WASHINGTON, July 10, 2008 – The Senate has confirmed Army Gen. David H. Petraeus as commander of U.S. Central Command and Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno to receive his fourth star and succeed Petraeus as commander of Multinational Force Iraq.
95-2 Victory, so I decided to see if my logic was correct and if the “2″ were democrats. Sure enough Senator Byrd (WV) and Senator Harkin (IA) opted to give the middle finger to the good General. And even though Kennedy came in to vote this week he opted not to vote, but given his medical condition I give him a pass. In addition Harkin said “nay” to Odierno.
HOWEVER, Both Presidential Candidates opted not to vote. Now I am not sure where in the country or world they are right now but I think that is pathetic. Granted we know where McCain would have stood “yea” in both counts. But Senator Obama…wonder where he would have been. I guess just add this to another group of “not present” or “present” votes which hold no real conviction.
UPDATE: Rep. Jim McGovern’s Press Secretary Michael Mershon responded to my requests for additional information. View his statement in its entirety HERE.
Are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) bad actors in a tragedy about the Separation of Powers?
In Spring 2007, Speaker Pelosi visited Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad in a highly publicized, and much criticized trip. She was the poster child for Obama-esque ‘without pre-condition’ foreign policy. But this year, the Speaker chose to avoid the limelight, allegedly preferring to task loyal foot soldier Rep. Jim McGovern with chatting up leftist guerillas closely affiliated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) - a group identified by the US State Department as terrorists. Not to mention the talks with Columbian Senator Piedad Cordoba, who remainsunder investigation by the Columbian Attorney General - and who is closely aligned with Venezuelan dictator/President Hugo Chavez.
Much of the main stream media seems content to ignore the Pelosi-McGovern-FARC story. Too much of a political hot potato. Brings to mind Pelosi’s own language regarding Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s repeated attempts to impeach President Bush. Remember? She told us all that was ‘off the table.’ Until yesterday, when Pelosi indicated that Kucinich’s latest attempt might get hearings.
Insert the uncomfortable pause here. All is fair in love and politricks.
So I placed a few calls. Speaker Pelosi’s press staff: delightful but refused to provide on-the-record comments each of the several times we spoke. I’m still waiting to hear back from McGovern’s office. Somehow, I am unsurprised by the lack of candor.
In multiple conversations with sources close to Speaker Pelosi, I was told the assertions made in the Wall Street Journal reports are “categorically false” and “without merit.” (This wins the prize for least original evasive answer)
Gee, I suppose if a Republican stood accused of colluding with a terrorist to undermine the democratically elected government of a US ally that it would be a non-story. Oh wait… the entire country would be enraged. And demanding answers. Hearings. Accountability.
This is where the average American should step in. Call Speaker Pelosi. 202.225.0100. The role of Speaker of the House is supposed to transcend partisan politics. She is a public servant. Our tax dollars may have funded these misadventures.
Never ask permission to engage in our national dialogue. Your tax dollars matter. And Speaker Pelosi should address this Obama-esque policy directly. Was she engaging with an agent of a foreign government to undermine our ally, the democratically elected government in Columbia? Did Speaker Pelosi direct Rep. McGovern to tell FARC that all military aid from the US to Columbia would be suspended under an Obama presidency?
If Speaker Pelosi was a pawn in McGovern’s game, where he invoked her name to play-up his own street-cred and power - then Pelosi should promptly throw him from the Democratic train. Give him a little partisan spanking. Go public. Offer a little straight-talk to the American people.
From the Wall Street Journal… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn’t going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, “without authority of the United States,” to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government’s behavior on any “disputes or controversies with the United States.”
A hard drive recovered from the computer of a killed Colombian guerrilla has offered more insights into the opposition of House Democrats to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia’s most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.
Mr. McGovern’s press office says the Congressman is merely working at the behest of families whose relatives are held as FARC kidnap hostages. However, his go-between’s letters reveal more than routine intervention. The intervenor with the FARC is James C. Jones, who the Congressman’s office says is a “development expert and a former consultant to the United Nations.” Accounts of Mr. Jones’s exchanges with the FARC appeared in Colombia’s Semana magazine on March 15. This Mr. Jones should not be confused with the former Congressman and ambassador to Mexico of the same name from Oklahoma.
“Receive my warm greetings, as always, from Washington,” Mr. Jones began in a letter to the rebels last fall. “The big news is that I spoke for several hours with the Democratic Congressman James McGovern. In the meeting we had the opportunity to exchange some ideas that will be, I believe, of interest to the FARC-EP [popular army].”
