The George Mason College Republican Blog

Our Energy Crisis: ANWR

2008-07-26T22:33:00.001-04:00

LOOK FOR PART TWO OF OUR SERIES ON ENERGY THIS SUNDAY EVENING (July 27)

Thank you for your support.

Barack Obama hates the American flag.

2008-07-23T21:46:00.005-04:00

That's right.

Obama's campaign jet recently received a makeover. Among the changes: The removal of the American flag to place his "O" logo.

See for your self.

To the left is the tail of Air Force One, which is what Obama's plane did look like. The picture on the right is what Obama changed it to. I must say, he has kept his word on one thing: There will be change. First he changes the Presidential seal, and now the flag. What's next?

BREAKING NEWS: JINDAL SAYS NO TO VP!

2008-07-23T13:33:00.004-04:00

JINDAL SAYS NO TO VP; WISHES TO REMAIN GOVERNOR

In a statement on "Fox and Friends," this morning, Jindal said that he wishes to remain as Governor of Louisiana, offically ending all speculation of him being the VP pick. In his apperance on the program, Jindal said, "I look forward to continuing to be governor of Louisiana. This is a once in a lifetime chance to improve our state. We’ve cut six taxes but we’ve got a lot more work to do right here in Louisiana.”

Jindal went on to say that a VP should be qualified to be President, and that McCain should base his decision on that.

Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney remain on "the short list."

The Media Caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

2008-07-22T21:36:00.003-04:00

Yet again, the media has been caught with its hand in "the cookie jar of liberalness."

With the surge succeeding, the media seems to be looking for any bad news from Iraq that it can find. On a whole, reports found that 44% of all news reported about Iraq was negative, compared to 17% consisting of good news. (The remaining % is considered neutral) Of all of the "Big Three," CBS gets the worst mark. Bad news nearly out numbers the good news on a 4-1 ratio.

As you all know, the Jimmy Carter speechwriters at NBC News and MSNBC were quick to declare Iraq was in a civil war. However, they have stopped using those two words without explanation. Did the "civil war" abruptly end, or is NBC admitting that they have no brains?

The media also seems to want to have a love affair with Barack Obama. All three network news anchors will be traveling with Obama in his tour to Europe and the Middle East. No major news anchor has traveled with or interviewed John McCain during any of his trips overseas. Also, when McCain went to Canada in June, no one in NBC, CBS, or ABC cared. Also, during McCain's entire week-long trip to Iraq in March, CBS News gave a thirty-one word report that summed up his entire week.

If you're still not convinced, watch this ad:

Look for the ongoing series on energy later this week. Also - more flip-flopping from the Obama camp. Be on the lookout as well for breaking news...word has it McCain may announce his VP pick by the end of the week!

NY TIMES: A safe haven for liberals!

2008-07-21T21:14:00.003-04:00

Tell me something I don't already know, right?

Recently, The NY Times ran an op-ed piece by Obama about Iraq. When McCain tried to submit one, the former Clinton speechwriters rejected it, citing the fact that they disagreed with it. You can read McCain's piece below:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Our Energy Crisis: Nancy's War

2008-07-17T20:38:00.005-04:00

Hello CRs!

Welcome to part one of the series of blog posts that I am doing on energy called: "Our Energy Crisis." The first post of this series will lay out some facts and statistics about oil and gas prices. As the title mentions, I will also focus on how Nancy Pelosi is helping America reach $4 gasoline. Without further interruption, I bring you the first blog of our series.

"NANCY'S WAR"

Nancy Pelosi has waged a war on the American people. Despite the fact that 67% of Americans want Congress to lift the moratorium on off-shore drilling, Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer have repeatedly blocked attempts for the House to vote on the matter.

During George W. Bush's first 6 years in office, gas prices rose 84 cents, from $1.49 to $2.33. Since Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid have taken office, prices rose from $2.33 to $4.04. Thats a 74% rise in prices!

