Three weeks ago in a Fox News interview, Charlie Crist of Florida was asked five times if he was going to run as an Independent in the Senate race. Five times Charlie Crist answered “No”. He looked into the camera and said that he was running as a Republican and that he would run as one in the Senate primary.

Today Crist is expected to announce that he will run as an Independent in the Senate race. There is a good chance that he will win because the Democrat is a weak candidate and the voters in that party might decide the only way to get someone who thinks the way they do into the Senate is to vote for Crist.

This departure, especially after five consecutive denials, should cause any Republicans who were considering voting for Crist to reevaluate their positions. He cannot be trusted. How can anyone listen to anything he says or promises and believe that he is telling them the truth?

It is time for conservatives and Republicans in Florida to move over to Marco Rubio, the only real conservative in the race, and leave Crist behind. I would also think that it would be only fair for those who donated to Crist to ask for their money back. He took it when he was running as a Republican and today he will leave the party.

A piece of advice to Mr. Rubio. Get the footage of the interview Crist gave where he said that he would not run as an Independent and make a campaign ad out of it.

Washington DC needs people who are concerned about the country and will work to make it a better place. America does not need self serving people who think only of themselves.

We have enough of them in DC already.

Source:
Fox News

Never surrender, never submit.

The RINO known as Arlen Specter is in trouble and he knows it. He narrowly won his last election bid and now he is in worse shape than he was then. Republicans are very upset with him for voting for the stimulus package. This is not the first time Specter has bucked the party and voted with the Democrats. Not that there is anything wrong with voting with the Democrats unless of course what you are voting for is in opposition to the principles of the party.

After Specter cast his vote for the stimulus the calls for getting rid of him began. Many, such as yours truly, wrote to the RNC and told them no more money until all funding for the three turncoats stops and the RNC works to replace them. I know quite a few who wrote similar letters.

Specter is now on defense and working to see how he can save his seat. He recently went to the state Republicans and tried to persuade them to change the primary rules so Independents can vote in primary elections. This was not well received:

In recent days, Specter has quietly lobbied Republicans who control the state Senate to support a proposal that would allow independents to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. He has called individual senators and spoke before the entire caucus – on that and other subjects – earlier this week.

One senator who attended the caucus said it was tough sell.

“It was apparent that he wanted the support” of the caucus, said Sen. John H. Eichelberger, R-Blair, who supports Toomey. “I could tell from the looks in the room and the comments that were made that there wasn’t much support for it.”

Specter said Friday that the idea has merit.

“It would obviously help me, but beyond my own situation it would help the party,” he said in a telephone interview Friday. Centre Daily

Specter acts as if this is for the good of the party when everyone knows only the first half of his statement was of any concern to him. That was the part where he said “It would obviously help me.” That is all he cares about because he knows he is in trouble.

Further proof is in his recent change on Card Check. Specter had been in favor of it in the past and he indicated that he was going to vote for it this time but he has had a change of heart. He has now stated that he will not vote in favor of card check. Perhaps it is because he is in trouble and Republicans oppose card check. Specter wants to be able to pretend that he actually espouses conservative views. If he is successful in winning reelection he will be right back on the left of the aisle voting for things that Republicans oppose.

This is what he did in 2004. He was in a bad way until he received support from George Bush and Rick Santorum. Republicans all over were calling for Specter to be replaced but after those two endorsements he narrowly won. After he won he was right back with the left.

Now is the time to pick him off and replace him. I know there is a risk of a Democrat winning the general election but will that make much difference? If the Senator is going to vote with the Democrats he might as well be a Democrat. If I lived In PA and Specter were running against a Democrat I would vote for the Dem just to get rid of him.

By 2010 the Democrats will have screwed things up so badly that they will lose seats in both chambers. Might not be a lot but it will be enough in the Senate to change the balance of power and make it tough for Obama and the Democrats to run roughshod over the place. The way things look Harry Reid will probably be gone so it will be a wash if Specter’s seat is picked up by a Democrat.

In any event, Specter has to go. He knows he is in trouble and he is doing everything he can, including rigging the primary, in order to win.

He got his chance and he blew it. People wanted him gone in 2004 and he received help and won. He did not learn his lesson and now he wants to be rewarded again for screwing over his party.

