Monday, March 12, 2007

When the landscape changes………………….

……………. so does the Real Sporer Presidential Snapshot. It looks like New York Gov. George Pataki is out, as he is taking a job with a New York law firm. Welcome back to the practice, Counselor. Gov. Pataki is a great guy with much to offer our party and country. We certainly hope that Gov. Pataki's public career is only recessed, not adjourned. Wouldn't he be a better Senator than the Chuck "the Snake" Schumer?

It looks like
Fred Thompson, of Senate Watergate Committee, The Hunt For Red October, United States Senator and other high profile roles is auditioning for a role for the ages, the one over at the big white house on Penn. Seriously, Fred Thompson possesses many assets as a candidate. Some Hollywood connections will help Fred raise money and he is very telegenic and personable. Fred Thompson is also a clear, precise and articulate advocate of conservatism in government.

This morning, as the Real Sporer was planning to edit the poll, it looked like
Chuck Hagel was getting in the race. Today's Hagel announcement was apparently to announce that a subsequent announcement would follow at some later date. However, it sounds like our neighbor to the west is testing the Trans-Missouri political waters and the Real Sporer is happy to oblige in my small and humble manner.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wheres Gordo? What happened to Mr. DNC talking points? Where is the fearles leaders of democrat blog world?

This is the last from Gordo

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Undergoing Significant Renovations.

I'll be back, bigger, bolder, and better than ever. March 1. Or thereabouts.

Thanks for your patience, GRF
posted by Gordon R. Fischer @ 9:51 AM

1 Comments:
At Friday, February 23, 2007 8:36:00 AM, Anonymous said…

Vilsack droped out?? what's your take on that?

Anonymous said...

What happened to the Political Madman? Another D site.

Friday, February 16, 2007
REACTION: Jim Leach will not get to play Chief Illiniwek
In August two stories were running simultaneously with a mild connection:

1) Jim Leach was being accused of racism for handing out fake Native American headdresses at parades.

2) The University of Illinois was considering retiring its own mascot and long-time wearer of Native American headdresses, Chief Illiniwek.

I suggested a compromise: Retire Jim Leach instead and allow him to replace the Chief.

Anonymous said...

Live-blogging Governor Richardson in Iowa
Published by Chris Woods March 2nd, 2007 in Democrats, Iowa politics, 2008 Elections and Richardson.

6 Comments
I just arrived at the Break Room Cyber Cafe in Des Moines. Governor Richardson will be here in a few minutes. To the best of my knowledge, his previous meeting was with Former Governor Tom Vilsack downtown. I’m sure that would be an interesting meeting…previously Gov. Richardson was at Latin King Restaurant and then an event at Drake University with the Drake Democrats there. I also got an exclusive one-on-one interview on the ride from Latin King to Drake and I’ll be blogging about that later on this afternoon.

Anonymous said...

I was trying to get a feel for how real life democrats feel about union thuggery since they also have jobs and my not feel the NEED a union to represent them, like most republicans who also work for a living.

I ran across this post from RF - a welcome and worthy D debater on this blog. This, from the Forecast from a month ago. Comments on Fair Share:

RF
Feb 15th, 2007 at 9:11 pm

I have a real problem with D’s spending this much political capital on the fair share issue. First of all, the whole concept of mandatory fees to an organization that one does not want to belong to is not American at all. It’s a real political loser, no matter how you twist it. By pushing this issue, D’s are blatantly trying to reward unions as organizations. This does nothing to help workers or individuals directly. But it could bite the D’s in two years mightily. If unions do a good job and are relevant, people want to join them. State government should not be in the business of fundraising for unions.

Anonymous said...

http://www.politicalforecast.net/2007/02/02/iowa-and-fair-share/

Actually, the whole conversation is rather intersesting. Especially when the UAW rep starts to go Postal at the end.

Hey, that makes me wonder. Are postal workers unionized?

Hmmmmmm........

