Would you house and try terrorists in an area that includes:

• Our largest naval installation?
• The shipyard responsible for building nuclear carriers?
• Where design work is done on our nuclear subs?
• Headquarters for the US AIr Force’s Air Combat Command and 1st Fighter Wing?
• Multiple other military bases?
• A nuclear power plant?

No?  I wouldn’t either.  Yet, the Obama administration is evidently giving serious consideration to doing just that.

As the Washington Post and Daily Press report, the Obama Justice Department is considering holding trials for terrorists in the Eastern District of Virginia.  If so, the trials could occur in either Norfolk, Newport News, Richmond or Alexandria.  You can bet they wouldn’t do it in the DC burbs, so scratch the Alexandria courthouse off the list.

While Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Del. Glenn Oder, Del Phil Hamilton, and Virginia Sen. Tommy Norment have all strenuously denounced such an action, it is the stance of Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) that is the most ironic.  Scott, whose district includes the Newport News shipyard, the Newport News and Norfolk federal courthouses, Ft. Eustis, and the Surry nuclear power station (and is adjacent to the Norfolk Naval Base and Langley AFB) is straddling the fence:

… the decision on where to hold the trials is at "the discretion of the executive branch."

I don’t recall Bobby saying that when decisions were made by the Bush administration.

H/T – Brian Kirwin @ Bearing Drift

… and Barack Obama’s Total Lack of Character.

Human Events editor Jed Babbin wrote an excellent column this week regarding a key strategy being employed by Barack Obama and his handlers. Basically, the Dems want to paint John McCain with the same brush that LBJ and his lefty acolytes painted Sen. Barry Goldwater back in 1964.

Personally, I say let them try. The conservative movement was in its toddling stage back then; and the world is a far different place. If Obama’s folk want to claim that McCain is some sort of war-monger it’s fine by me; and I’m a pacifist. Our post 9/11 America will be more comforted by a military man who isn’t afraid of being tough on our nation’s enemies than Obama – who aspires to be the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlin.

One item in Babbin’s column that is too often overlooked by most of us is Obama’s complete disdain for the military. It’s almost Clintonesque.

Remember back to MoveOn.org ad about Gen. David Petraeus – “Gen. Betray Us”? Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced a resolution condemning the ad.

What did the ONE do? He literally hid in the closet like a little kid:

And Barack Obama did what he did so often in the Illinois Senate: he
ducked and ran for cover. Early in the day, Obama was present to vote
for the empty substitute offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer. Later in the
day, he was suddenly missing: he didn’t vote on the Cornyn amendment at
all. (The Cornyn amendment condemning the ad passed by a vote of
72-25-3. Not voting were Barack Obama, Maria Cantwell and — you
guessed it — Joe Biden.)

With true character like this, I’ll be real comforted.  IF the ONE is elected.

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore is scheduled to speak at the 90th annual American Legion convention is Falls Church this morning. Gilmore, the GOP nominee to succeed retiring Sen. John Warner (R-VA) is a Legion member and Vietnam-era veteran.

Hillary has thrown in the towel and the party of Jefferson and Jackson (both Andrew and Jesse) will nominate Barack Hussein Obama to be their candidate for President!

We should not be complacent. Like our current President who rode into office promoting a “compassionate conservatism” (borrow and spend big government), Obama will attempt to assuage the fears of voters by rhetorically promoting a less threatening form of socialism than leftist candidates before him.

Obama promotes government control of our economy through socialized healthcare and excessive taxation of “windfall profits”. Obama wishes to appease our enemies by claiming that he isn’t practicing appeasement.

With a Democrat congressional majority AND an Obama presidency America can look forward to waiting in mile long lines for $10 gasoline so that we can then get in line at the grocery store because food companies will have to be tax to death (since food prices are too high).

In a totally expected development, a staff member of Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (?-1) has formed a group calling themselves “Republicans for Kratovil”.  It appears that reporter Joe Gidjunis and the management of the Daily Times have signed up to be the group’s ad hoc publicity committee.  Why else would they bother to give a rump group of nominal Republicans (or closeted Democrats) in Kent County such prominent coverage?

