Saturday, November 8, 2008
Teacher Browbeats Student Because She Likes McCain
Notice that the teacher is wearing an Obama pin while teaching. Just a little double standards, don't you think!
Bob
What Infuriates The Taxpayer
Below is the headline on Yahoo today. Did we not learn anything from the bailout? Look at this ad "NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED"! It might as well say "CALLING ALL Illegals", we make loans. This is the kind of crap that infuriates everyone. The loan companies make risky loans and if they have a problems we, the taxpayers, bail them out. I am requesting that Congressman Tom Cole and Congresswoman Mary Fallin investigate Lending Tree. The government does not need to be in the bailing out business. Now, the auto industry is in trouble and are requesting government bail out. Not only no, but NO NO NO NO!
Bob
Fed cuts rate. Mortgage rates as low as 5.47% APR. $300k for $1,657/mo. No SSN req'd. LendingTree® Quickmatch
Bob
Fed cuts rate. Mortgage rates as low as 5.47% APR. $300k for $1,657/mo. No SSN req'd. LendingTree® Quickmatch
Friday, November 7, 2008
Our Environment And Plastic
This is an interesting story. Plastic bags and bottles are really bad for our environment. It takes 10 years for just one plastic bottle to dessolve. In the United States we throw away 58 million plastic bottles a day. Something has to be done. My comment will not sit well with my conservative friends but the tax makes sense. This issue needs to be addressed by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats have made the environment an issue while Republicans keep their head buried in the sand!.
Bob
wants to nickel and dime you at the grocery store - taxing you an extra 5 cents for every plastic bag you take home.
The controversial charge could raise at least $16 million for the cash-strapped city while keeping tons of plastic out of landfills, city officials said Thursday - but some outraged shoppers aren't buying it.
RELATED: POLS LOOK TO NIX MAYOR'S TAX-GRAB PLAN
"Bloomberg is a piece of work," Clemelda Gipson, 39, said outside a D'Agostino grocery store in Chelsea. "Food is expensive and now we have to pay for the bags, too? They should try to come up with ideas and solutions and not just more taxes."
Others said they would bring their own cloth bags rather than pay more at the store.
"I think it's a good idea. There is way too much plastic being used at the grocery stores anyways," said actress Denise Lute. "We need to be eco-conscious. If I'm charged a nickel it'll make me take my own bag."
New Yorkers use an estimated 1 billion plastic bags per year. City officials aren't sure what bags they plan to tax, or how they'd collect it - though they're considering allowing merchants to charge an extra penny per bag, giving them an incentive to track it.
"They're charging sales taxes already. There's not some massive new overhaul or bureaucracy that's needed," said Rohit Aggarwala, Bloomberg's head of environmental affairs.
"We are hoping that at 6 cents a bag, people would change their behavior."
San Francisco bans plastic bags unless they are biodegradable, while a proposed 20-cent fee in Seattle is on hold pending a challenge. In Ireland, a 33-cent fee pushed plastic bag use down 94%.
New York considered a plastic bag tax earlier this year but settled for a mandatory recycling program, figuring most stores would just switch to paper, Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens) said.
Ikea tried charging customers a nickel per bag, but when demand for its 70 million bags a year dropped 92%, the chain just eliminated them.
"There's a positive impact on the environment," spokesman Joseph Roth said. "It certainly has not hindered our sales, and it has helped our reputation."
Some grocery chains already give customers a discount for every cloth bag they bring. Whole Foods switched its stores to paper bags this year, even though the plastic industry insists paper bags are worse for the environment.
"This would essentially be a food tax," said Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council. "It would have major unintended environmental consequences."
alisberg@nydailynews.com
Joke From Noble
Joke from Noble, America. It actually makes sense.
Some solace for the defeated:
An old sea story
There's an old sea story in the Marine Corps about a lieutenant who inspected his Marines in the field, and afterward told the "Gunny" that the men smelled bad. The lieutenant suggested the solution is that they should change underwear.
The Gunny responded, "Aye, aye, sir, I'll see to it immediately!"
The Gunny went straight to the squad tent and announced, "The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear.
Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowsky, and Brown, you change with Schultz.
Now get to it!"
THE MORAL: A candidate may promise 'change' in Washington , but don't count on things smelling any better.