This Democratic controlled Congress has not just affected gas prices. Bread prices are up 21%, milk and eggs are respectively up 26% and 34%, and home values have decreased by 7%. In 2006, the American people elected Democrats because the party said that they had a plan to lower gas prices. Since they've taken over, we have now learned that their plan is to "Drive less, and wait for the wind."

My friends, this is unacceptable. The Democrats in Congress are doing nothing about the high price of gas. Their most recent discussion on the floor? Honoring a Division III womens' lacrosse team. Gee, I didn't know that lacrosse was more important than Americans being held hostage at the pump.

Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow the House to debate drilling off the coast as well as ANWR. Why? Only the liberal leadership (Her, Hoyer, and Reid) are the ones that oppose this. Did you know that 57% of Democrats support drilling?

We have 18 billion barrels of untapped domestic oil in offshore waters. Its time that we start exploring the possibility of using them.

Look out for Part Two coming up next week. It will feature my argument for drilling in ANWR.

Jib-Jab boldly launches new video!

2008-07-16T19:37:00.001-04:00

Hey CRs!

Before I start my posts on energy, I thought I would share with you all the new jib-jab video. Enjoy!

BREAKING NEWS: President Bush lifts the ban on off-shore drilling!!

2008-07-14T12:36:00.004-04:00

UPDATED AT 9:00 p.m. ET

President Bush has lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling!!

Follow this developing story here.
Click here for another link.

In a statement today, President Bush said the following, "The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court."

In response to the latest energy debates, I will be doing a 3-part series on this blog called, "Our Energy Crisis."

The first blog of the series will list current facts, as well as some scary statistics on the current energy crisis, and what the Democratic Congress has done about it. The second part will feature my argument as to to why we need to drill of our coast, as well as in ANWR. Finally, the last post of this series will feature John McCain's energy proposals, as well as ways to contact your elected officials to tell them that you demand action! I will also be cross-posting the third part on the GMU for McCain blog as well.

Thank you for your support. I hope that you enjoy my three part series: "Our Energy Crisis." Stay tuned.

Jesse Helms' Tribute

2008-07-13T18:31:00.006-04:00

Hello GMU CRs-

As you all know, Senator Jesse Helms died during the early morning hours

of July 4, 2008. Unfortunately I have not had the chance to write a proper tribute. Sadly, I couldn't find any good tributes to share with you all. NBC Nightly News did a brief piece on him, in which they labeled him as an "ultra-rightist."

I thought that we could do much better than just writing him off as an "ultra-rightist." So, I thought that I would provide my own tribute.

Jesse Helms was a man of principle. A man who never changed his opinion because of public opinion, and certainly a man that would never vote to appease a certain group. To him, principle was the most important thing, even if it meant being on the bottom half of some votes that were 99-1. Being the one vote meant that Helm's kept with his belief system.

He opposed tax increases, was a staunch advocate of the rights of the unborn, despised affirmative action, and was anti-communism. He was the longest serving senator of North Carolina, and is attributed to turning the state from blue to red. He is also seen as the man who helped revived President Ronald Reagan's career.

His legacy as an icon for conservatives will leave on. Senator Helms, you will be missed.

BREAKING NEWS: Tony Snow dies at 53

2008-07-12T12:35:00.004-04:00

GMU CRs-

It is my sad duty today to report to the CR community that beloved Tony Snow has died from cancer at the age of 53. Snow has served as White House Press Secretary, a commentator for FOX News, and was a popular speaker for many conservative conventions, including CPAC. He was also a guest host for both The Rush Limbaugh Show, as well as the O'Reilly Factor. At CPAC 2008, he gave a rousing speech that drew several standing ovations. His speech can be found here.

Snow is survived by his wife and 3 children. He will surely be missed.

Why we are Republicans

2008-07-11T19:40:00.003-04:00

Hello GMU CRs!

As I was doing some research for some of this weekend's posts, I stumbled upon this video. I think everyone should watch it.

Coming up next week: An argument for drilling in ANWR, and a proper tribute to Senator Jessie Helms.

Dumb things that the media says

2008-07-08T22:06:00.001-04:00

Hello everyone!

