Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 02:55:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83729 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 159218 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2011, 01:59:06 PM »

http://newsbusters.org/node/8026

Late on Friday night's edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," former Bush administration aide Ron Christie, author of "Black in the White House," pressed host Chris Matthews on the suggestion that if Republican Sen. George Allen's alleged racial slurs in the 1970s are a character flaw, what about the Democrats re-electing Senator Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, this fall? Matthews protested in a lecturing tone that "everyone knows about it....It's been raised a thousand times on his record." After claiming he was not defending Byrd, he told Christie: "The guy's 90 years old. Give him a break."

About 50 minutes into the show, Christie drew Matthews out on the double standard:

    Ron Christie: "If we're making this a race about character, one question I have, and the Democrats have been miraculously quiet about this. Is that you have We have a former member of the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia, who used the N-word, who was in the Klan, who had it on tape two years ago. [Is Christie referring to the "white nigger" quote?]  I don’t hear the outrage, I don’t hear the ‘oh my goodness. Why for goodness sakes, are we going to re-elect a man to the Senate if it’s about character?’ You don’t hear a word from the Democrats about Byrd."  

    Matthews: "You want some advice?"

    Christie: "Please give me some advice."

    Matthews: "Get some town mayors in Virginia who have worked with this Senator, George Allen. Staff people like yourself, African-Americans especially, who’ve worked with this senator and come out and publicly testify he's got no big problems in this area.”

    Christie: "No, but you just evaded my question, Chris. You’re good.”

    Matthews: "I’ll do it now. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He was a Grand Kleagle back in his youth, and I believe he has dealt with that issue over the years, and [lecturing tone] everyone knows about it."

    Christie: "Oh, but it’s –"

    Matthews: "No one doesn’t know he was a Grand Kleagle –"

    Christie: "But the question, I’m only posing your question back to you: You say it's a matter of character, why is it not a matter of character to look at someone – "

    Matthews, frustrated: "You know why? It’s been raised a thousand times on his record –"

    Christie: "It does not make it any less –"

    Matthews: "And you know what, I’m not defending him. I’m just saying we’ve talked about it for so many years, it’s in every biography we ever look at of this guy.”

    Christie, smiling: “I just had to bring it up.”

    Matthews, after a pause: “The guy’s 90 years old. Give him a break.”

    Christie, smiling: “No! No, I’m not going to give him a break!

    Matthews, cutting him off, grinning: “Terry McAuliffe, Ron Christie. Up next: The latest accusation against in Virginia’s nasty Senate race, senior Webb aide Steve Jarding will respond to the latest accusations…."

Ron Christie definitely got the better of that battle. And for fact checkers, Robert Byrd is 88, and will be 90 in November of 2007.

Clay Waters reminded us that not every media outlet wants to dwell on Byrd's Klan days.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/8026#ixzz1EFRJVlN3
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2011, 02:25:24 PM »

Ummm , , , fun story, but what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?  cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2011, 02:27:35 PM »

Chris Matthews' very selective outrage.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2011, 02:32:47 PM »

So Media Matters or Race on SCH would be a good place for it smiley
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2011, 02:36:33 PM »

Just responding to ccp's post where Matthews went after Barbour for not going after some weird southern group.

MARC:  Well, an intro statement by you to that effect would have been to good purpose then  smiley
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 10:14:40 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2011, 09:57:57 AM »

So Frank Rich is deluding himself into thinking this is because the ONE is to right.  He is not left enough.  So far so good.  Obama is not pulling a Bill Clinton.  Or at least he is not succeeding.  I think Bmasters collusion with the fabulously rich founders of Google, Facebook, GE, MSFT would make a nice picture of replacing Mousilini.  I think this does fall into the category of Facism.:

 « Monday, February 21, 2011
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).

Yesterday and today mark the president’s lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.

It’s President’s Day, and 93% have a favorable opinion about Abraham Lincoln. Ninety-one percent (91%) say the same about George Washington.

Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now think a group of people selected at random from the phone book could do a better job than the current Congress. Only 41% disagree.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2011, 12:38:44 PM »

Check out Vermont - the only red in the whole NorthEast.  Perhaps I should move to Wyoming abuild a fort.  Yes Frank Rich.  Americans are behing the unions in Wisconsin!  Dream on you demagogue.  The One's faint to the right is NOT working.  grin smiley cool cheesy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146234/Number-Solidly-Democratic-States-Cut-Half.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=plaintextlink&utm_term=Politics
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2011, 02:08:09 PM »

Mitch Daniels' case for a less strident conservatism

By George Will 2/17/11
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | At first, the banquet audience at the 38th annual Conservative Political Action Conference paid Mitch Daniels, Indiana's Republican governor, the conventional compliment of frequently, almost reflexively, interrupting his address with applause. But as they realized they were hearing something unconventional - that they were being paid the rare compliment of being addressed as reflective adults - they reciprocated his respect with quiet attention to his elegant presentation of conservatism for grown-ups.

America, he said, faces "a survival-level threat," a new "Red Menace" consisting of ink. No enterprise, public or private, "can remain self-governing, let alone successful, so deeply in hock to others as we are about to be." Some people accept or "even welcome" a "ballooning of the state" that consigns America to "a gray parity" with other profligate nations. Such people believe history is controlled by a "leftward ratchet," always - never mind "the Reagan Interruption" - moving toward a more powerful state.

For such people, the task now is merely defensive: The Obama administration's spending commitments - e.g., the health-care law is designed to "engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent" - will produce a leviathan state and reduce the American world preeminence some people deplore.

Focusing on earmarks (a "pernicious practice" but a "trifle") and "waste, fraud and abuse," says Daniels, trivializes the task of administering "bariatric surgery" to a "morbidly obese" government. He favors restoring to presidents the power to impound appropriated funds ("you'd be amazed how much government you'll never miss"). But the big twofold task is to reform entitlements and produce economic growth - "a long boom of almost unprecedented duration."

Americans must say "an affectionate thank-you" to the last century's major social welfare programs - then sunset them, after those Americans "currently or soon to be enrolled" in them have passed from the scene. Social Security and Medicare should be updated to conform to Americans' "increasing longevity and good health." Medicare 2.0 should respect Americans' dignity and competence by empowering them to make "their own decisions" by delivering its dollars directly to individuals and expecting them to "pay for more of their routine care like the discerning, autonomous customers we know them to be."

To spur economic growth, we must "untie Gulliver": "The regulatory rainforest through which our enterprises must hack their way is blighting the future of millions of Americans." Barack Obama's recent executive order to prune the forest was, Daniels said, akin to the world's leading rap music producer suddenly expressing alarm about obscenity. And Daniels thinks conservatives' "first thought" should be about "those still on that first rung of life's ladder":

"Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some."

Author of the most succinct characterization of the Obama agenda ("shock-and-awe statism"), Daniels has practiced the lean government he preaches. Under him, Indiana has its fewest state employees since 1978, the nation's lowest state-government employment per capita, the lowest effective property taxes and the third-lowest per capita spending. So he has the credentials to counsel conservatives about the need to compromise in the interest of broadening the constituency for difficult reforms.

"Change of the dimension we need," says Daniels, "requires a coalition of a dimension no one has recently assembled," including people who "surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter." Which may mean ideological dilution: "Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers" and "King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared." Daniels has "no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying, 'I told you so' or 'You should've done it my way.' "

He reminded his listeners that when he was serving Ronald Reagan, the president admonished him and others that "we have no enemies, only opponents." The case for less strident conservative rhetoric is practical: "As we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course, it would help if they liked us, just a bit."

Do not, Jefferson warned, undertake great departures on "slender majorities." Conservatives criticized Democrats for doing just that regarding health care. Big changes, Daniels knows, will require a broad majority, perhaps one assembled after 2012 by someone with his blend of accomplishments, aversion to pandering and low-key charisma of competence.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2011, 04:12:59 PM »

I will keep my eye out for more on this man.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2011, 12:15:14 PM »


CAIR asks West where in the Koran it says , , ,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZx38i6iYs&feature=player_embedded
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2011, 08:38:09 AM »

Mitch Daniels is the one I know the least about right now.  He was George Bush's Budget Director(OMB).  He explains that as well as honesty and politically possible here with Wolf Blitzer:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x93UsezYvrE  Fair enough, but doesn't stir the excitement and break with the past needed todayIMO.
-----

Dick Morris is politically astute, personal issues of his own aside, I heard him on the radio yesterday give a re-cap of candidates that pretty much lays out conventional wisdom at this point.  Mitt is probably the leader but no one knows how he unties himself from Romneycare while the central fight is Obamacare.  There is a distinction between state and federal but big government is big government.