This is the time to get rid of him. People of Pennsylvania, don’t let us down. Get rid of him in 2010.

We need to get rid of the other RINOs as well.

Related:
Hannity Forum

The DNC has been put in a terrible bind by the Democratic Politicians in Florida and Michigan who decided that they wanted to hold their primaries early. The DNC told these leaders that if they did so they would not be able to seat their delegates. The states moved their primaries and the candidates all agreed not to campaign in either state because of the DNC ruling. The DNC figured it could be heavy handed with its threats and that the states would back down. When the states did not back down the sanctions were imposed and it did not, at the time, seem like a big deal because Hillary Clinton was the candidate in waiting. Everyone assumed she would be the winner and that is why these states had early primaries, they wanted to have a say in the process.

The Republicans had a front runner in Rudy but took a more conservative approach and decided to strip half of the delegates from any state that went early. This approach has been seen as fair and has caused no real complaints on the Republican side. The Democrats, however, have a real mess on their hands. It did not start out this way. Everyone expected Hillary to win and she, along with the others, agreed that they would not participate in the states that went early and they were all fine with the decisions of the DNC. Then Hillary turned out not to be the winner. She was getting trounced by Obama and all of the sudden she decides that Florida and Michigan should count.

It always seemed to me that the DNC made the wrong decision from the start because they were so damned adamant about every vote counting in 2000 (even all their dead voters and people’s pets). The word disenfranchisement became part of the vocabulary of people who can’t spell DNC and it was the ugly Republicans who were keeping votes from counting. That all turned out to be a bunch of bunk but after all the caterwauling from the Democrats about every vote counting they would come up with something better than not counting every vote.

A lot of people in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised (now that they know what it means) and they are upset that their votes, so far do not count. The DNC feels that it has to at least give the appearance of being tough and having rules but they do not want to tick off people in two states they must have to win. What message will they send? Will they keep it so that no votes count and risk losing the states or will they allow some or all of the delegates to be seated thus telling people that while the DNC has rules it is OK to break them. Unless they stick to their original edict, one which all parties knew and agreed to, then they are waffling in favor of politics. How can we expect these people to run our country when they have no respect for rules, not even the ones they establish?

To the Democrats in Michigan and Florida, it was your party leaders who allowed this to happen. If you want to be mad be mad at them. Vote them out of office and replace them with people who can lead. As for being disenfranchised, that is what happens when you allow greed to top the rules. Your states were so greedy to make a difference that they broke the rules. Don’t worry, we in the Republican party would welcome you with open arms. We will count your votes. You Hillary supporters who think she got shafted, vote for our guy to show your party that you disapprove of their leadership. You Obama supporters who feel that he is getting screwed because he did not campaign in those states and therefore did not do well (to know him is to love him) vote for McCain just to show your party that you will not be taken for granted. We will not disenfranchise you like your party did.

The Democrats are working this out. They will bend the rules in some fashion to allow at least some of the delegates to be seated. This is contrary to the rules they established but they are trying to appease people. They are the party of appeasement and they have a candidate in the lead who will meet with unfriendly nations without precondition so that he can appease them. This is the DNC platform, appeasement and they are showing it with regard to Florida and Michigan.

They want to be everything to everybody and that is not leadership.

Related items:
Yahoo News
Yahoo News 2

A recent poll shows that a majority of Democrats think Hillary Clinton should stay in the race. The candidate herself, despite insurmountable odds, has indicated she will stay in until the end and that she plans to win. Hillary and her supporters want her to stay even though it looks impossible to win and even though she is broke and lending her campaign money.

These are the same people who want us to cut and run from Iraq. They are the folks who tell us that we cannot win in Iraq and that it is costing a lot of money (it is). The successes in Iraq are certainly more evident than in the Clinton campaign but nonetheless, they want us to cut and run from the war.

Why is it that people who advocate cutting and running from a war we are having success in advocate for Hillary to stay the course even though she cannot win without her party screwing Barack Obama over?

If these people applied the same standard to Hillary’s campaign as they do to the war then she would have been gone long ago. Not that I want to see her leave but one would think these people could at least be consistent.