There was never a question of the Daily Times‘ support for Gilchrest.  In all fairness, they should have.  Hardly an enclave of conservatism, our local paper had the perfect candidate in Gilchrest – liberal on social and environmental issues, moderate on fiscal and defense issues.  Unfortunately for them, but not for the people of the First District, their shining knight was showing signs of tarnish and lost.

Now they appear to be linking arms with a group led by paid Gilchrest staff to push the candidacy of Queen Anne’s States Attorney Frank Kratovil.  Why?  The answer is a simple one.  If Andy Harris wins in November, their beliefs will have been repudiated.

I have stated several times that Andy Harris was the best candidate running the worst campaign.  That’s not entirely true, but Gilchrest certainly ran a better race than Harris’.  Andy Harris was and is, BY FAR, the best candidate in this race.  He best represents the beliefs of the vast majority of voters in the First District.  Is the environment important?  Of course it is.  Is it more important to the majority of voters than taxes?  Illegal immigration?  Government spending?  The war on terror?  National defense?  No.  Harris is in sync with the majority of First District voters on all of these.  Unfortunately for Harris, his media consultants appeared to have only two arrows in their quiver (fiscal policy and immigration) and allowed the message to degenerate.

Now we have a small group of Gilchrest supporters who have swallowed the Kool-Aid and have disavowed the GOP because they lost a primary.  Fair enough, this is America.  Now the rubber has hit the road for Gilchrest and his senior staff.  Will he repudiate the actions of one staffer, and dismiss her, or will he remain silent?  Rep. Gilchrest should consider if this is the legacy that he wants to leave.

Some may argue that Gilchrest has no control over the actions of his staff.  The very fact that Karen Willis (founder of Crybabies for Kratovil) is prominently identified as a “Gilchrest aide” may infer that Gilchrest supports these efforts.  Does Gilchrest want to leave Congress as a statesman, or as an embittered loser who is using tax dollars (through paid staff) to provide aide and comfort to the very candidate that he had hoped to oppose in November.

cross posted at Salisbury News

Technorati Tags: Maryland, politics, Andy Harris, Wayne Gilchrest, Frank Kratovil, GOP, Democrat, conservatism, Daily Times, Gannett, fiscal policy, government spending, taxation, envirnoment

Perpetuating the stereotype that Florida is a sunnier, kinder and gentler colony of the “Big Apple”, the New York Times has chosen to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for the nominations of their respective parties on the eve of the Florida primary. As usual, the opinions of America’s paper of liberal record are well written, clear, and persuasive to the casual reader. It is unfortunate that the assumptions upon which their logic is based have so few facts to back them up.

The Times’ endorsement of Sen. Clinton was to be expected. The last true ’70′s liberal in the race is the one that is most in tune with the views of the Times’ publishers and editorial board. The Times’ is quite adamant in their reasoning, which will also be used in their endorsement of the Democrat nominee in the general election:

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two (Clinton and Obama). They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

It amazes me that left leaning individuals love to accuse conservatives of using “code” when it comes to issues such as race, but deny the obvious use of coded language when used by their own. The only issue that they are semi-clear on is their desire to withdraw from Iraq.

“More equitable taxation” is in reality a desire to raise the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, along with the desire to bring back to grand old days of 70% (or even 90%) top marginal rates. Of course we have to end all discussion of abolishing the death tax.

“More effective government spending” is the wish to raise entitlement spending while gutting our nation’s spending on national defense. While I have vehemently opposed Bush’s (and the GOP Congress’s) spendthrift ways, the gutting of defense spending under the first President Clinton necessitated the spending levels we now see.

“More concern for social issues” is yet one more plug for entitlement spending (including a single payer healthcare system) along with the desire to federalize issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which rightly belong with the states.