Anonymous said...

http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2007/03/democratic-politics-sly-on-iraq-silly.html

This article was linked to from realclearpolitics. A liberal's take on the censoring of Fox by the Democrats:

"....But if the dumping of Fox is such a principled stance, then I certainly assume that no Democrats will henceforth agree to appear on Fox ever again, given the fact that Fox (in the words of moveon.org) is a “right-wing misinformation network.” But wait…who was that woman who appeared just 24 hours ago on Fox News Sunday?

It was Maxine Waters, one of the most liberal House Democrats, arguing for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, talking freely with the media enemy. Last week, Senator Carl Levin did the same. Next week, undoubtedly, there will be another Democrat.

If the Iraq Study Group is right to argue that we’d be better off talking to our enemies abroad, then why shouldn’t U.S. politicians talk openly with those whom they perceive to be their enemies at home?

Anonymous said...

As you know, the Democrats have pulled out of a presidential debate in Nevada that was to have been co-hosted by Fox News. The stated reason is some joke told by Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes. The real reason is that the Democrats will do anything they can to discredit Fox News and to whittle away at its lead over CNN in the great cable news wars.

And just what did Roger Ailes say that has the Democrats so upset:

Here's an excerpt from Ailes' speech to the Radio Television News Director's Association.

[video] You will see that Ailes went through quite a few celebs and politicos with some rather sharp jabs:

A man in France was arrested today for using his car to run down a pedestrian. He said he thought it was Osama bin Laden. Ok, it was a mistake, but it still ranks as France's biggest military victory ever.

[Laughter]

John Seigenthaler and I are the same age. Look at how he let himself go.

[Laughter]

It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. And I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.

[Laughter/ooohs]

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

[Laughter]

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

[Laughter]

Anonymous said...

Yes, I don't know what the hell happened to all the D bloggers. Bleeding Heartland seems to be done too, as Drew Miller says he started working for IDP. Maybe all these bloggers have joined campaigns, I don't know.

I stand by my earlier fair share comments. As I've always said, you R folks sometimes have a point. This whole Fox thing is another great example of stupid D stuff.

On the other hand, the fair share comments on Political Forecast are about as edgy as they get on the Iowa D sites. Contrast to the often personal and nasty R sites is striking.

Anonymous said...

Ouch! Kinda sounds like McCain is viewed as not friendly to tax cuts.

This from RedState.com:

Posted at 9:35am on Mar. 13, 2007

So Perhaps We Can't Really Blame Sen. McCain For Bailing On Club For Growth
By Erick

Club for Growth President Pat Toomey has a hard hitting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about Senator McCain. Of course I agree with Pat, but I really can't blame McCain for not wanting to be a Daniel going into the lions' den.

In concluding his piece, Pat writes

While Sen. McCain's economic record is clearly mixed, a careful study demonstrates that even his pro-growth positions tend to be tainted by a heavy anti-growth undercurrent. This evidence, and the virulence of his rhetoric, suggest that American taxpayers cannot expect consistently pro-growth economic policies from a McCain administration.

The whole piece outlines McCain's big government ways and BCRA predilections.

Now, here's where I want to chime in. McCain has dedicated his last few years to regulating political speech. Were he to become President, you'd think he would want to appoint judges who would uphold his legacy of campaign finance reform. It seems to me that a judge who would find room in the Bill of Rights to regulate political speech as Mr. McCain has advocated would more likely than not also have a propensity to find abortion rights in the Bill of Rights.

In John McCain's zeal to uphold his legacy of restricting the first amendment, I believe we'd get some truly horrible judicial nominees -- ones who are willing to uphold Roe v. Wade and other bad ruling, just so Sen. McCain could protect his campaign finance reform legacy.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards obviously was pandering to the far left wing - the Wing Nuts, when he decided it made political stategery to censor Fox News.

Here's some previous political pandering. Edwards consults consultants to decide what to do instead of listening to his convictions.

Sounds like his wife may have some convictions, but not Edwards himself.

Shrum writes that Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, called his foreign policy and political advisers together in his Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. Edwards was "skeptical, even exercised" about the idea of voting yes and his wife Elizabeth was forcefully against it, according to Shrum.

But Shrum said the consensus among the advisers was that Edwards, just four years in office, did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security. Shrum said Edwards' facial expressions showed he did not like where he was being pushed to go.