The Media Research Center does a bi-weekly publication in which they compile a few "outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media."

From time to time I may post on a few of their reports. Enjoy.

"Is Cheney a goon? I don't that to be like a smart ass..."

-David Letterman

"To hell with what's right or wrong."

-CNN's Jack Cafferty

Reporter (CNN) Jeff Glor: "In addition to enjoying basketball and cycling during down time, Obama loves to play Scrabble....Obama’s job as a teenager was at a Baskin-Robbins, and to this day he does not like ice cream...."

Co-host Julie Chen: "Okay, so after doing this story, what’s the takeaway?"

Glor: "I mean, I think this is a man who plays to win. No matter what it is, whether it’s the woman he wants to date or elected office or board games, there is an ambition there. There is a determination."

Chen: "Sounds like presidential qualities."

Happy July 4th (Part Two)

2008-07-07T22:37:00.002-04:00

No, I know that today is July 7th. Remember what Reagan said:

"To Republicans, everyday is the 4th of July, but to Democrats, everyday is April 15th."

Enjoy the video.

Obama's not really that rich...Good thing he got a good deal on his new house.

2008-07-06T22:38:00.004-04:00

That's right folks.

All of those reports of Obama that say that he is rolling in the Benjamin's? They appear to be not true. Apparently, Obama's campaign is not as rich as people think. McCain is almost as competitive money wise. As of May 31st, Obama has $43.1 million on hand, compared to McCain's $31.6 million on hand. A lead yes, but not a huge one.

Now let's look at the different party committees. Also, check this out: In May, Obama raised $23.3 million and the DNC raised $4.8 million; but McCain raised $21.5 million and the RNC $24.4 million. If you add up both of the totals, McCain actually has more spending money than Obama does.

[EXTRA: It looks like Obama's spending may actually help the GOP. In his summer TV ads, Obama highlights his inexperience. In the ads, he claims to have passed three bills. However, two of these bills are Illinois state-senate bills and the third is a bill that he did not even vote on. Another ad praises welfare reform; yet he opposed it when the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton passed it into law.]

Now with all this talk of Obama not having much spending money, one must ask, How did he afford such an expensive mansion in Chicago? Easy! He got a discount!

In fact, with his deal, he got an estimated savings of $300 a month! In fact, he's not the only high-profile person to receive a discount. Despite a housing crisis, he and Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad also got great deals! Seems a tad hypocritical, don't you think? If you ask me, they should use the money that they saved to help those in the "housing crunch" that they talk about.

Because of this news, Obama-supporter James Johnson has resigned from the VP search committee.

This story is also linked to the ongoing Rezko scandal. Rezko's wife bought a house next door and then sold the lot to the Obama's for dirt cheap.

If you need a "refresher" on the Rezko scandal, watch this video.

Happy July 4th

2008-07-04T01:06:00.002-04:00

Four men that McCain should not touch with a 40 foot pole.

2008-06-30T20:17:00.004-04:00

This post was updated on July 1st, at 9:45 am
Hello GMU CRs!

The most recent issue of National Review had an article called "McCain's Untouchables." It listed four men that McCain should NOT pick as a a running mate. They didn't list them in any order, but I put them in order from bad to worse.

4. Mike Huckabee

REASON WHY: NO EXPERIENCE/SAYS DUMB THINGS

Mike Huckabee is a man that has great executive experience, but no foreign policy experience. Foreign policy needs to be on of the core issues that the GOP needs to dominate in. Also as to why he is a bad choice: He says dumb things. He recently tried to make a joke at an NRA convention about Obama getting shot at. He later apologized, and added, "I'm sure I'll say more dumb things in the future."

3. Tom Ridge

REASON WHY: SUPPORTS ABORTION/IS A LIBERAL IN DISGUISE

Tom Ridge is another bad choice. Why? Because the GOP always has, and always will be a pro-life party. Sorry Tom. Also: while serving as a Congressman from PA, he amassed a HUGE liberal voting record. He has voted in favor of big-labor and against defense, and did not support the polices of the White House during the Reagan years. Usually, he would be agaisnt Reagan, rather than with him.