Some solace for the defeated:
An old sea story
There's an old sea story in the Marine Corps about a lieutenant who inspected his Marines in the field, and afterward told the "Gunny" that the men smelled bad. The lieutenant suggested the solution is that they should change underwear.
The Gunny responded, "Aye, aye, sir, I'll see to it immediately!"
The Gunny went straight to the squad tent and announced, "The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear.
Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowsky, and Brown, you change with Schultz.
Now get to it!"
THE MORAL: A candidate may promise 'change' in Washington , but don't count on things smelling any better.
Top 10 Most Irritating Phrases
Oxford Compiles list of the top ten irritating phrases
The top ten most irritating phrases:
1 - At the end of the day
2 - Fairly unique
3 - I personally
4 - At this moment in time
5 - With all due respect
6 - Absolutely
7 - It's a nightmare
8 - Shouldn't of
9 - 24/7
10 - It's not rocket science
The top ten most irritating phrases:
1 - At the end of the day
2 - Fairly unique
3 - I personally
4 - At this moment in time
5 - With all due respect
6 - Absolutely
7 - It's a nightmare
8 - Shouldn't of
9 - 24/7
10 - It's not rocket science
Why Dana Murphy Won
Dana was out spent 4-1, out lied about 10-0 and beats the corrupt, Jim Roth, Tuesday. What do you do when you are running against the most corrupt, egotistical, arrogant politician in the history of Oklahoma? What do you do when gay groups, from all over the country, are pouring money into your opponent’s campaign, along with some of the wealthiest individuals in Oklahoma? You do exactly what Dana Murphy did in her race for Corporation Commission. You stick to your plan from the beginning. Dana did not return evil for evil she simply talked about how qualified she was to be the next commissioner. Even after Roth said awful things about her and treated her like crap, during the debates, she stayed focused. Dana did not even bring up Roth’s ties to the homosexual agenda that is taking place across the country.
So now just what did Dana do? First of all, Dana had an unbelievable amount of grassroots support. Second, she got out and worked. One day I talked to Dana and she was in the panhandle later that same day she was in southwestern Oklahoma. I have no idea how many miles she put on her truck but I bet she put on more than 10,000 miles during the campaign.
Everyone was impressed with Dana’s knowledge of the Corporation Commission, everywhere she went. She talked to Co-ops all across Oklahoma that normally voted Democrat, supported Dana because of her knowledge.
Several times when I talked to Dana I asked her to defend herself against Roth’s charges and I also stated you need to define him and let people know just how dishonest he his. Dana said that she has a plan and she is sticking to it. I complained that you are going to get beat if you let that jerk say and treat you like you have been doing, Dana would respond, “if I get beat, so be it, but I have put my faith in God and I am not going to go negative and return evil for evil that is just not the Christian way.” I said, “holy crap Dana, you are going to lose.” Dana stated that I did not have enough faith in her. I believe I made her mad.
Dana proved that you do not have to go negative to win an election. Congratulations to Dana, you did one heck of a job and deserves to be our next Corporation Commissioner.
Bob
So now just what did Dana do? First of all, Dana had an unbelievable amount of grassroots support. Second, she got out and worked. One day I talked to Dana and she was in the panhandle later that same day she was in southwestern Oklahoma. I have no idea how many miles she put on her truck but I bet she put on more than 10,000 miles during the campaign.
Everyone was impressed with Dana’s knowledge of the Corporation Commission, everywhere she went. She talked to Co-ops all across Oklahoma that normally voted Democrat, supported Dana because of her knowledge.
Several times when I talked to Dana I asked her to defend herself against Roth’s charges and I also stated you need to define him and let people know just how dishonest he his. Dana said that she has a plan and she is sticking to it. I complained that you are going to get beat if you let that jerk say and treat you like you have been doing, Dana would respond, “if I get beat, so be it, but I have put my faith in God and I am not going to go negative and return evil for evil that is just not the Christian way.” I said, “holy crap Dana, you are going to lose.” Dana stated that I did not have enough faith in her. I believe I made her mad.
Dana proved that you do not have to go negative to win an election. Congratulations to Dana, you did one heck of a job and deserves to be our next Corporation Commissioner.
Bob
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Gay Rights Backers File Lawsuits Challenging Prop 8
Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8
Lawyers for same-sex couples argue that the anti-gay marriage measure is an illegal constitutional revision. Backers of the measure attack the suits.