Then Palin, Huckabee and Newt make up the first team each with the big question of getting down their own big negatives down.

For the second tier he mentioned Mitch Daniels and Rick Santorum.  I noticed he skipped Pawlenty but didn't pretend to cover them all.  Said something particularly strong about Herman Cain. Since he isn't a Governor, Representative or Senator, Morris said they will have to call him Mister! - meaning I guess the outsider / private sector candidate as a distinguishing positive. I would add that maybe they have to call him Mister Chairman, as in former Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.  (Like Obama on the Law Review, I would like to read Cain's writings at the Fed.)

I think it was Laura Ingraham- she asked who Morris would most like to work for and Morris said Newt because he would eat Obama up in the debates (words to that effect).  He made that point more than once, but then went back to the central question - wondering if Newt could overcome his negatives.  (He can't)

I say both Morris and Gingrich if they are like-minded need to get together and figure out which of these others is the right leader and start handing him or her all the best ideas, policies and strategies they can for the good of the Republic.
---
Morris' latest strategy idea is targeted govt shutdown's: Cut the funds for specific enforcement of the the health care bill, in the IRS.  When that fails, shut down only the IRS.  Cut the funds for specific enforcement of the CO2 enforcement arm of the EPA, when that fails, shut down the the EPA.  Etc.  I will cut and paste this idea over to the budget-spend  topic.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2011, 01:50:19 PM »

"Morris said Newt because he would eat Obama up in the debates"

Doug,

I just think Mitt could beat Obama in a debate.  I could see him coming out slight ahead on the content but he would get wiped out on style and that to me is the problem at this point.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2011, 01:57:30 PM »

Mitt has patrician guilt complex and when push comes to shove will always fold to race baiting and class warfare.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2011, 02:41:59 PM »

It seems to me that the Mitt-bot can be programmed to advocate any political position needed.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2011, 02:50:37 PM »

Crafty,
Yes. Great point. 

I think he would fold.  Actually I meant I do *not* think he could beat Obama in a debate.  He might on some logical points but not on the emotional issues like race baiting and class warefare.

We really need to get a candidate that can debate on those points.

GM,
I am not sure what you mean about Mitt?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2011, 04:03:40 PM »

ccp,

He could calmly espouse any position. He reminds me of the Japanese pop stars that are just computer generated voices/images.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2011, 11:01:09 PM »

In the age of youtube, GM's point about Mitt is provable. 

I heard some commentator or guest say the number one quality people look for in a leader is 'unquestionable integrity'.  No policy acumen or camera presence gets anyone past that question. 

The question for conservatives I think goes something like this, who among these top 10 or 15 possible candidates is consistently principled conservative to their core with unquestionable integrity that you could visualize right now as President best articulating American principles directly to the American people on the whole realm of economic, budget and security issues we face.

In other words, not who could beat Obama, but who would lead best if he/she did beat Obama.  Who would handle the cameras and the issues and the media and the crises and the questioning and the teachable moments.  Who would cause a good number of independents and in-betweeners to recognize core principles with persuasion and conviction rather than compromise and poll watching.

There is no easy answer, but I say if they are not consistently conservative with unquestionable integrity and compelling and persuasive in their presence and delivery, rule them out and keep searching up and down the list.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2011, 12:23:31 PM »

"The question for conservatives I think goes something like this, who among these top 10 or 15 possible candidates is consistently principled conservative to their core with unquestionable integrity that you could visualize right now as President best articulating American principles directly to the American people on the whole realm of economic, budget and security issues we face."