The painful truth is that if the Democrats had a winner take all primary, Hillary would have locked up the nomination long ago. However, the Democrats chose to play games with their system and now they are in a pickle. There will be blood at their convention and a lot of people will have hurt feelings.

Who could ask for anything more?

Related items:
Washington Post
Rasmussen Reports

Last week Barack Obama made his biggest mistake of the never ending campaign when he stated that small town America turns to guns and religion out of bitterness. The time since he said those things has been filled with Obama apologists telling us that he did not say this and that he chose the wrong words but he was correct about what he said and the damage control folks have been in overdrive trying to convince people that he meant people are angry about their situations.

Let us be perfectly clear; Barack Obama absolutely stated that peole are turn to guns and religions (as well as demonstrate dislike for immigrants) because they are bitter about their economic circumstances. There is no other way to interpret what he said without a willful suspension of disbelief. Obama insulted small town America in front of a group of liberal elitist snobs in San Francisco and then had the audacity to hope people would not take offense.

After the recent debate, a debate that Hillary Clinton won hands down, Obama picked up support from more of the super delegates. Obama picked up support from more of the party’s elite after he insulted the people in small town America. He was taken to task in the debate and his answers about his statements as well as his association with a racist pastor and a member of a domestic terrorist group were elusive and misleading and some of them were lies. He made promises about taxes and gun rights that are inconsistent with his previous views. In other words, he was a typical politician who pandered and lied. He proved that he is nothing more than what he claims to be against in this race.

The sad thing is that more and more Democratic leaders (the super delegates) are jumping on the Obama bandwagon which means that they agree with the things he says. Any who don’t necessarily agree with him completely believe that he can win the White House and that is their goal, at all costs including any modicum of honor they might have actually had. In politics the goal has become winning at all costs, regardless of how it harms the country. Both political parties are guilty but it is more obvious on the left because they are still running a hotly contested race.

Many Democrats are gravitating to Obama now and it is because they support his empty claims of hope and change and they agree with his assessment of America. Most Democrats see Americans as disenchanted members of society who yearn for the leadership that only Democrats can provide. If only we would allow the Democrats to apply their brand of socialism then we could live in ignorant bliss.

Many Democrats are bitter because Hillary Clinton has hung on so long and just as many are bitter that this upstart Senator has taken her rightful place at the seat of power. Yes, the Democratic primary has left a lot of them bitter.

I wonder if they will turn to guns and religion?

Nah, then they will have abandoned the Democratic platform completely.

Vote them ALL out. We need a fresh start.

Source:
Breitbart

Democrats in Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primary elections earlier than allowed by the DNC. Both states were informed well in advance of the election that they would not be able to seat delegates if they went ahead with the early voting and the states agreed. Now the Democratic race is tight and the prospect of a brokered convention looms large and is giving the Democratic Party heartburn. Of course, after the voting took place many Democrats cried that people were disenfranchised. If this is the case then they were disenfranchised by their party which is amazing since Democrats claim only Republicans do that to voters.

Howard Dean has tried to be tough on this issue and stated that they would not change the rules that everyone agreed to. Hillary is whining about the delegates (she won the token elections) and Obama’s folks are not happy with the idea of seating delegates in contests he did not compete in. However, the DNC is faced with the possibility of bloodshed at its convention and it wants to do anything to avoid that so the party is looking at alternatives including having another election. Major issues include how much will it cost and who will pay for it? Regardless, the indications are that there will be no “do over” if a number of conditions are not met.

Then again, it looks like the DNC might be forced into about anything. Fox News reported on television today that Florida was considering not including the Democratic candidate on the November ballot if its delegates are not seated. The Democrats know that they need to win Florida in order to win the White House and they do not want an open ballot that gives all the electoral votes to Republican John McCain.

It would appear that not only does Florida not know how to follow rules but now it is showing that it knows how to play dirty in order to get its way. If they had not brought this on themselves I would agree with the tactic but they decided that they wanted to have an impact on the primary and held their election early despite knowing what it would cost. I think they should abide by those rules. If the Democrats decide to have another election then the party should pay for it. Forcing the tax payers to foot the bill is unfair and a waste of money.