Last fall, Mr. Chávez and the FARC hatched an audacious plan whereby the Venezuelan would take “proof of life” of Ms. Betancourt to French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, where the plight of Ms. Betancourt was a cause célèbre. The rebels wrote that Mr. Chávez was sure French pressure for negotiations would cause President Bush to “order Uribe to allow the meeting” between Mr. Chávez and the rebels on Colombian soil, something Mr. Uribe had refused to do. The rebels reported that Mr. Chávez was “super-motivated,” because he viewed the rendezvous as a public-relations coup that would give him and the FARC “continental and world renown.”
That plan flopped, but Mr. Chavez had other cards up his sleeve. One involved Ms. Cordoba, who is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. She figures prominently in the captured rebel documents, and is notoriously close to Mr. Chávez.
She met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that “Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn’t know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this.”
If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, “It doesn’t matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid.” In short, why give up such a useful pawn?
Here is the text of the Logan Act:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
STATEMENT FROM REP. JIM MCGOVERN’S PRESS SECRETARY MICHAEL MERSHON:
It’s important to remember that what INTERPOL determined is that there was no evidence of any tampering of the FARC computers by the Colombian military once the military took possession of those computers. Which is very good news. What INTERPOL did NOT determine, of course, was whether any of the statements in those computers were somehow empirically true. Which, of course, they could not, as we made very clear in our letter to the Wall Street Journal.
As to the Journal column in question which attacked Colombian-based human rights groups for their alleged ties to the FARC (therefore suggesting that the FARC would easily be convinced to turn the hostages over to these groups), we were disappointed to see that one of the Colombian military members involved in the hostage rescue was wearing the insignia of the International Committee of the Red Cross during the mission, in apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions. We were pleased to see that President Uribe has apologized for that error.
As to the specific questions you have asked:
Rep. McGovern met with Sen. Cordoba during the time she was the official mediator (appointed by President Uribe) for a potential humanitarian exchange of the hostages. She also met with high-level U.S. State Department officials during this period.
Rep. McGovern never said that Sen. Obama would win the election. At the time, he was a strong supporter of Sen. Clinton.
Rep. McGovern never ‘ensured’ the end of military aid to Colombia. He doesn’t believe that would be a proper policy position to take. He has argued, and will continue to argue, that a higher percentage of our aid should be used for the building of civilian and judicial institutions in Colombia; for economic redevelopment; and for assistance to the hundreds of thousands of Colombians who have been internally displaced by the conflict.
I have attached a copy of Rep. McGovern’s floor statement from yesterday’s debate on an amendment offered by House Republican Whip Roy Blunt to the intelligence authorization bill. It lays out a lot of his thinking about the way forward, and I hope you find it useful.
I’d be happy to respond by e-mail to any other specific questions you may have.
Regards,
Michael Mershon, Press Secretary
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
In response to Obama’s claim that Republicans will use race to stoke fear, Lt. Col Allen West, candidate for Congress in Florida’s 22 District (Broward County) said this:
My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone…however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.
It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a “uniter” and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.
West has faced down the world’s terrorists: in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was battalion commander for the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and in Afghanistan, where he trains Afghan officers to take on the responsibility of securing their own country.
In 2004, when it was time to retire from more than twenty years of service in the US Army, he brought his wife and two young daughters to Broward County, Florida, where he taught high school. He then returned to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan army, an assignment he finished in November 2007.
In his Army career, Col. West has been honored many times, including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals (one with Valor), and a Valorous Unit Award. He received his valor award as a Captain in Desert Shield/Storm, was the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year in 1993, and was a Distinguished Honor Graduate III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas Air Assault School.
Tonight at 9 pm ET, we’ll spend some time with Col. West, getting his views on the War, our dependence on foreign oil, illegal immigration, Israel, Iraq, and Congress’ dismal approval rating, today at an all time low of 9%.
Remember two years ago, when my tighty-righty compatriots couldn’t abide the GOP affronts to their ideological purity any longer and loudly declared their intention to drag them to philosophical repentence by staying home on Election Day and letting the Democrats take Congress back? Remember how I wrote then that all this would do is convince the Republican remnant that they couldn’t count on the party’s conservative base and that they would instead scatter to the four winds in an every-Pachyderm-for-himself panic?