One gigantic difference between liberals and conservatives is a conservative could win by being honest about who they are, what they believe in, and how to keep this country great.  Unlike radical liberals who have to pretend they are for America and its historic principals yet in reality are for one world government, the UN as leadership role, world Leninism, a single "class" for everyone, etc.  We know Obama believes this and strives for this but he cannot say this or he would never have been President.  He pretends he is for America he pretends he is to keep her great he tries to copy Reagan etc but we all know how radical he really is. 

This false and decpetive pretense and facade more than anything else he can and should be beaten and driven out of office head first in '12.   We need a candidate who can and will call him out for this.  Not let him and his MSM cohorts bluff us like they do.  Newt is one who could do that.  Mitt cannot not.  I am not saying Newt is otherwise a good candidate but the only one clearly who could take Bamster on in a debate and show what a fraud he is and not let him lie us to death with deception.  But Newt does need a softer side that can appeal to moderates in some way.  He doesn't have that.

I don't know yet about Pawlenty, Daniels, or any other.  West has the right mouth piece but as Crafty pointed out his resume is too thin at this point.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #68 on: March 05, 2011, 01:44:43 PM »

Pravda on the Beach had a piece on Romney today.  Says he is looking to make himself look less patrician, less "perfect", more human, etc.  Commented on him being poll-driven, blah blah.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #69 on: March 05, 2011, 07:33:28 PM »

Hey CCP, (from  Decline, Fall, and Resurrection? of America thread) Just to clarify, I'm not a Huckabee fan in terms of the nomination, just taking his side for the right to speak the truth on cultural issues and anything else.  Interestingly, I have a sister who lived in his state when he became Governor, knows him better than we do, and she would LOVE to see him become President. To her Huckabee was a breath of fresh air in Ark following Clinton and the convicted Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. 

I don't see Fox News channel but heard him speak recently.  I was surprised that he had no southern/Arkansas accent to my ear.  I think that can be a big deal.  I think Sarah Palin's accent is a big deal to her detractors and her negatives, maybe for others too, Hayley Barbor, Herman Cain?  Depends on your ear.  I don't know what Tim Pawlenty sounds like to people from other regions.  Some like JFK, maybe Bill Clinton, used a regional sound to their advantage, also the contrived Obama cadence.  The worst was Chicagoan Hillary Clinton returning to the south and faking a southern accent.

Huckabee to me is the wrong combination of not conservative enough on important things like illegal immigration and spending, but too conservative (unelectable?) in the perception of independents and swing votes because of his affiliation with the so-called Christian-Right.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #70 on: March 05, 2011, 08:17:19 PM »



Officer Tina G. Griswold
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009

Biographical Info
Age: 40
Tour of Duty: 14 years
Badge Number: 101

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Handgun; 9 mm
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Officer Tina Griswold, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Greg Richards, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.

All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.

After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.

The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.

Officer Griswold had served with the Lakewood Police Department for five years and had a total of fourteen years of law enforcement service. She is survived by her husband and two children.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #71 on: March 05, 2011, 08:18:42 PM »



Sergeant Mark Joseph Renninger
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009

Biographical Info
Age: 39
Tour of Duty: 13 years
Badge Number: 23

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Handgun; 9 mm
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Greg Richards, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting in a coffee shop in Parkland.

All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.

After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.

The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.

Sergeant Renninger had 13 years of law enforcement experience, five with the Lakewood Police Department and eight with the Tukwila Police Department. He is survived by his wife and three children.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #72 on: March 05, 2011, 08:20:16 PM »



Officer Ronald Wilbur Owens II
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009

Biographical Info
Age: 37
Tour of Duty: 12 years
Badge Number: 121

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Handgun; .38 caliber
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Officer Ronald Owens, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, and Officer Greg Richards were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.

All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.

After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.

The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.

Officer Owens had served with the Lakewood Police Department for five years and had a total of twelve years of law enforcement service. He is survived by his daughter.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #73 on: March 05, 2011, 08:21:25 PM »



Officer Gregory James Richards
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009

Biographical Info
Age: 42
Tour of Duty: 8 years
Badge Number: 135

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Officer's handgun
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Officer Greg Richards, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.

All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.

After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.

The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.