“A restoration of civil liberties” is merely the desire to transfer the rights of American citizens (including the franchise) to those that are here illegally or are enemies of our nation. I certainly don’t agree with the Bush “imperial presidency” or some of the administration’s tactics. I desperately hope that a new President will bring us back to a time when liberty was for all (who are legally here). However, the solutions of a President Clinton or President Obama would be disastrous to our nation’s security and economy.

As for the reference to “the politics of division” I can only chuckle. It is perfectly fine to attack evangelical Christians for their heartfelt beliefs (as the Times’ has done with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee) but to attack and ridicule those who oppose abortion or gay unions (to name only two issues) based on sincere religious belief is OK. Unfortunately we cannot read the minds of others, but it is perfectly fine to attack certain individuals of conscience by assuming that their motives are based on bigotry rather than faith. These messengers of the left are no better than a Sean Hannity who states that one cannot oppose the war in Iraq and still claim to be a conservative (I assume Quakers and Mennonites cannot be conservatives).

—————————————————————————————————-

It is the reasoning behind the endorsement of Sen. McCain that I find so bizarre. Given that the Times’ obviously views McCain as the “most liberal” of the remaining (viable) GOP candidates is, in all probability, the impetus behind their endorsement. Since they view the candidacy of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani as being on life support, they figure to hitch their wagon to McCain (or to torpedo him). Their reasoning (when seriously examined) shows that the editorial board of the Times has no business weighing in on this race. Their understanding of conservatism and the Republican party is equivalent to our understanding of life in a distant galaxy.

Core to the endorsement of Sen. McCain is the Times’ belief that McCain “is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.” Since such an assumption has no basis in fact, one has to question the balance of their reasoning. The fact is that Bush never governed on behalf of this “fringe”, which is left-wing code for social conservatives (or evangelical Christians, which are actually a subset of socially conservative voters). President Bush has consistently pandered to social conservatives in order to win, and then retain, their loyalty. The group that Bush has governed on behalf of has been the largest members of the US Chamber of Commerce.

A true Reaganite, is pro-business by being a proponent of free markets. The corporatism of Bush wing of the party is free market only when it aids large corporations and is most assuredly as pro-”corporate welfare” as they are anti-entitlement (for the poor). Entitlements for the middle and upper classes and for business are a totally different matter.

Their reasoning for not backing Giuliani is suspect. Unfortunately we will never be able to test my thesis unless Giuliani somehow sweeps the Florida primary and does extremely well on Super Tuesday.

Their refusal to support former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is sound. I think it has something to do with being from Massachusetts. This guy has held more positions on a given issue than the junior senator from his state.

While I am not a supporter of Huckabee’s, I refer you back to the previous section. The bigotry shown by left leaning publications like the Times towards certain people of faith can be compared to the racial views of a Klansman.

Not surprisingly, the Times feels that McCain should receive the greatest applause for the very stances that almost destroyed his campaign last year. It is despite his views on immigration that more and more conservatives are supporting McCain.

While the Times may love McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts, they seem incapable of understanding his reasoning. McCain wouldn’t have opposed the tax cuts if Congress (and Bush) had been able to exercise some restraint on non-defense spending.

It is the ideological left, and the non-ideological (and pandering) corporatist wing of the GOP that actually have to most to fear (and lose) under a McCain presidency. Perhaps that is why the New York Times chose to endorse him to begin with. There are far too many of us who will take a Times endorsement as a sign of betrayal by McCain.

G. A. Harrison is a lifelong Reaganite, former Republican Party officeholder, McCain supporter and editor of Delmarva Dealings and the Campaign Edge

cross posted at the Campaign Edge

Technorati Tags: 2008, politics, GOP, conservatism, liberalism, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, immigration, healthcare, fiscal policy, taxation, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani

Powered by ScribeFire.

Michelle Malkin states that “heads explode” over the endorsement of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). I’d venture to say that it’s just one more disappointment for the fans of Mitt.

I’m not a fan of Mike Huckabee, despite Chuck Norris’ endorsement. However, I’m a little disappointed by pundits who report to only be concerned about Conservatism moving forward, yet don’t hesitate to distort the record of those that they disagree with.