2. Charlie Crist

REASON WHY: SUPPORTS ABORTION/IS A LIBERAL IN DISGUISE

First off, McCain should not need Crist in order to win. Secondly, Crist supports abortion, and is really only a conservative on taxes and crime laws. The only real thing that he has done in office anyway is socialize FL's Hurricane Insurance.

1. Joe Lieberman

REASON WHY: LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL, LIBERAL, LIBERAL!!!!!

If you really need to know as to why John McCain should not pick Lieberman to be his running mate, then you are dumb. Did you know that the American Conservative Union has given him only an 8%? That's only 1% higher than Barack Obama! The only issue that McCain and Lieberman agree on in foreign policy related issues. The United States would be a heartbeat away from a Democratic Administration if McCain were to pick him. When asked what he thinks of the Supreme Court, he said that they need to be filled with judges that have a more cetrist view. For conservatives, that is unacceptable. One more minor thing: He supports abortion.

We're not losing in Iraq.

2008-06-30T10:30:00.004-04:00

Hello GMU CRs!

This article was forwarded to me. I think you all should take a look at it. It is written by Carter Andress, and it offers proof to show you that we are NOT losing in Iraq.

Enjoy.

Click here to read it.

D.C. ban on handguns unconstitutional!

2008-06-27T22:49:00.003-04:00

Hello GMU CRs!

Hope you all are having a good day. Yesterday, a historic decision was made. Not since the 1800's has the highest court in the land made a decision regarding the 2nd Amendment. As we all know, the 2nd Amendment clearly states,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the 32-year ban on handguns in The District of Columbia was unconstitutional. Agruing for the majority, Justice Scalia had this to say,

The Constitution does not permit the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

The Chief Executive of the NRA has called this ruling a "great moment in American history." I agree. For 32-years, the people of the District of Columbia have had one of the core civil liberties denied. Its about time that America, the land of the free gave it back to them.

News of this decision can be found everywhere. As one conservative blog put it,

Washington, D.C., will become a safer place to live and work thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday against the city's absolute ban on handguns. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms is an individual right, not just one that permits states to maintain militias, striking down one of the nation's toughest anti-gun laws. As someone who lived in the District at the time the city imposed its ban 32 years ago, I say it's about time.

It is about time that the Court has done something right for a change.

Thanks for reading. Check back this weekend for more updates on this and other stories.

BREAKING NEWS: D.C. HANDGUN BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

2008-06-26T18:38:00.003-04:00

BREAKING NEWS

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has declared the 30 year ban on handguns in the District of Columbia to be unconstitutional. The decision was revealed at about 9 am this morning; The D.C. mayor gave a response at noon.

MORE TO COME AS THIS STORY DEVELOPS. CHECK THE BLOG LATER FOR MORE INFORMATION.

New attack ad on Obama

2008-06-23T22:11:00.003-04:00

This is normally something that I would post on the GMU for McCain blog, but I thought that the CR community might find this attack ad on Obama interesting.

Enjoy.

New Polling Data Has Obama Up in Virginia; Deeds and Moran tied against McDonnell

2008-06-19T12:45:00.003-04:00

A new poll by the Public Policy Polling taken today has shown Democratic Presidntial Nomine Barack Obama taking a two point lead over Republican John McCain in the state of Virginia. This poll came with a poll taken on June 12th by Rasmussen showing Obama at 45 to McCain at 44. John McCain has some catching up to do.

This poll also showed Attorney General Bob McDonnell up over both Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran for the 2009 Gubernatorial race.

The poll has McDonnell/Deeds at 32-27 and McDonnell/Moran at 33-27. While it is not the most impressive lead, it is a early sign of good news for Republicans going into 2009.

Difference between Barrack, Hillary, and McCain

2008-06-19T00:28:00.004-04:00

Hey all!

Tonight I'm blogging from the beach! Hope all is well with everyone. The following was forwarded to me in an email by a friend...enjoy! If you have any exciting vacation stories, fill free to share them as a comment on this post. I'll be back to serious commentary next week! See you then!