Officer Richards had served with the Lakewood Police Department for five years and had a total of eight years of law enforcement service. He is survived by his wife and three children.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #74 on: March 05, 2011, 08:22:42 PM »

The above are four reasons I'll never vote for Huckabee for anything.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #75 on: March 06, 2011, 08:07:42 AM »

What does Huckabee have to do with four LEO murders in Washington?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #76 on: March 06, 2011, 08:22:27 AM »

http://patterico.com/2009/11/29/mike-huckabee-commuted-washington-murder-suspect/

11/29/2009
Mike Huckabee Commuted Washington Murder Suspect’s Prison Sentence
Filed under: Crime,Politics — DRJ @ 8:17 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The suspect in this morning’s murder of 4 Washington State police officers had his prison sentence commuted by Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:

    “Maurice Clemmons, the 37-year-old Tacoma man being sought for questioning in the killing this morning of four Lakewood police officers, has a long criminal record punctuated by violence, erratic behavior and concerns about his mental health.

    Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors.

    “This is the day I’ve been dreading for a long time,” Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas’ Pulaski County said tonight when informed that Clemmons was being sought for questioning in connection with the killings.”

I think you can throw out those “Huckabee 2012″ bumper stickers. The Washington officials have some explaining to do, too.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #77 on: March 06, 2011, 08:41:56 AM »

For what was the sentence which Huckabee commuted?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #78 on: March 06, 2011, 09:20:43 AM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5835831-503544.html

Nine years ago, former Arkansas governor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee commuted the prison sentence of Maurice Clemmons, the man being sought by police in connection with the weekend murder of four police officers in Washington.

Huckabee's decision to commute Clemmons' sentence came "over the protests of prosecutors," according to the Seattle Times, which quotes an Arkansas prosecutor saying, "This is the day I've been dreading for a long time."

Huckabee distanced himself from Clemmons in a statement last night, writing that if Clemmons is found responsible for the murders, "it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State." Here's more from the statement:

    He was recommended for and received a commutation of his original sentence from 1990. This commutation made him parole eligible and he was then was paroled by the parole board once they determined he met the conditions at that time. He was arrested later for parole violation and taken back to prison to serve his full term, but prosecutors dropped the charges that would have held him. It appears that he has continued to have a string of criminal and psychotic behavior but was not kept incarcerated by either state.

4620389Clemmons has a long criminal history that reportedly includes at least 13 felony convictions, and most recently had been in jail on charges of child rape. According to the Times, he was sentenced to 60 years in prison in 1990 for burglary and theft, when he was 18 years old; he had already been serving a 48 year prison sentence at the time, and faced another possible 95 years behind bars on separate charges. Huckabee reportedly commuted that sentence, pointing to the fact that Clemmons was just a teenager.

This is not the first time Huckabee, who is widely believed to be considering another presidential run, has faced questions tied to his intervention on behalf of a prisoner.

In 1985, a man named Wayne DuMond was convicted of the rape of a 17-year-old girl with a connection to then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. DuMond's sentence was set at life in prison, plus 20 years. In 1992, Clinton's successor in the Arkansas governor's mansion, Jim Guy Tucker, reduced that sentence to 39 years, making DuMond eligible for parole.

When Huckabee became governor in 1996, he expressed doubts about DuMond's guilt and said he was considering commuting his sentence to time served. After the victim and her supporters protested, Huckabee decided against commutation.

But in 1997, according to the Kansas City Star, Huckabee wrote a letter to DuMond saying "my desire is that you be released from prison." Less than a year later, DuMond was granted parole. He was later arrested for sexually assaulting and murder and was the leading suspect in a second rape and murder.

Huckabee's office denied that the governor played a role in the parole board's decision, but there was evidence to contradict that claim.

In 2007, Huckabee told CNN, "For people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it, rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret that politics is reduced to that."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2011, 11:38:17 AM »

In my own slanted political view I have come to believe I can generally find a core falsehood in the first sentence or first premise of almost any liberal attack piece.  However, in the story that GM covered about Huckabee that liberals would run hard with, it is true.  The story of Newt's personal failings is true.  The story of Palin quitting the her highest post is true.  And this piece by Michael Kinsley, as liberal as they come, about Mitt Romney flip flopping and lacking core convictions is true.  We need to put a little more pressure on our opponents than that to win.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-romney-20110308,0,3857595.story
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2011, 12:44:18 PM »