By Maura Dolan and Tami Abdollah
November 6, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.
The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said.
Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question.
"There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision," he said.
Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.
"The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it," she said. "Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote."
Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits "frivolous" and "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."
The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles also sued, and Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred filed a third suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple.
All the lawsuits cited the constitutional revision argument, and two of them asked the court to block Proposition 8 from taking effect while the legal cases were pending.
"The court must hold that California may not issue licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause," Allred said at a news conference.
A California Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court would act "as quickly as possible" on the challenges.
Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement decades.
"We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say we have a federal right to marry," Pizer said.
In addition to going to court, gay rights advocates sought to assure about 18,000 same-sex couples that their marriages will remain valid.
The groups cited comments by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said the initiative was not retroactive. If the marriages are challenged in court, that case too would go to the California Supreme Court. Experts differ on whether the law would protect the marriages.
The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation that provides strong legal protection from discrimination.
Dolan and Abdollah are Times staff writers.
Lawyers for same-sex couples argue that the anti-gay marriage measure is an illegal constitutional revision. Backers of the measure attack the suits.
By Maura Dolan and Tami Abdollah
November 6, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.
The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said.
Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question.
"There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision," he said.
Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.
"The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it," she said. "Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote."
Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits "frivolous" and "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."
The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles also sued, and Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred filed a third suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple.
All the lawsuits cited the constitutional revision argument, and two of them asked the court to block Proposition 8 from taking effect while the legal cases were pending.
"The court must hold that California may not issue licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause," Allred said at a news conference.
A California Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court would act "as quickly as possible" on the challenges.
Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement decades.
"We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say we have a federal right to marry," Pizer said.
In addition to going to court, gay rights advocates sought to assure about 18,000 same-sex couples that their marriages will remain valid.
The groups cited comments by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said the initiative was not retroactive. If the marriages are challenged in court, that case too would go to the California Supreme Court. Experts differ on whether the law would protect the marriages.
The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation that provides strong legal protection from discrimination.
Dolan and Abdollah are Times staff writers.
Frustrated Republican
Please read the below article concerning why Republicans are so frustrated. In my opinion not one single paid person that worked on McCain’s campaign should ever be allowed to work on another campaign. The message they sent was wrong. The message they sent was not sufficient. The press releases were not gravitating to the voter and sometimes came off as ill-prepared. The Republican Party needs new leadership that can utilize the internet. Leadership that can motivate the voter. We need leadership that is honest with the Republican Party. Obama the most liberal person in the senate made the election about failed policies of George Bush and took all the questions about his voting record away. They put McCain on the defense from day one. One issue that is important to 75% of the country is same sex marriage. McCain did not make that an issue. He could have won California if you would have defined Obama on this issue. The best thing McCain had going was Sarah Palin and now these goof offs connected to McCain campaign are bashing her. These guys should be taken out back to the wood shed and given 100 lashes and then kicked out of the party!
Bob
Swing Voters Don't Want Big Government
Survey results Barack Obama and the GOP would be wise to heed.
By PAT TOOMEY
Wall Street
:
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats won big on Tuesday night, but they should not mistake their victory for a big-government mandate. The evidence tells a very different story.
A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them.
Although currently held by Republican congressmen, all but one of these 12 districts we surveyed flipped to Democratic control Tuesday night. Collectively, President Bush carried these districts in 2004 with 53%. They are nearly evenly split in party affiliation: 40% Democratic, 37% Republican and 19% Independent. The poll surveyed 800 voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percentage points.
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district will always support universal health care, and Jeff Flake's Arizona district will always support less government. But the 12 districts we surveyed represent the political middle of the country, and in this cycle their partisan allegiances changed. The question is, have their opinions on the issues changed as well? The answer is emphatically no.
Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.
On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows.
When it comes to government spending, voters in these swing districts are fed up with the explosion of government under Republicans, and are no more inclined to swallow further spending increases from the Democrats. Over half of respondents think more than a quarter of federal spending in Washington is "wasteful," and 66% prefer candidates "who want to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come" to their own districts.
A large plurality of voters is dissatisfied with the government's bailout of the banking industry; even more are opposed to further action. Fifty-four percent think the "federal government is trying to do too many things that are better left to individuals, families and businesses," compared with 39% who think the government should do more.
