10/30/2004
Mark Twain and Christian Voters
Our responsibility as Christian voters, courtesy of Mark Twain:
It will be conceded that a Christian’s first duty is to God. Then follows, as a matter of course, that it is his duty to carry his Christian code of morals to the polls and vote them. Whenever he shall do that, he will not find himself voting for an unclean man, a dishonest man.
If all Christians would vote their duty to God at the polls, they would carry every election, and do it with ease. Their prodigious power would be quickly realized and recognized, and afterward there would be no unclean candidates upon any ticket, and graft would cease.
If the Christians of America could be persuaded to vote God and a clean ticket, it would bring about a moral revolution that would be ever incalculably beneficent. It would save the country.”
(Colliers magazine, September 2, 1904)
10/28/2004
Most of us in the RMA had the honor of dining with the hero of the Blogosphere last night (Kestrel, we missed you). Hugh took time to sit and talk with each of us one on one, giving advice on how to influence change in the media, on both the local and national levels. I have never met such a kind and personable celebrity before in my life.
A special thanks to Michele for arranging the dinner last night. She has gone out of her way to make in roads for the RMA, and we are forever grateful.
The staff and management of the Outback restaurant at I-225 and Iliff Ave. in Aurora were more than generous in picking up the tab for our meals. Please, please go visit them, and tell them the RMA sent you.
After spending another week in the hospital, I’m taking a short break from politics to post some pictures of fall colors and local wildlife.
I cannot emphasize the importance of this election cycle enough. I cannot emphasize the importance of keeping George Bush in office, and removing obstructionist Democrats enough. I cannot emphasize the importance of keeping key Senate seats, such as the one Pete Coors is running for in Republican hands enough. However, life is short, take time out of the day to do something you enjoy. Photography is my vice, what’s yours?
10/18/2004
Why ‘Sending Coors a Message’ Is a Bad Idea
I received this via email from a Thinking Right reader today. Mr. Telli makes a very convincing argument why, while standing on principle is certainly respectable - in a political season where our very lives are at stake - it’s foolish.
My Fellow Colorado Conservatives,
A few days ago I received a letter entitled “Sending Pete Coors a message about our Conservative values” from a group calling themselves Grassroots Conservatives. This letter urges other conservatives to refrain from voting in the Colorado Senate race, because Pete Coors is “masquerading as a conservative” and “bowing to the anything goes agenda”. The letter is not signed and while I believe it could be a ruse from the Democratic Party to divide Republicans and convince some to stay home on Election Day, I also believe some conservatives may do exactly as this letter urges and refrain from voting in the Senate race. My fear is that many conservatives may be troubled by Mr. Coors’ positions on social issues and rather than vote for someone they believe does not hold the same values as them, they will not vote. I completely respect standing on one’s principals, but I believe this position is shortsighted and foolish and one that could hand the election of the second Colorado Senate seat to the Democrats.
I do not believe Mr. Coors is the easy victor on November 2 (as implied in the letter), and I am certain that the Democrats will turn out to vote for Mr. Salazar. If conservatives refrain from voting in this race, they not only risk losing the Colorado Senate seat, but also risk losing Republican control of the U.S. Senate. If Mr. Coors is victorious, it is possible that, with Senator Allard’s and other conservatives’ guidance, he will vote with his fellow Republicans. Mr. Salazar never will. If the Democrats gain control of the U.S. Senate, social issues held dear by conservatives will fall by the wayside. For example, the Marriage Amendment will not be brought up again for debate and certainly not for vote, there will be no hope to ban the horror of partial birth abortion, and the assault on God in our society is sure to continue and possibly increase. Furthermore, and possibly most importantly, if President Bush is to continue to bring the fight to our enemies, he must have the support of the Senate. The Colorado Senate race is only one important race this election year and Colorado Conservatives must do their part to help ensure Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Senate. It is for these reasons that I urge my fellow conservative to vote for Pete Coors on November 2.
I am in no way connected to the Coors campaign. In fact, I did not support Pete Coors in the primary and I was surprised by the margin he defeated Bob Schaffer. I also have concerns regarding his conservatism. However, I am certain that if the atrocity of partial birth abortion is ever going to end, if the sanctity of marriage has any chance of being protected, and if so many other issues that we hold dear will remain in the public forum, the Republicans must retain control of the U.S. Senate. If conservatives turn out in our full numbers on November 2, I’m confident this is possible. If not, then we allow the liberal Democrats to win.
May God continue to bless America.
Christopher Telli
Colorado Springs
Crossposted @: Salazar v Coors
10/16/2004
I found this today on Radio Blogger. It certainly speeks volumes about the difference between the two candidates.
A president’s prayer
A fourth-generation logger from Montana, Bruce Vincent, was in tears when he walked out of the Oval Office.