---

but, the point is, he did what his consultants told him to do rather what he thought best.

Democrats will likely nominate Edwards because he, more than any other d candidate, will do what the far left wing nuts tell him to do.

Anonymous said...

I like what I'm hearing from Fred Thompson. Here's Rush paraphrasing what Fred had to say on Fox News Sunday - the channel Democrats are afraid to watch.

"You might be interested in Fred Thompson on the issues.

He's not as well known issue-wise as perhaps Giuliani and McCain.

He's maybe on a par with Mitt Romney.

But here’s just a little summary of his position on various issues.

He’s pro-life.

He believes that federal judges should overturn Roe vs. Wade. (He thinks it’s bad law and bad medical science.)

He opposes gay marriage but would let states decide whether to allow civil unions. He says marriage is between a man and a woman; judges shouldn't be allowed to change that.

He opposes gun control. He praised last week's 2-1 federal appeals decision overturning a long-standing handgun ban in the District of Columbia. His remark was basically the court said the Constitution means what it says.

He supports the surge, the increase of troops to Iraq, and said, “Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify them. I think we're doing that now. We've got to give it a chance to work.”

Anonymous said...

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?082206/082206_hc_iowafair&Hannity_Colmes&Watch%20the%20Video&acc&Politics&-1&News&141&&&exp

This is a great clip about the Iowa State Fair and has several politician comments from last summer shhh - even democrats who haven't heard they are supposed to be afraid of Fox are in it. Interestingly enough, Edwards talked to the Fox producer and is included in the clip.

I wonder if he'll demand a retraction since he likely was not portrayed in a light most favorable to him.

Anonymous said...

The Club for Growth is trying to fight union thuggery. We need to make this a priority for Iowa legislative elections also. This is a party crossing issue. Even normal democrats don't want to be forced to join unions or be forced to pay for union representation they don't want.

"NO" on "Employee Free Choice Act" (H.R. 800)

The Club for Growth, with its 40,000 members, urges Members of the U.S. House to vote "NO" on the absurdly named, Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), a bill that would allow unions to bypass secret elections. This key vote will be part of our 2007 Congressional Scorecard.

This bill does nothing but allow union organizers to freely intimidate workers into signing on to their agenda. Secret elections protect workers from this abuse and ensure that their voting decisions are made freely. Secret elections have been a cornerstone of our democratic process since our nation's founding for reasons so obvious and broadly accepted that they have never been seriously questioned. It speaks volumes about the supporters of this bill that they would seek to deny workers the fundamental democratic right to vote in private.

Anonymous said...

This is interesting and bodes well for sanity. The leftwing nuts are truly the minority, yet make the most noise. I LOVE that the far left wing group PINK is attacking and camping out in front of Nancy Pelosi's home. She has her OWN Cindy Sheehan. Ha...

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Twice as Many Americans Conservative as Liberal
By James Joyner

Looking at the topline results of the latest AP-Ipsos poll, I came across this. How people self-identify:

41% conservative
34% moderate
21% liberal
14% strong conservatives
6% strong liberals

So, not only are there twice as many who consider themselves “conservatives” as “liberals,” but two thirds as many “strong conservatives” as “liberals,” period.

This, from a survey sample where 47% are Democrats or Democrat leaners vice 43% Republicans or Republican leaners.

Anonymous said...

The conservative/liberal poll numbers are interesting. Looking at these numbers, it looks like nearly all moderates are D’s or leaning D. Unless a good chunk of the self-identified conservatives are D’s or leaning D.

The fact that this is based on self-identification may play an important role too. “Liberal” has become a dirty word, so I suspect many people don’t self identify that way. But if you ask the wing nuts on the right, they would likely consider most moderates and even some less pure conservatives to be hopeless liberals.

And please, the nuts on the right often make just as much noise as the lefties.

Anonymous said...

Secular groups applauded Rep. Pete Stark (D)for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, they said, makes the California Democrat the highest-ranking elected official - and first congressman - to publicly claim to be an atheist.

The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post on Tuesday, congratulating Stark's stance.

Anonymous said...