Mr. Obama's opposition to domestic drilling is clearly out of step with mainstream America as well. Sixty-two percent of voters in swing districts would like to allow oil exploration in ANWR, and a dramatic 75% want to allow drilling for oil and natural gas off America's coastlines.
Of all Mr. Obama's plans, the most unpopular may be one of his first acts as president -- the signing of "card check" legislation. Perhaps he should know that a whopping 85% of voters in the districts that made him president oppose taking away the right of workers to have secret union ballots.
Celebrating in Chicago's Grant Park Tuesday night, the Democrats' victory comes with a very large caveat. Any attempt to jam higher taxes and spending and increased regulation down the throats of American voters will be met with opposition -- not just from the right, but also from the center of the electorate.
Mr. Obama is not the only person who should take notice of this poll. These numbers carry a powerful message for Republicans too. In the coming days you will hear many a pundit read the conservative movement's obituary. But voters have not rejected conservative ideals; they are disgusted with Republican politicians who govern like liberals.
This is pretty clear when you look at the Club's poll. Voters blame the GOP over the Democrats for "taxpayer bailouts for big corporations" by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. Forty-eight percent singled out the GOP as "the Party that gave us the Bridge to Nowhere," compared to 14% who blamed Democrats. More voters chose the Democratic Party as better for "promoting economic growth" than the GOP, and eight out of 10 voters agreed that "in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."
Much like the years following the 1974 midterm elections, Republican leaders will be tasked with rebuilding the GOP from the ground up. As dire as the future looks, economic conservatives should keep one thing in mind. When it comes to ideas, the American people are still on their side.
Mr. Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth.
Bob
Swing Voters Don't Want Big Government
Survey results Barack Obama and the GOP would be wise to heed.
By PAT TOOMEY
Wall Street
:
Barack Obama and congressional Democrats won big on Tuesday night, but they should not mistake their victory for a big-government mandate. The evidence tells a very different story.
A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them.
Although currently held by Republican congressmen, all but one of these 12 districts we surveyed flipped to Democratic control Tuesday night. Collectively, President Bush carried these districts in 2004 with 53%. They are nearly evenly split in party affiliation: 40% Democratic, 37% Republican and 19% Independent. The poll surveyed 800 voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percentage points.
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district will always support universal health care, and Jeff Flake's Arizona district will always support less government. But the 12 districts we surveyed represent the political middle of the country, and in this cycle their partisan allegiances changed. The question is, have their opinions on the issues changed as well? The answer is emphatically no.
Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.
On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows.
When it comes to government spending, voters in these swing districts are fed up with the explosion of government under Republicans, and are no more inclined to swallow further spending increases from the Democrats. Over half of respondents think more than a quarter of federal spending in Washington is "wasteful," and 66% prefer candidates "who want to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come" to their own districts.
A large plurality of voters is dissatisfied with the government's bailout of the banking industry; even more are opposed to further action. Fifty-four percent think the "federal government is trying to do too many things that are better left to individuals, families and businesses," compared with 39% who think the government should do more.
Mr. Obama's opposition to domestic drilling is clearly out of step with mainstream America as well. Sixty-two percent of voters in swing districts would like to allow oil exploration in ANWR, and a dramatic 75% want to allow drilling for oil and natural gas off America's coastlines.
Of all Mr. Obama's plans, the most unpopular may be one of his first acts as president -- the signing of "card check" legislation. Perhaps he should know that a whopping 85% of voters in the districts that made him president oppose taking away the right of workers to have secret union ballots.
Celebrating in Chicago's Grant Park Tuesday night, the Democrats' victory comes with a very large caveat. Any attempt to jam higher taxes and spending and increased regulation down the throats of American voters will be met with opposition -- not just from the right, but also from the center of the electorate.
Mr. Obama is not the only person who should take notice of this poll. These numbers carry a powerful message for Republicans too. In the coming days you will hear many a pundit read the conservative movement's obituary. But voters have not rejected conservative ideals; they are disgusted with Republican politicians who govern like liberals.