Is the Economy really that bad? Or Does Someone Benefit from Misery?

2008-06-18T09:56:00.003-04:00

Everybody realizes going into the 2008 election cycle that Iraq has been removed as the top issues of the season. This time it is the economy, and the economic woes faced by everyday Americans. But is the economy really as bad as everyone (and by everyone, I mean Democrats?) A article written by Neal Irwin in the Washington Post explains.

Soft? You betcha. In recession? Quite possibly. And a crisis in the financial markets has rattled nerves for months now. But so far, the economy is holding up better than it did during the last two recessions in 1990 and 2001. Employers haven't shed as many jobs, the unemployment rate is still relatively low, and gross domestic product has kept rising. Things are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Great Depression, or even during the severe recession of 1982-83. The last time consumers were this miserable, in May 1980, the jobless rate was 7.5 percent and inflation was 14.4 percent. Now those numbers are 5.5 percent and 4.2 percent respectively.

So if the raw numbers show that recessions have been far worse in the past, why are Americans "feeling it" more than they have in the past? He goes to explain that the rising cost of oil effects Americans more directly than anything else.

Eric J. Johnson, who studies behavioral economics at Columbia Business School, offers this example: Someone who has to pay an extra $25 to fill up his car is reminded of that cost once a week -- or more often if you count the times he is driving down the road and sees the $4 per gallon price in giant numbers on a sign. Technically, he is no worse off than if his rent had increased by $100 a month. But it feels a lot worse. "Things that you buy more frequently and that have large percentage increases will weigh more in people's perception of inflation," Johnson said.

Irwin also goes to explain that there is a correlation between housing prices and spending, as well as negative media coverage.

Running into 2008, I can see why Democrats want this year to be about the economy as opposed to the war. Democrats need Americans scared in order to establish a platform. Democrats are going to reinforce the fear Americans are feeling as much as possible. If Democrats want a real change going into 2008, why not start by not scaring Americans into voting for you?

Happy Father's Day and a Little Sunday Reading

2008-06-15T12:08:00.002-04:00

I hope everyone has a excellent Father's Day today. Also here are some articles I find interesting.

Reporting for Duty -- Not

Sundays after Russert

The DPVA Convention: A recap

2008-06-14T13:59:00.002-04:00

Hey everybody, I am so sorry for not updating earlier, but I was experiencing technical difficulties with my computer and the internet connection. I had to take off early. But now here is the recap.

To be very honest with you all, this was very uneventful. Even the Democrat Blogs such as Raising Kaine and Not Larry Sabato seem to care what happened. It was a few congressional candidate's and elected Democrats speaking. The Democratic Party of Virginia is using the same catch lines that Barack Obama is, constantly referring to Hope and Change. The candidates speaking were interesting, but most of them are not going to make a scratch against their Republican opponnent. Anita Hartke, who is running against Eric Cantor for congress could not even give a good speech. She was very unimpressive next to Congressman Cantor. He should easily dispatch her in November.

Judging the competition from the convention, it seems the Democrats are running anybody who was willing to run for congress. While they are excited to have a Democrat running in all of the 11 districts against Republicans, they are not drafting serious opponents in the harder districts.

Their only two congressional Democratic nominees I fear, Gerry Connolly and Glenn Nye. It is obvious why Gerry Connolly is a threat, but Glenn Nye, running against Thelma Drake in the 2nd district could take the seat from her. Nye was a very impressive candidate, and I think if the two are in the same room, many others might notice the same. Congresswoman Drake needs to work very hard in order to hold her seat this November.

All and all, Democrats are going into 2008 ready to win. Democrats are united behind one thing, winning in 2008. Republicans need to come back to our roots and become conservative again if we ever are gonna get this same level of solidarity. The infighting I saw at the RPV convention was non-existent at this convention.

We must not take anything for granted in 2008. I ask Republicans all over the state to fight for the candidates they support, because a unenthusiastic Republican Party is going to lead a Democratic take over.