We need to remember that Huckabee was attacked on his fiscal record, but he was able to prove that it wasn’t has bad as people like Robert Novak claimed. We now have Ms. Malkin (who I am a fan of) proclaiming Huckabee as an “ethno-panderer”.

Why should folks be surprised that Hunter would not support Mitt Romney? National security has always been the number one issue for Hunter and, as Michael Swartz points out, Hunter has repeatedly asked Romney to intercede with his friends over at Bain Capital to drop their partnership with Chi-Com defense contractor Huawei Technologies in a bid to buy US defense contractor 3Com.

This is just one reason why I can’t support Mitt Romney for President. The evidence that Romney considers profit more important than national security bolsters the claim that a Romney presidency would mean (at least) four more years of a corporatist White House.

As for the continuing dismissal of Sen. John McCain, I am amazed at the revisionist history being written by the Bush wing of the party and its supporters (like Romney). I remember similar attacks being levied against Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980 (by Bush’s father, no less). I agree that McCain is weak on immigration, but he can remedy that mistake. His capital crime, among the corporatist wing of the party, is his refusal to immediately jump on the bandwagon for Bush’s tax cuts. Admittedly, part of his reasoning was wrong. I didn’t buy into the “class warfare” aspect, but McCain was dead right regarding the effect of the cuts on the deficit.

While I may wish that Rep. Hunter had supported McCain, I understand his choice. He should be respected for it.

Technorati Tags: 2008, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, fiscal policy, defense, taxation, economics

Powered by ScribeFire.

There are just over three weeks to go until Maryland’s primary. Republican voters in the First District will have an opportunity to cast their vote in one of the most hotly contested Congressional primaries of the year when they choose between Wayne Gilchrest, Andy Harris or E. J. Pipkin. You can read a detailed analysis of each campaign at the Campaign Edge.

The biggest question is – will voters be sufficiently informed as to who stands for what on immigration, taxation, fiscal restraint and the war to actually vote for the candidate who best reflects their views or will they be sufficiently confused to vote for the wrong guy … or not to vote at all?

cross posted at Salisbury News and Red Maryland

Technorati Tags: 2008, campaign, GOP, WayneGilchrest, AndyHarris, EJPipkin, immigration, fiscalpolicy, taxation, defense

Powered by ScribeFire.

Spank the Donkey is running an excellent series of posts titled “Why Jim Gilmore Will Win” To date they are:

Why Jim Gilmore Will Win – Part 1: Government Spending

Why Jim Gilmore Will Win – Part 2: Looming Recession

Why Jim Gilmore Will Win – Part 3: Agent of Change

Why Jim Gilmore Will Win – Part 4: Military Service

Why Jim Gilmore Will Win – Part 5: Bringing Virginians Together

We’ll keep updating the series as Chris adds more posts. You can also catch them over at Bloggers 4 Jim Gilmore.

Technorati Tags: 2008, JimGilmore, economics, fiscalpolicy, taxation, defense, campaign, GOP, Virginia, politics, virginiapolitics

Powered by ScribeFire.

One of the favorite terms slung by left is “McCarthyism”. They love to accuse those in the center and right of this supposed sin. Of course they are never guilty of it themselves.

People have short memories, and certainly aren’t helped by the media. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) actually did a lot of good in bringing attention to Communists and Communist sympathizers employed in high ranking posts by the Federal government. There was just one problem, McCarthy became a little too infatuated with his press clippings and started branding people as Reds who simply disagreed with him. This brought us to the now infamous Army-McCarthy hearings.

The Left’s favorite organization, MoveOn.org seems to have learned little from history. This merry little band of America haters decided to take out an ad in the New York Times declaring Iraq theater commander, Gen. David Patraeus, as Gen. Betray Us.

Without bothering to hear what the man had to say, they accused him of betray his country and lying to the American people. Needless to say, a far too large group of Democrat Congressmen jumped on the “America Last” bandwagon.

Technorati Tags: defense, McCarthyism, MoveOn.org, liberalism

Powered by ScribeFire.