This is pretty clear when you look at the Club's poll. Voters blame the GOP over the Democrats for "taxpayer bailouts for big corporations" by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. Forty-eight percent singled out the GOP as "the Party that gave us the Bridge to Nowhere," compared to 14% who blamed Democrats. More voters chose the Democratic Party as better for "promoting economic growth" than the GOP, and eight out of 10 voters agreed that "in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."
Much like the years following the 1974 midterm elections, Republican leaders will be tasked with rebuilding the GOP from the ground up. As dire as the future looks, economic conservatives should keep one thing in mind. When it comes to ideas, the American people are still on their side.
Mr. Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tom Cole
For Immediate Release: Contact:
November 4, 2008 Ryan Owens -- 580.276.7530
COLE RE-ELECTED TO SERVE FOURTH TERM IN THE U.S. HOUSE
NORMAN, OK – The citizens of Oklahoma's Fourth Congressional District have re-elected Congressman Tom Cole by a wide margin. Cole received well over 60% of the vote and appeared well on his way to sweeping every county in the Fourth District.
Congressman Cole responded to the news of his re-election with the following comments:
"It is a tremendous honor to represent my fellow Oklahomans in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am humbled by their support and trust. When we started this campaign we knew that we would have a tough fight because of the toxic political environment we faced. Washington is broken and the American people are fed up with endless partisan bickering. We need to get our economy back on track, we need a common sense energy policy that weans us off foreign sources of oil and we need a united foreign policy that recognizes the world is still a very dangerous place. As I have for the past six years, I renew my pledge to the people of Oklahoma to work in a bi-partisan manner to find real solutions to the challenges facing our great country."
"Both of my opponents ran very good campaigns, worked hard and contributed ideas to the dialogue during this process. It's clear that Oklahomans' care about the future of this country as well as the promise and growth of our state. I look forward to representing the views, the values and the interests of my fellow Oklahomans over the next two years."
###
--
Ryan Owens
Campaign Manager
Tom Cole for Congress (OK-04)
November 4, 2008 Ryan Owens -- 580.276.7530
COLE RE-ELECTED TO SERVE FOURTH TERM IN THE U.S. HOUSE
NORMAN, OK – The citizens of Oklahoma's Fourth Congressional District have re-elected Congressman Tom Cole by a wide margin. Cole received well over 60% of the vote and appeared well on his way to sweeping every county in the Fourth District.
Congressman Cole responded to the news of his re-election with the following comments:
"It is a tremendous honor to represent my fellow Oklahomans in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am humbled by their support and trust. When we started this campaign we knew that we would have a tough fight because of the toxic political environment we faced. Washington is broken and the American people are fed up with endless partisan bickering. We need to get our economy back on track, we need a common sense energy policy that weans us off foreign sources of oil and we need a united foreign policy that recognizes the world is still a very dangerous place. As I have for the past six years, I renew my pledge to the people of Oklahoma to work in a bi-partisan manner to find real solutions to the challenges facing our great country."
"Both of my opponents ran very good campaigns, worked hard and contributed ideas to the dialogue during this process. It's clear that Oklahomans' care about the future of this country as well as the promise and growth of our state. I look forward to representing the views, the values and the interests of my fellow Oklahomans over the next two years."
###
--
Ryan Owens
Campaign Manager
Tom Cole for Congress (OK-04)
Free Gas When Obama Takes Over
This is what it will be like when Obama takes over. We are so lucky no more paying for gasoline for our cars or even making house payments.
Bob
Pastor Manning
Please take the time and listen to Pastor Manning. This just may be one of his finest sermons.
bob
Transcript And Journalist?
I really cannot believe that the Transcript would run as news on election day an "endorsement" of Collins from the DEMOCRATIC Party Veterans Committee. Surely the readers are smart enough to recognize that an endorsement of a Democratic candidate from a Democratic organization is meaningless. I'm no journalist, but it seems to me that the only thing newsworthy might be if that group (which I have never even heard of before) did NOT endorse Collins!
I am disappointed that the Transcript ran this "news" with the headline: "Veterans group endorses Collins". Again, this is not any "veterans" group - it's a committee of the Democratic Party -the same party that Collins himself chaired here in Cleveland County.
I think the Transcript's decision to run this Collins press release shows poor judgment and unfortunately adds to the skepticism that the right has for the mainstream media.
Just another reason why the Transcript circulation is down.