As executive director of Provider Pals, a youth cultural-exchange program, Mr. Vincent was among a small group of people invited to the White House on May 3 to receive the first Preserve America Presidential Awards.
His first impression of President Bush: “a firm handshake and a look that can be described only as penetrating. Warm, alive, fully engaged, disarmingly penetrating.”
But then Mr. Vincent came face to face with a personal side of Mr. Bush that few have seen, particularly in the Oval Office - his spiritual side.
“After about 30 or 35 minutes,” Mr. Vincent recalls, “the president and first lady made one more pass down the line of awardees, shaking hands and offering congratulations. When the president shook my hand, I said, ‘Thank you, Mr. President. God bless you and your family.’”
“He was already in motion to the next person in line, but he stopped abruptly, turned fully back to me … and said, ‘Thank you - and God bless you and yours, as well.’ “
Mr. Vincent then took the opportunity to request that Mr. Bush remember his stepmother, Loretta Vincent, in prayers that day. At that exact moment, Mrs. Vincent was having a tumor removed from her skull at a hospital in Kalispell, Mont. What occurred next is worthy of presidential, if not religious, history books.
“He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as he said, ‘So that’s it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it,’ ” were the president’s words to Mr. Vincent.
Mr. Bush then discussed with the award recipient the importance of family and the strength of prayer. “He said, ‘If it’s okay with you, we’ll take care of the prayer right now. Would you pray with me?’ I told him yes, and he turned to the staff that remained in the office and hand motioned the folks to step back or leave. He said, ‘Bruce and I would like some private time for a prayer.’
“As they left he turned back to me and took my hands in his. I was prepared to do a traditional prayer stance - standing with each other with heads bowed. Instead, he reached for my head with his right hand and, pulling gently forward, he placed my head on his shoulder.
“With his left arm on my midback, he pulled me to him in a prayerful embrace. He started to pray softly. I started to cry. He continued his prayer for Loretta and for God’s perfect will to be done. I cried some more. My body shook a bit as I cried, and he just held tighter. He closed by asking God’s blessing on Loretta and the family during the coming months.”
Mr. Vincent’s wife, Patti Jo, told Inside the Beltway from the couple’s home in Libby, Mont., yesterday that Loretta Vincent is undergoing radiation for the tumor and “so far, so good.” Sadly, Mr. Vincent lost his mother to the same form of cancer in 1996.
10/13/2004
Bob Scheiffer certainly got CBS’s revenge tonight for the Rather Gate mess. But, once again showing patience and skill under fire Bush stole this one. He appeared optimistic and laid out his ideas on most of the issues. Kerry on the other hand continued his standard fare; I have a plan… blah blah blah. This combined with the pessimistic attitude he has shown through out the course of the debates, as well as offending both devout Catholics and the “religious right” on the abortion question fairly doom him to the jeopardy question category of ‘Presidential candidates who lost’.
I’m not saying the election is over. Ohhh no, given the Democrat’s propensity for cheating and rampant voter fraud (dating all the way back to Tammany Hall in the late 1700’s), nothing but a landslide will secure an undisputed victory for Bush. As usual, see the Commish for the live scorecard. There are only 20 days left until the election. Let’s make them count!!
10/11/2004
Hindrocket over at Powerline makes a good point. I heard about this campaign rally disguised as a church service over the weekend on Fox News. For years the Democrats have used predominantly black liberal churches to hold these events, and I think it’s time for it to come to a stop. If the pastor of my church cannot (and I don’t believe he should) standup and criticize John Kerry for his stance on abortion without putting the church’s tax exempt status in jeopardy, then why should Kerry be allowed to stand up in a church (black, white, liberal, or conservative) and criticize George Bush on anything.
This is truly a double standard that is unacceptable.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the Duelfer report and what it says or doesn’t say about Saddam’s WMD ambitions. What most of the headlines haven’t mentioned is why our “allies”, the allies that John Kerry claims he can bring into Iraq to help weren’t willing to go in the first place.
I found a piece today that outlines exactly why they wouldn’t help. Our “allies” (France, Russia, and Germany) were neck deep in the oil for food scandal. Yep, that’s right, they wouldn’t help us because they were too busy lining their pockets with money that was supposed to be going to the sick and needy in Iraq. They were too busy setting up sweetheart oil deals for themselves to help us dispose of a madman. Where did this information come from? The Duelfer Report. The same report that John Kerry and the media have been trumpeting as proof that we shouldn’t have gone to war. Here’s the meat of the article:
Scandal: A great debate has raged over why so many of the world’s major countries suddenly went all weak in the knees when the U.S. went after Saddam Hussein. A new CIA report makes the reason clear, and it isn’t pretty.
The report by Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, sketches out in plain language what could be the biggest bribery scandal of the last century, one that reaches into the highest political circles. It makes for shocking reading.