So they asked for it, so it is coming to pass (via Newsmax Insider):
Republicans in the U.S. House have parted ways with GOP leadership and voted for a key Medicare bill — providing a possible sign of things to come before the November elections.
Despite Minority Leader John Boehner’s aggressive push to convince GOP members to oppose the bill, 129 Republicans joined with all 226 Democrats to pass the legislation, which would prevent cuts in physician’s fees under Medicare.
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call observed: “House Republican leaders’ embarrassing failure to hold the line against a Medicare-related bill raised new questions about whether the rank and file will adopt an every-man-for-himself strategy as the election draws near.”
Representative Wayne Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican who was defeated in a primary earlier this year, told Roll Call that he views the Medicare vote as evidence that House Republicans are realizing they have to put their own interests above toeing the party line.
The American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry supported the bill. The GOP leadership opposed it partly in the belief that more “palatable” legislation is being drawn up in the Senate, according to Roll Call, which added, “With more sensitive votes expected in July and September, Republican leaders’ ability to hold their rank and file in line will continue to be tested.” [emphasis added]
IOW, “their own interests” and those of conservatives have diverged. Which will doubtless provoke the Quinn Hillyers of the cyberworld into “punishing” the GOP even more, which will further alienate whatever scattered Republican survivors even more and push them further to the Left, and so on.
‘Tis the bitterest of ironies that virtually all of the Left’s momentum in this cycle is being generated by the civil war raging on the Right. It’s so bad it may take an Obama presidency to defibrilate my wayward brethren back to sanity.
Perhaps there is still some hope for counter-change. But even then it probably won’t recur in my lifetime.
I made the briefest of mentions last week of the Senate Intelligence Committee “report” purporting to “prove” that President Bush “lied the country into war” in Iraq after all. I could have shot it down like the tiresome old skeet it is, but I just didn’t have the time or inclination. Even sport fishing with power saws loses its appeal eventually, and this point became moot years ago.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The President’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The President’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
This is the same “intelligence information” that Senator Rockefeller himself saw and led him to conclude:
To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.
Rocky saw the same intel as Bush, reached the same conclusion, and endorsed the President’s decision to invade. The intel has been substantiated six ways from Sunday by now, but Rocky and the majority Dems still insist Bush lied, even though their own report proves otherwise.
Upon further reflection, though, I don’t think this is entirely Bushophobic history editing. A former Blog Talk Radio admiral identifies what I consider the key bullet point:
[The Rockefeller indicment] also sets a bar so high for action on intelligence that its absorption could paralyze the US in confronting threats until far too late.
I think the Left has decided that they would rather America absorb attack after attack after attack than do anything in advance to prevent said attacks from happening. The idea of the U.S. being proactive instead of reactive, defeating our enemies before they can destroy us, making itself as invincible as humanly possible, is anathema to them. They are going to pacify America, turn us into a nation of sheep, no matter what it takes, no matter what it costs, and no matter how many of us have to die at jihadi hands.
Paralysis definitely suits those purposes. So does completely disemboweling the U.S. military, which Barack Hussein Obama definitely intends to do. And they’re going to try and make sure that nobody like George W. Bush can EVER get his hands on the presidency EVER again.
When Rocky and Barry and their ilk are finished, America will be a gigantic, irradiated, subjugated, dhimmized Luxembourg.
Funny how that’s the only way the “international community” will “love” us.
Running across [senate race rival Alan] Keyes at a parade in the North Side of the city one weekend, Obama rushed over and tried to talk with him. Obama is someone who loathes conflict, and thought he could have a reasonable discussion with this man who had been hurling hateful invective at him. “Barack thinks he can win over anyone,” [Obama Senate campaign manager] Jim Cauley observed. “He thinks he can go into a roomful of skinheads and come out with all their votes.”
I can’t help making a couple of observations:
(1) If BO “loathes” conflict, why in the Sam Hill did he get into politics?
(2) The last time we had such a president, he threw our closest Middle East ally besides Israel - the Shah of Iran - under the bus, leading to fifty-three Americans spending 444 days as involuntary “guests” of the newly installed Iranian mullahgarchy, an incompetent, botched rescue attempt that miraculously didn’t get them all killed, total American humiliation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and near check-mate in the Cold War.
(3) And now his ideological son wants to crawl to Tehran and grovel before our ex-embassy staff’s jailer - the man who believes he’s been called by Allah to “wipe Israel off the map” and bring back the Twelfth Imam by plunging the world into nuclear Armageddon - because ”he thinks he can win over anyone”. And when all that tonguing encourages the mullahs’ atomic endgame? What will a president who “loathes conflict” do?