Is it wrong to publicly be an atheist? Do we not have the right not to believe?

Anonymous said...

Run, Fred, Run.

Anonymous said...

It's a hard thing to pin down, Barack Obama's Jewish problem. But in the halls of the AIPAC Policy Conference yesterday, there was no denying that the members of the pro-Israel group -- largely Democrats, though they tilt right -- feel a real, if kind of inchoate, skepticism about the Illinois senator.

Now, an Iowa Democrat and AIPAC member, David Adelman, has written Obama a letter asking for clarification of Obama's remark to the Des Moines register that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," a statement Adelman writes he found "deeply troubling."

Adelman, a Des Moines lawyer, said he had helped Mark Warner briefly, but is currently undecided among the 2008 contenders.

Anonymous said...

When are we Jews going to finally realize that liberal Democrats love there pet issue of "suffering" more than the facts? This includes their concern for "suffering" soldiers in Iraq above the need for security the "suffering" of criminals in this country above justice and now "suffering" Palestinians above Israel's legitimacy. Wake up folks.

Anonymous said...

Here's Adelmans letter to Obama:

Dear Senator Obama,

I am writing to express my concern with your comments in yesterday’s Des Moines Register (Up-close Obama urges compassion in Mideast; He backs loosening restrictions on Palestinian aid).

As an Iowan, democratic precinct caucus attendee, and leader in Iowa’s Jewish community, I am greatly concerned about the situation in the Mideast and your views on this matter.

I find your statement in yesterday's Des Moines Register that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” deeply troubling. I would greatly appreciate a response clarifying your statements.


The Palestinian people democratically elected their leadership, part in which, Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. It fails to recognize the right of Israel to exist and encourages terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli Jews, Christians and Arabs.

Again, I respectfully ask for clarification on what you believe needs to be done to bring peace to this region of the world.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Obama's comment is that pointing out "Palestinian" suffering implies Israel is causing it. And emphasizing their suffering belittles all those who truly suffer in this world through no fault of their own such as Christian Sudanese, Nigerians, and Indonesians.

If those "Palestinains" stopped trying to destroy Israel, their suffering would end. Most others who suffer don't have such an easy way out.

Anonymous said...

I thought George Clooney said that the people of Darfur were suffering the most.

Anonymous said...

Obviously , He thinks it OK for someone to blow themselves up on a bus and kill 30 people.

That's not suffering according to Obama.

Anonymous said...

Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

“The war in Iraq fails on all three counts,” Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls

Anonymous said...

House Republicans said Monday that Democrats should retract an offer to let the nation’s largest Islamic civil liberties organization use a Capitol conference room for a seminar.
The House Republican Conference referred to the Council on American-Islamic Relations as “terrorist apologists” and called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel the forum scheduled for Tuesday.

Where’s the ACLU and the separation of church and state crowd?

Anonymous said...

CAIR brands itself as a mainstream advocacy group, but it is a spinoff of the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Several CAIR staffers have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, and CAIR founder Omar Ahmad allegedly told a group of Muslims they are in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam's ruler over the country.

Anonymous said...

Did some Israelis take over this thread? I thought R's were concerned about our country and our security.

Anonymous said...

Also, let’s not forget that there is a fine line between “terrorists” and people more or less justly fighting for their freedom. Nelson Mandela and his ANC were called terrorists by the white South African government and many others. Had the term been used 200+ years ago (maybe it was, I don’t know), the people who fought to establish the United States of America would probably have been called terrorists in London and elsewhere.

To be clear, I’m not saying the Israeli-Palestinian issue is one-sided. Obviously the Palestinians are to be blamed just as much as the Israelis about the mess in the Middle East. To take the stand that one side is all good and the other side is purely evil ignores historical facts and reality. If we are ever to reach some sort of stability and peace in the Middle East, it is going to take a lot of frustrating diplomacy and inevitable setbacks along the way.

Yoda said...

"It looks like New York Gov. George Pataki is out, as he is taking a job with a New York law firm."

Hmmm... I win Ted, when would you like to buy the Yoda family a steak dinner at 801?

Anonymous said...

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Labels