It shows how Saddam evaded U.N. sanctions from 1997 to 2003 by illicitly selling oil through other countries and bribing world leaders, up-and-coming politicians, journalists, businesses, even the U.N. itself. In the process he cleared $11 billion in illegal profits.
The report names names. Anyone who could help him regain weapons of mass destruction was a target. He settled on Russia, France and China, three of the five U.N. Security Council members that, with the stroke of a veto pen, could stop the U.N. from going to war or end economic sanctions against his country.
Even more stunning than the fact of the bribery is its scope and depth. The list of those who helped Saddam cheat and got paid for it is long and depressing.
It includes Charles Pasqua, France’s former interior minister; Megawati Sukarnoputri, president of Indonesia; and Benon Sevan, former head of the U.N.’s Iraq sanctions program. Also named are a large number of Russian government officials and fixers and the governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and China.
And that’s just a few. The list is hundreds of names long.
Hat Tip: Blogs for Bush
Although I didn’t agree with Christopher Reeves politics, I believe he truly was a Superman. To overcome what he’s had to face physically the last few years one would have to be. Farewell Superman.
10/8/2004
KERRY: “I have a plan…. blah blah blah… Iraq…. blah blah blah… JohnKerry.com…. blah blah blah”
In general, he tried very hard to portray himself as a moderate. Run away from your liberal roots. He’s changed his position yet again on Iraq. He voted for the war, but thought it was the wrong decision to go to war. Then he admitted to voting against the $87 billion in an effort to make a statement (yeah, that will go over well with the troops).
BUSH: He complains about the fact our troops don’t have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma’am. And he was a risk that — and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.
The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, “And the world would be a lot better off.”
GIBSON: And, Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
KERRY: Not necessarily be in power, but here’s what I’ll say about the $87 billion.
I made a mistake in the way I talk about it. He made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision?
Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we’re at war. I don’t think that’s a bad decision.
I was glad to see President Bush came off much more forceful tonight. He did a great job calling Kerry on his lies as well as his record. The one that he missed was Gen. Shinseki. The General was not forced into retirement due to his position on troop strength, as Kerry suggested. He announced his retirement several months in advance.
As far as the questions and questioners, there several obvious Democratic plants. However, Kerry got a few tough questions as well. Will this make a difference in the polls? I don’t know. If it does it can only help George Bush, he did a much better job tonight. Overall… a win for Bush!!
I’ve been a little lax lately in posting. Sorry about that. I did learn an important lesson during the last Presidential debate; I can’t keep up with the debate in a live blog and do what’s going on justice. So, tonight I will probably post some important stuff during the debate as well as a post debate wrap up.
In the mean time, a prediction. George Bush will go on the attack from the start. If there is one lesson he should have learned from the Cheney/Edwards debate earlier this week, it’s that Kerry is extremely vulnerable on his record. And, from the last Presidential debate; Bush is extremely vulnerable when he doesn’t fight back. Remember one of the things to come from the debate in Florida was that Kerry won on style and Bush won on substance. Bush needs to make substance so important that all the style in the world won’t matter.
10/6/2004
There’s just no two ways about it. Anyone watching the Veep debate last night has to admit that VP Cheney walked all over John Edwards last night. The most exciting thing about last night was Cheney broke the Kerry/Edwards momentum by calling them on their records. I think the best exchange of the night was:
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, a new question for you. You have two minutes to respond.
When the president says that Senator Kerry is emboldening enemies and you say that we could get hit again if voters make the wrong choice in November, are you saying that it would be a dangerous thing to have John Kerry as president?
CHENEY: I’m saying specifically that I don’t believe he has the qualities we need in a commander in chief because I don’t think, based on his record, that he would pursue the kind of aggressive policies that need to be pursued if we’re going to defeat these terrorists. We need to battle them overseas so we don’t have to battle them here at home.
I’m not challenging John Kerry’s patriotism. I said in my acceptance speech in New York City at the Republican convention that we respected his service in Vietnam, and I got applause for that.
We’ve never criticized his patriotism. What we’ve questioned is his judgment.
And his judgment’s flawed, and the record’s there for anybody who wants to look at it.
In 1984, when he ran for the Senate he opposed, or called for the elimination of a great many major weapons systems that were crucial to winning the Cold War and are important today to our overall forces.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and occupied it in 1990 and ‘91, he stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against going in to liberate Kuwait and push Saddam Hussein back to Iraq.
The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn’t display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.
And with respect to this particular operation, we’ve seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed - body armor, spare parts, ammunition - they voted against it.
I couldn’t figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?[emphasis mine]
In order for Bush to hold the advantage that he gained last night, he will have to continue the attack that Cheney began last night. I think the next attack should be Kerry/Edwards doom and gloom attitude.