Having said that, I like this play by Florida because now it tightens the screws on Howard Dean and the DNC. They will have to seriously consider what Florida wants because that state is in a position to blackmail the party. If the delegates are not seated then Florida will not put the Democrat on the ballot. If Michigan decides to take the same path then the Democrats will not win the presidency.

Regardless of what happens, the infighting and posturing are great to watch and, I for one, pray that this thing keeps going right up until Denver so that they can destroy their party from within much the same way that party is doing to this country.

The pundits are puzzled and the Clinton campaign is shocked that they are now the underdog in the Democratic primary race. Double digit (huge margin) losses, lagging in the delegate count and short on cash is not the way the campaign planned on spending the latter part of February but that is the situation that faces the once unstoppable Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, Hillary believed the hype and did not plan past the Super Tuesday primaries.

Hillary Clinton entered the race for the presidency over a year ago just after young upstart Barack Obama. Instantly, she was the front runner and she was believed to be the inevitable winner. Hillary had it all; name recognition, a vast wealthy donor base, early Super Delegate support, and the power of a former president in her camp. Certainly she would win the nomination early and then get prepared to take on the Republican machine.

That thinking might very well cost her the nomination because by buying into the inevitability, Clinton failed to plan past Super Tuesday. She counted on early wins to build her momentum going into the February primaries and figured on delivering a knock-out blow by capturing the nomination. Her opponent had other ideas and set up offices in early states as well as those whose primaries were after Super Tuesday. His victory in Iowa shocked the Clinton camp and with the prospect of a double digit loss in New Hampshire looming large, things did not look good. She righted the ship in NH but was unable to build on that victory as one tactical misstep after another beset he campaign.

Instead of planning ahead the Clintons stuck to the idea that they would win it all on the big day. When things started to go poorly, they decided to go on the attack. Her campaign played the gender card while her husband’s rhetoric got out of hand and led to accusations of racial overtones. This is trademark Clinton but this time they did not have the MSM in their pockets and they were stunned by the response. All was not looking well for the campaign and it became obvious that the nomination would not be decided on Super Tuesday. The problem by that time was money. While she was spending like a drunken sailer on shore leave in the early states, her opponent was seeking small donations from all over the country. Clintons big name supporters had donated the maximum amount and she did not have as strong a mechanism in place to bring in smaller donations, as did her opponent. Perhaps she was being overly cautious after the Norman Hsu incident

Clinton ended up lending her own money to the campaign, a disclosure made after the Super Tuesday primaries. If it had been made any earlier, she would have been toast. Since there was little time to campaign in states that followed and since she had failed to plan for active campaigning after the big day, she was overwhelmed by Mr. Obama who planned very early on. He has won eight states since Super Tuesday while she has looked ahead to Texas and Ohio as a firewall to prevent further losses. She is taking in more money now but it might be too little, too late.

Hillary Clinton bought into the hype that she would have a cakewalk to the nomination and now she is very close to watching the nominee from the sideline. She criticized the Bush administration for failing to have a long range plan in Iraq, and yet she demonstrated the same failure in her campaign. The question now becomes, do we want a person who spends carelessly and gets minimal results running this country? Do we want a president who fails to plan for the future? This has been a big criticism of George Bush with regard to the war so will Democrats apply that standard to Hillary and move toward Barack Obama?

I do not agree with Mr. Obama’s positions on anything and I believe his claim not to support the war is irrelevant because he was not in the Senate at the time so there is no way to tell how he would have voted (especially since the vote was viewed as needed to get weapon’s inspectors back in Iraq). And while he offers a message of hope and change his speeches are long on lilt and short on substance. He talks a good game without telling anyone what he will do or how he will do it.

Regardless, people like to listen to him and the one thing he has going is that he was forward looking enough to plan well past Super Tuesday. He never bought into the hype that Hillary was the inevitable victor and he planned to fight to the end. In the short term, that strategy has paid off and in the long run it might be the single biggest factor, should he become the nominee.

Should he become President, I don’t think he will be a good one but at least he has shown that he has better planning skills than someone who claims to have 35 years of experience.

Perhaps she should have spent more time planning for the primary and less time being fitted for the crown.

Related Story:
New York Times
WSJ
Time