Bob
I am disappointed that the Transcript ran this "news" with the headline: "Veterans group endorses Collins". Again, this is not any "veterans" group - it's a committee of the Democratic Party -the same party that Collins himself chaired here in Cleveland County.
I think the Transcript's decision to run this Collins press release shows poor judgment and unfortunately adds to the skepticism that the right has for the mainstream media.
Just another reason why the Transcript circulation is down.
Bob
Democrat House Member Caught Stealing
Now lets see, a few weeks ago Ivan Holmes chair of the State Democrat Party, holds press conference. At his press conference he claims Republicans are stealing Democrat signs. What a hypocrite Ivan Holmes is. Just another example as to the kind of people Democrats are!
Bob
State Representative Accused of Stealing Campaign Signs
"He's a liar," claims Rep. Al Lindley of his accuser.
By Jerry Bohnen
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
In the pre-dawn darkness on election day, Oklahoma City State Representative Al Lindley, term-limited but still in the State House, was seen stealing signs of a Republican candidate and replacing them with a Democratic candidate's signs, according to one south Oklahoma City resident. Contacted today, Lindley adamently denied it, proclaiming, 'He's a liar--he's lying."
Jay Means, a school vice principal says it was around 5:30 am when he spotted Lindley removing the campaign signs of GOP candidate Mike Christian along a city street and replacing them with signs of Democratic candidate David Castillo. The two are running to succeed Lindley in the State House.
Means said he saw Lindley was driving his car with the tag H-93 which represents he is a member of the state house. "I confronted Mr. Lindley and told him I would be reporting his actions to the police." Means said he waved down a police officer around the block. "I flagged down Sergeant Don Evans of the Will Rogers K-9 unit and he gave me a case number and this will be investigated."
Lindley continued to profess that Means is lying. "I'm willing to sit down with anybody and take a polygraph exam. He's a liar. He must have confused me with someone else." The southside Representative maintained he had people with him at all times since meeting them for breakfast at 4am. But he admitted that Means talked with him in the early-morning hours.
Bob
State Representative Accused of Stealing Campaign Signs
"He's a liar," claims Rep. Al Lindley of his accuser.
By Jerry Bohnen
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
In the pre-dawn darkness on election day, Oklahoma City State Representative Al Lindley, term-limited but still in the State House, was seen stealing signs of a Republican candidate and replacing them with a Democratic candidate's signs, according to one south Oklahoma City resident. Contacted today, Lindley adamently denied it, proclaiming, 'He's a liar--he's lying."
Jay Means, a school vice principal says it was around 5:30 am when he spotted Lindley removing the campaign signs of GOP candidate Mike Christian along a city street and replacing them with signs of Democratic candidate David Castillo. The two are running to succeed Lindley in the State House.
Means said he saw Lindley was driving his car with the tag H-93 which represents he is a member of the state house. "I confronted Mr. Lindley and told him I would be reporting his actions to the police." Means said he waved down a police officer around the block. "I flagged down Sergeant Don Evans of the Will Rogers K-9 unit and he gave me a case number and this will be investigated."
Lindley continued to profess that Means is lying. "I'm willing to sit down with anybody and take a polygraph exam. He's a liar. He must have confused me with someone else." The southside Representative maintained he had people with him at all times since meeting them for breakfast at 4am. But he admitted that Means talked with him in the early-morning hours.
Monday, November 3, 2008
MY FUTURE
My name is Kenady and I am17 years old. I want to finish living in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I want to be apart of a country where God is what our principles are based.
Please elect John McCain for my future because I will be the one whom it affects the most. I want a President that is proud of the brave men and women that stand and fight so you and I can sleep safely at night. A president who respects the men and woman in the uniform and most importantly proud to be an AMERICAN and one who knows what its like to fight for freedom!
Please elect John McCain for my future because I will be the one whom it affects the most. I want a President that is proud of the brave men and women that stand and fight so you and I can sleep safely at night. A president who respects the men and woman in the uniform and most importantly proud to be an AMERICAN and one who knows what its like to fight for freedom!
WHO WILL YOU PICK?
Soon your children's history books will be changed, their lifes flipped up side down, if we don't act now and elect the RIGHT man who will lead this counrty to victory! We have less than 24 hours left before voting begins, who will you pick? think of your child's future, because its their future your deciding for. VOTE JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