Has your deodorant failed yet? Or, as Aaron Eckhart quips in The Core after telling a panel of government and military brass that the world is going to end, “Feel free to throw up. I know I did.”
Although blessedly defeated for now, there is something that so emblematically symbolizes the Lieberman-Warner “climate change” legislation that I feel compelled to reproduce it here, along with an accompanying question:
Doesn’t this diagram look an awful lot like the ones Hillary Clinton’s “health care task force” rolled out fifteen years ago for her first attempt at a health care putsch?
Bonus question: minority Republicans stopped ClintonCare a decade and a half ago and were rewarded with control of Congress in 1994. Minority Republicans stopped the even bigger communistic attack of Lieberman-Warner this week, yet are doomed to lose more ground on Capitol Hill, without which they may not be able to stop it again next year. And no matter how the presidential election turns out, there will be a president at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who will sign this monstrosity. What does that say about ideological/philosophical direction in which America is drifting?
Back in 2004, when the Senate intelligence committee began investigating whether public statements by U.S. officials about Saddam Hussein’s pre-invasion Iraq were “substantiated” by existing intel, Republicans controlled Congress and the committee’s inquiry was aimed at figures on both sides of the aisle. The idea was to examine the fighting words of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as well as prominent Democrats including Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hillary Clinton. But Democrats, who took over the panel after winning Senate control in 2006, decided that the final report would examine only statements by “policymakers”—in other words, the Bush administration. So in the report, due out this week, no Democratic comments will be parsed. That includes an Oct. 10, 2002, speech by Clinton in which she criticized Saddam’s WMD ambitions and accused him of giving “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” (Continued…)
by MD Conservative — published on April 25th, 2008
I usually do not promote my show, but tonight I will be spending the first portion of the show speaking about Missile Defense. If you want some facts please tune in at 2100hrs eastern.
In today’s podcast at 11AM Eastern, we’ll talk to Congressman Jeb Hensarling, Rep. TX, about his proposed Bloggers’ Bill of Rights, the Blogger Protection Act of 2008, which would give bloggers permanent protection from FEC campaign laws when linking to campaign Web sites or editorializing about candidates. As Bill Hobbs explains,
The FEC granted bloggers protection two years ago from regulations that potentially could have defined bloggers’ linking to a campaign Web site or editorializing about a candidate a campaign contribution or expenditure. Hensarling’s legislation would make those regulatory protections statutory.
Two years ago, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued regulations that protected bloggers from being hampered by certain campaign finance laws. Under these regulations, bloggers cannot be considered to have made a contribution or expenditure on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate simply because they link to campaign websites or write about the positions of federal candidates. Additionally, blogs are treated as any other publication under the general media exemption from most campaign finance restrictions. Without such protections, bloggers could be subject to various limitations and reporting requirements under campaign finance law.But these blogger protections are just regulatory—they are not in statute. As you may know, regulations can be changed without congressional action, and there’s no telling what a future FEC might decide to do. Furthermore, the FEC is currently defunct because of vacancies and a lack of quorum. Therefore, we shouldn’t put the freedom of bloggers in the regulatory hands of the FEC. Congress should protect them in law.
by Andrea Shea-King — published on April 8th, 2008
TONIGHT on my radio program, we’ll talk with Richard S. Lowry, military historian and author of The Gulf War Chronicles and Marines in the Garden of Eden about today’s testimony by Gen. Dave Petraeus and Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker before the Senate Armed Forces and Foreign Relations committees.
Also on board: Jim Antle of The American Spectator with analysis of former Congressman Bob Barr, Republican turned Libertarian, who is contemplating a third party run for the presidency.
Join us at 9p EDT on Blog Talk Radio — hit the link. We’ll be there.
We gathered some of our colleagues, the Republican Study Committee, and we would go to the floor one night a week and have a class on Budget School to talk about the Federal budget and how the money is spent…This goes back to what we did at the state level when the state was trying to force a state income tax… and we need that right now at the federal level.
Why now?
It is time to make certain that the American people know how to follow this process, know where to pull the budget down, know how to get through the different functions on that budget and find how the money is being spent, and follow it from committee through appropriations process all the way to where it is spent by the bureacracy. My hope is that they will hold the bureaucracy accountable.
Listen to the rest of the podcast, and watch Budget School tonight on CSPAN after 9:30 PM Eastern.
