REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL BE BACK SOONER THAN LATER

What do the election results mean to conservatives?

The results of the 2008 election mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. What do those results mean to conservatives? The results do not mean conservative candidates lose elections. Obama got a big slice of the conservative vote, largely because he portrayed himself as a post-ideological as well as a post-partisan candidate -- and McCain tried to do just the same thing. Ronald Reagan in 1984 was the last man to run as an unabashed conservative, and he won by the last true landslide in an American presidential election.

President Bush, admired for his personal honor and deep faith, was respected by many conservatives, but he was hardly a conservative himself. No man who nominated Harriett Meiers to the Supreme Court could be considered a true conservative. Anyone who could embrace the vision of Ted Kennedy for our national education policy was not a true conservative. Anyone who could create a new entitlement for prescription drugs was not a true conservative.

Bush was simply a decent man who was not a Leftist Democrat. As McCain found out, being a decent man who is not a Leftist Democrat means nothing at all to the Left. Both men, like Bob Dole and like George H. Bush, are good Americans, admirable people, and men blissfully unaware that the Left is not just waging battles on issues like more socialism but are rather waging war on our entire way of life. Bush, Dole, McCain, and Bush Sr. were not wicked failures because they were not conservatives. They were more like Chamberlain at Munich: They did not grasp the true depth and nature of their adversary and, they thought, their adversary might be reasonable.

How far have "conservatives" come from Ronald Reagan's famous maxim "If you can't make them see the light, then let them feel the heat." In other words, conservatives must lead. Or, as Reagan also said "All they can do is hang us from a higher tree." This homey, typical truth trumped all the mush of moderation that brought Republicans in such disrepute over the last ten years or so. Courage is contagious and so is cowardice.

When Republican "leaders" like Trent Lott sabotaged the impeachment trial of a sitting president because they feared political fallout, conservatives cringed. We conservatives, after all, do not involve ourselves in the public arena because of the goodies we might get. That is what Leftists do. We intend to protect the sacred values of the Declaration of Independence, which are utterly nonpartisan (the founding fathers, of course, dreaded political parties) and we do this recalling that the signers of that document risked all in taking their stand for transcendent liberty. Ronald Reagan, a Hollywood star with a starlet wife and lots of money, did not enter politics to get but rather to give. He entered to lead and not to herd. This is what conservatives used to do.

And this is the way conservatives used to talk: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater defiantly rejected the idea that Leftists could place him on some invented "Far Right." He stood for specific things, which he recorded in books, and which represented an actual platform for conservative ideals. John McCain, the other Republican nominee from Arizona, would never have embraced extremism, even in the defense of liberty. The soft, warm, middle was his true home. The safe, predictable consensus was his real party.

He was in the good company of pleasant and worthwhile citizens like Tom Dewey, Wendel Wilkie, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford. In a world at peace on a planet unscarred by a relentless ideological jihad on our values and our faith, these nice sorts would have made excellent managers of the republic. But war was declared on us long ago, long before September 11.

War was declared on us by militant atheists who sought to deconstruct all our values and to mask their crimes as science. War was declared on us by active, pernicious agents of the Soviet Union who sowed the seeds of racial hatred, gender warfare, and every other discord they could inflame and poison -- they were not in the business of calming and healing. War was declared on us by jealous and irreligious Europeans, who view our faith in anything as hopeless naïveté which it is their pleasure to debunk. War was declared on us by radical Moslems, who saw the version of God which serious Christians and Jews embrace as too loving and too peaceful.

War was declared on us, and the Left here joined the fight against us. War was declared on us, and notional "conservatives" tried to lead us. But, of course, they could not. While Ronald Reagan embarrassed the establishment by calling the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," our putative conservative nominee would not even raise the malignancy of Jeremiah Wright. While Barry Goldwater nobly challenged federal grasping in 1964, his Arizonan successor called for Washington "solutions" to a Washingtonian financial disease forty-four years later.

What does this mean to conservatives? It means we must choose leaders who believe, even if their cause seems hopeless. It means that we must recall that liberty was not born in our nation in easy ways but at Valley Forge when Washington saw his men's bloody, frostbitten feet as he contemplated the loss of everything he possessed in life if he were to lose. It means remembering that Goldwater was routed in 1964, but came back to the Senate in 1968 with everyone - liberals included -- respected his courage and dignity. It means going back four years to the Reagan Funeral and seeing the long lines of thankful Americans who waited for hours just to say goodbye to the last true leader they had known.

We have hope now. Obama cannot end democracy in America and he probably cannot impose a melancholy quasi-official censorship. Obama can only assume total responsibility for what happens to us over the next two years. Please, conservatives, resist compromise! Make stands upon principle, like Reagan and Goldwater. Take the heart of Washington, the true leader of all conservatives, in fighting for what we believe even if the outcome is uncertain and the struggle is long. Contemplate Churchill in 1940, when he promised to resist rather than parlay with evil.

If we believe in God, then hope is ever certain. If we hold sure and proven laws of human experience, then we know that failed ideas in practice also fail. If we believe in the spirit of the American people and their nation, then we sense that though change comes in elections, the liberty to which we have become accustomed longer than any people in human history cannot be simply crushed.

