incident. Local media also reported that the DCCC requested records on the case to see if Bennett unduly influenced an outcome of which the victims’ families didn’t approve.


Now this pisses me off for three different reasons. I'm not pissed off at Van Hollen though. He's doing his job and doing a good job at it. He fights dirty, and it works. Democrats have done this more often than not for years and years through the Soros types, Jon Strykers, Tim Hills, and the NAACP's Confederate Flag and James Byrd ads against Bush in 2000.

1. Why aren't we vetting our own? Don't leave an opening for these people. The Arizona GOP chair should have known that his son was a piece of trash and that would have been an issue

2. Why the hell aren't we doing the same thing to them? I'll gaurandamntee there's as much dirt if not more with the democrats. Go check their old addresses and the jurisdictions, public records, the court records in their area, old news clips, and go on and down the list. Get PI's out there. That's not mentioning their voting records. This needs to be done right up and down the line when taking out incumbents or tough challenges.

3. "Lost causes." This pisses me off more than anything else. So because the first choice drops out, the money isn't as there, and it's a lost cause. BULLSHIT. It's a lost cause because the party has turned into a bunch of weak Obama like dickless wonders out there. Hillary's got more balls than almost all of the party leadership in Washington right now. Excuse the strong language, but this fits my definition of time, place, and manner for it. The time is because of the election year. Place because of the situation. Manner to get people to kick the powers that be in the ass. I don't mind the GOP losing if it is defeated. I do mind losing when we defeat ourselves by not showing up. Why are we giving a free pass to Mark Pryor? What happened to 1994? If Steve Stockman of all people could beat a 40 year incumbent in a district won by Bill Clinton, than we should at LEAST win all the districts Bush won in 2004, and should at least compete in any district that is not 60% or more democrat. The modern party could never win a seat in Chicago or San Jose today with ANY candidate? Why? Because there's no guts, and they pray to find a rich guy to run.

If I was a candidate with a low budget campaign, I'd do this.
1. Contact as many 2nd/3rd tier candidates as possible.
2. Run on a new contract with America with a plan for the main issues this group will fight on. These would be the 70-80% issues.
3. Relate those issues for the district.
4. Stick to that message, and use that as the basis for the campaign. Newt Gingrich understood that.
5. Once elected - FIGHT on THOSE issues first, and keep fighting until they pass. KEEP the promises.
6. Once elected - go back to being a republican and not a democrat-lite with the Ted Stevens Pork Barrell Spending.

1 comment:

keithr said...

There's an old saying "You can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives".

We shouldn't hold a person's relatives against him/her.

But it is fair game to closely examine the kind of people a candidate CHOOSES to have for friends.