Allegedly Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul has vacuumed up millions of dollars in contributions to his wacky, windmill-tilting, all-around malodorous gadflying presidential campaign, but meanwhile, back in his Texas district, he’s got a GOP challenger, and that challenger is leaving the elderly bizarro in the fundraising dust (via Newsmax):
Ron Paul has received massive financial support in his run for the presidency, but he’s also seeking re-election in his congressional district — and trailing his opponent in campaign financing.
As of December 31, Chris Peden, a city councilman in Friendswood, Texas, who is challenging Paul for the GOP nomination, had raised twice as much money as Paul for the congressional race.
Paul cannot use funds raised by his presidential campaign in his run for re-election to Congress.
Paul “has not represented this district for some time, in my opinion, as well as it deserves to be represented,” said Peden. “And I think this district has realized that with his campaign for president,” constituents are “looking for a change in leadership.”
I do not, of course, live in RP’s district, so I can’t say firsthand that he is, or has ever been, a, um, representative Representative. But I find it more than a little hard to believe that his constituents really want to continue to be fronted by a kooky hybrid of Michael Moore, Robert Taft, and George Lincoln Rockwell. Maybe they’ve just tired of being embarrassed on a daily basis. Or perhaps they don’t want all those “Ronulans” moving in down the block. That’s what the money would appear to indicate.
But Ron Paul’s pointless, aggravating self-insertion into what’s supposed to be a serious process of determining national leadership costing him his congressional seat? That’s priceless.
He won’t starve, though; there’s bound to be a cable news commentator slot opened up for him someplace.
Keith Olbermann could use a “bipartisan” sidekick.
by Andrea Shea-King — published on January 30th, 2008
Many years ago I learned my craft at Emerson College in Boston, which specializes in Theater, Speech, and Mass Communications. While there, I met friends who are dear to me to this day.
One of them is Rod Meloni the financial editor at WDIV-TV Detroit.
Tonight, Rod breaks from his full schedule to join us on Blog Talk Radio with his considered opinion of the volatile stock market, our alarming national debt, and Congress’ stimulus package. (We’ll probably reminisce a little too.)
We might also have a surprise drop in “appearance” by another Emerson Alum, a published author with her own popular TV show.CALL IN NUMBER IS 646-478-4604.
Click the above button at 9 pm EST to hear us live.
ALL my shows are archived for your convenience.
by Andrea Shea-King — published on January 22nd, 2008
I was the invited guest speaker at this morning’s Cocoa Beach Republican women’s club meeting.
I told them how I detest the way the media and the Left are determining who our Republican presidential candidate will be through their control of the debates and the first four primaries and caucuses. I shared my suggestions for how it should be changed. (”Change, change, change. Change the fools… “) Twenty solid minutes of how I’d change the political election world. Heh…
Following a Q & A session, I made my departure and this little group of the Space Coast Federation of Republican Women (and some men) then took a straw poll.
Club president Nancy sent the results to me. I wonder if it might be a microcosm of how Florida will vote in our primary on the 29th?
1 vote for Huckabee
1 vote for McCain
1 vote for Paul
5 votes for Thompson
8 votes for Guiliani
22 votes for Romney
We’ll be back to compare these results with the finals on Primary night. Stay tuned…
***
On tonight’s internet radio webcast we’ll be talking to the brilliant Selwyn Duke, national columnist whose works appear on The American Thinker, News with Views, World Net Daily, and other conservative journals of note.
Selwyn was with us for the final half hour of last Sunday night’s program, and we got on so well I invited him back for a return engagement. We’ve got him for the full hour tonight. We’ll be talking about the presidential campaign, the political landscape, conservatism, and whatever else comes to mind. Do join us! We get underway at 9 p.m. EST.
CALL IN NUMBER IS 646-478-4604.
Click the above button at 9 pm EST to hear us live.
ALL my shows are archived for your convenience.
Welcome to HeadingRight - the central hub for Republicans, Libertarians & Conservatives on BlogTalk Radio. This is where the best thinkers, writers, pundits and characters from the online community gather to discuss current events and politics through the miracle of BlogTalkRadio.
HeadingRight covers breaking political news, the biggest issues roiling the blogosphere, and delivers insight into the conservative / libertarian community online. HeadingRight is changing politics as we know it forever.
Join us and subscribe
Register at Heading Right! today, and get your permanent nickname for comments and live chat! Remember to Login after you've subscribed.
]