We fight -- even today -- for our lives and the lives of our children. If we have not had leaders, we must find them. Victory may seem far off. But we can see it still. As another American wrote almost two hundred years ago: "Oh, say does that Star Spangled Banner still wave? Ore the land of the free, and the home of the brave." Francis Scott Key, like George Washington, were models of what conservative leaders must be. We had these men once, and we shall have them again.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/what_do_the_election_results_m.html

JOHN McCAIN, SARAH PALIN CABBAGE PATCH DOLLS~SO CUTE

These Cabbage Patch dolls they did of John McCain and Sarah Palin are adorable.
Thank you John and Sarah for giving it your best shot. You would have been a great President John and Sarah you would have been a great Vice-President. God bless you both as life goes on.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !

Obama will lose, Repeat of 1948: Turnout Puts McCain Ahead in Popular and Electorial Votes!

Election day will be full of suprises. Do not expect what you think.
NOW HEAR THIS. HEAR YE HEAR YE !
Repeat of 1948: Turnout Puts McCain Ahead in Popular and Electorial Votes!
McCain will get 50% of the popular vote nationally.
Obama will get 48% of the popular vote nationally.
McCain will get 278 electorial votes.
Obama will get 260 electorial votes.
Congratulations to all who voted.
Voter turnout will hit a new record of about 64%.

http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/repeat-of-1948-turnout-puts-mccain-ahead-in-popular-and-electorial-votes/

The American people are now paying attention and will vote their pocketbooks.
Expect record turnout of voters and long lines.

The big disappointment was the extent to which big media favored Barack Obama.
The staggering number and bias of the polls was used to manipulate and discourage voters that were Independents, undecided and those that were leaning towards McCain to not even bother to come out and vote.

Most ignored the polls and were motivated to show big media how wrong they were.
Independents were turned off by the arrogance of Barack Obama and his desire to share their wealth or income, instead of letting individuals and families keep their hard earned money.
Conservatives will vote for Palin and against Obama who they view as a radical socialist.
Libertarians did not like any of the candidates but voted for McCain over a radical socialist Marxist and decided not to waste their vote on Bob Barr. Many still wanted Ron Paul.
All voters were concerned about their jobs and found Obama proposed tax increases as a direct threat to their employers who would have to lay off employees as well as higher taxes resulting in higher prices for all goods and services. The price of bread, corn, milk and groceries in general and gasoline are still putting a dent in most people’s pocketbooks.

Obama also wants to increase you electricity bills with a new cap and trade tax. Over 50% of the electricity in the United States is coal generated and less than 1% is generated by solar or wind, so-called alternative energy.

So much for socialist planning under Barack Obama–the guy is a economy wrecker and job destroyer:
Obama will lose big time among Catholics and Evangelicals who found Obama’s views on abortion and same sex marriage totally unacceptable and beyong the pale. Obama appointing judges was also a big concern.

As much as they would like to punish big spending Republicans, family values are still important among the Republican base.
The American people again preferred a divided government.

Somebody needs to veto all the spending bills Congress will pass.

SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY



Obama/Joe Biden “No Coal Plants Here in America”



Cost of Cap & Trade



Alternative Energy Sources

Sarah Palin and Elisabeth Hasselbeck Rally VIDEOS IN FLORIDA

WOW, What an awesome speech by Sarah Palin and Elisabeth Hasselbeck IN FLORIDA this weekend. WAY TO GO GIRLS ! YOU TELL EM. AMERICA IS PROUD OF BOTH OF YOU. GOD BLESS YOU BOTH AS YOU GO ABOUT THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA. JOB WELL DONE

Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory on November 4, 2008

Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory

Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.

What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.

This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.

Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.

Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)

Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.

Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.

There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)

Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.

The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.

Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.

Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.

So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/signs_pointing_to_a_mccain_vic.html

Five Reasons Independents Should Choose McCain Over Obama

I FOUND THIS TO BE QUITE A NICELY PUT ARTICLE.

Conservatives, liberals, and independents tend to have a different view of the world and all too often, pundits on the right and left end up preaching to the choir instead of putting out columns that make good sense to people who don't necessarily share our political views.

So today, I'd like to do something a little differently: I'd like to explain to the independents out there why they should want John McCain in the White House next year instead of Barack Obama.

Since most independents would probably acknowledge that McCain is more experienced than Obama, is more capable of handling a crisis, and has proven his bona fides as a bipartisan reformer, there's no need to go back over that well-traveled ground. However, what I would like to point out is that,

As Forrest Gump would say, (Obama is) "like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get:" Paradoxically, one of the things that has helped Obama immeasurably is that his legislative record is so sparse that he has been able to simultaneously portray himself as different things to different groups of people.

All at once, he has been a doctrinaire liberal and a moderate, a radical anti-war candidate and a man who takes a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, and a bipartisan senator who loves to reach across the aisle as well as a bitter partisan infighter who loves to fight Republicans. So, however you slice it, large numbers of Americans are destined to feel like they were misled when Barack Obama gets into office.

Who are those Americans going to be? I'd suggest that they're the people buying into the image of Barack Obama as some sort of reasonable, bipartisan moderate. If you judge Obama by his record (what there is of it), as opposed to campaign rhetoric, you'll find a candidate who is every bit as far to the left as Rush Limbaugh is to the right.

As Sarah Palin has said, this is a man who has been "palling around with terrorists" like Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn. He spent 20 years going to a radical, anti-white, anti-American church. He had the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate in 2007. In other words, this is a man who is comfortable on the farthest fringes of the American Left. Combine his radical views, his stunning lack of experience, and the rapidly shifting promises he has made during the campaign and it's extremely hard to predict exactly what he'd do and how far he would go if he gets into office. Given what we know about Obama, it would be far less risky to hand a teenage boy a bottle of whiskey and your car keys than it would be to hand Barack Obama the keys to the White House.

Giving the far Left your power of attorney, your pin number, and the keys to your house: Because our Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances to keep different branches of government from getting out of control, we don't typically have radical shifts in D.C. Usually different parties control the different branches of government or alternately, bad legislation can be stopped in the Senate, where the minority party has a lot of power.

Unfortunately, because the Republican Party in general and George Bush in particular have done such a lousy job over the last four years, the Democrats are going to have huge majorities in the House and Senate after the 2008 election and so if Obama gets in as well, the Democrats will essentially have carte blanche to do almost anything they want for at least two years.

Put another way, you may not like John McCain or the Republicans in Congress very much, but are you really willing to give Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama a blank check for the next two years? That's the situation we'll have if Barack Obama gets into office and it's why independent Americans who fear having the country radically shifted to the left would be wise to vote for John McCain.

”It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it”: Americans are sick and tired of spending our blood and treasure in Iraq -- and that's perfectly understandable. However, given all the money we've spent, the sacrifices our troops have made, the enormous importance of the conflict in the war on terror, and the staggering potential consequences if we lose (genocide, regional war), doesn't it make sense to make sure that we win?

Granted, because of the surge, which McCain supported and Obama opposed, the situation in Iraq has improved immeasurably. In fact, it has gotten so much better that it's not completely out of the question that Barack Obama could guide us to victory there. However, as Sarah Palin said of him,

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign."

Four years from now, it's unlikely that the United States is going to be taking significant numbers of casualties in Iraq or spending more than a fraction of what we do there today -- and that's no matter who the President may be. Since that's the case, shouldn't we at least be sure that we emerge victorious?

Come hell or high water, John McCain will do what it takes to win. He has essentially staked his entire political reputation on it. But, Barack Obama? The word "victory" never crosses his lips and he's setting a timeline that has the potential to hand over a war our troops have almost won to our enemies. If the American people allow politicians in Washington to steal a victory from our troops at this point, then future generations of Americans can and should damn us as utter fools.

Throwing good money after bad: The most disturbing thing about the 700 billion dollar bailout is not the fact that it rewards bad behavior, that it apparently didn't fix the problem, and that it dramatically increased the size of our national debt -- although those are all reasons the bailout should be condemned.

No, the biggest problem with the bailout is actually that Democrats in Congress, Barack Obama included, are refusing to acknowledge the root cause of the bailout, even though it's so obvious that they're doing skits about it on Saturday Night Live.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress to demand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac give loans to bad risks in the name of "affordable housing," then we're going to be right back in the same place, bailing these banks out again in a few more years. In other words, if you want the exact same people in Congress who created the current bailout mess to create another one we're going to have to pay for somehow in five years, vote Barack Obama into office and that may be exactly what we get.

We don't have a debt because Washington doesn't tax enough; we have a debt because Washington spends too much: Many people have noted that the budget was balanced under Bill Clinton, but rocketed upwards under Reagan and George W. Bush. If you only have a superficial understanding of politics, that doesn't seem to make sense. After all, isn't it the Democrats who always want to hand out goodies while the Republicans always talk about fiscal responsibility?

Here's the little secret that explains that: primarily it is Congress, not the President, that ends up driving the size of the budget. So, folks, if we have more bailouts coming up in 2009 (and we do), the current group of Democratic big spenders in Congress adds to their margins (and they will), and Barack Obama, who is planning nearly a trillion dollars in new spending gets in, the deficit will take off like a space shuttle.

On the other hand, John McCain isn't a big spender. To the contrary, his reputation as a fiscal conservative has been one of the primary things that has kept conservatives on board who have disagreed with him on a host of other issues. Furthermore, John McCain wants to put an end to earmarks, has proposed a spending freeze, and has even set a goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

Now, honest question: since we're putting our children's financial future on the line -- who do you think will do a better job of controlling spending under those circumstances? Here’s a hint: it isn’t the guy who wants to spend enough to bankrupt 57 states.

WHY ARE YOU NOT VOTING FOR McCain/Palin in 08 ?

This is a poll. I am trying to gather information from everyday people as to "why" if you are not voting for McCain.
I want to know why you will not vote for John McCain if that is the case.
Please leave a comment.
Thanks !