Do any of you know more about Herman Cain than is present in this story?  Thanks.


http://www.theroot.com/buzz/former-godfathers-pizza-ceo-considering-presidential-run
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2011, 12:52:44 PM »

BD:

I think there are some posts about him earlier in this thread.  Apparently he has extensive successful big corporation executive experience.  In response to the argument of the article you posted, I would point out that this is QUITE a bit more experience than Obama had -- though allow me to make clear that I am not suggesting that it is enough.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #82 on: March 10, 2011, 08:54:33 AM »

BD:

I think there are some posts about him earlier in this thread.  Apparently he has extensive successful big corporation executive experience.  In response to the argument of the article you posted, I would point out that this is QUITE a bit more experience than Obama had -- though allow me to make clear that I am not suggesting that it is enough.

Thank you, sir.  I did, indeed, find what I figured someone here knew eearlier in the thread.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #83 on: March 10, 2011, 03:51:49 PM »

Bigdog, all,

I share the curiosity about Herman Cain as he keeps moving up my list. 

Many people have great business experience. Not many of those are willing to also get involved in politics and take a stand on the issues of the day and the great principles of our country. There is a very limited list of conservative republicans available for leadership, probably none, that have a conventional road paved for them to the nomination or the Presidency, with past electoral success, serious executive level public sector experience, foreign policy experience, etc. at all much less not tainted by failures and mis-steps of the past.  Private sector experience sets up a pretty good contrast to the current administration, especially if one sees the current group's public sector experience as unsuccessful.

Must comment on the journalism at the original link: http://www.theroot.com/buzz/former-godfathers-pizza-ceo-considering-presidential-run - This is the kind of journalism that makes people like me scream:

"It's funny how the GOP likes to suggest black candidates with no experience as a viable replacement for President Obama. One black man in exchange for another, which is the height of racism."

First of all, the man is 65 years old with a WEALTH of real world experience, he grew up poor, has one wife (my snip at Newt), a Masters degree, A mathematician in the U.S. Navy, a successful career at Coca-cola, VP of Pillsbury, led a successful turnaround within Pillsbury's Burger King group, a successful turnaround and buyout of Godfather's Pizza, Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, then a career in issues commentary rising to be recognized as a leading conservative voice seriously considered for the Presidency.  Mark me down as envious; the incumbent would be too if he understood our economic system.

Like hearing that brutally cold winters are caused by global warming, someone please help me here.  The GOP is racist huh for excitement at the possibility of finding a black man (or Alaskan woman, Mormon or white midwest Governor) worthy of the Presidency to defeat this incumbent?  Good grief.  If so-called white tea party types wish for an authentic black conservative to defeat a duplicitous, wishy-washy, 'transformational progressive' Marxist, Leftist, Statist, doesn't that mean that the goal is to change the direction and quality, not the color, of the leadership??  What am I missing?

Telling that the author/accuser has a focus all about race while her target called racist, tea party type conservatism, has none.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #84 on: March 10, 2011, 04:37:32 PM »

"has one wife (my snip at Newt)"

Newt was working so hard for us, he committed personal "indiscretions".  rolleyes


I guess it's all our fault.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #85 on: March 18, 2011, 02:10:54 PM »

Obama sympathetic strategists look at the table set for 2012 from the Obama perspective:
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/83993/obama-2012-reelection-colorado-ohio
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/84860/obama-election-2012-ohio-president%20
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/18/obama_should_use_the_colorado_strategy_to_win_ohio_109273.html

In a nutshell, they debate whether he forms the same coalition as 2008 with minorities, young people, socially liberal women and other upscale, upper middle class voters, or working class whites, or fight back after the college-educated whites, which swung 18 points to the Republicans in just 2 years.  Everyone is in a group in their world.  No mention of targeting AMERICANS.

My take is that he is screwed either way IF he faces a strong competitor.  smiley
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #86 on: March 18, 2011, 04:11:56 PM »

Strategy of going after the "white working class" "defined as those without college degrees".

I smile when the author points out how "Clinton figured out" a way to get these voters in his camp.  Well, despite the screw up by WHBush throwing away a 90% approval rating in 1992 and a three way race for the Presidency, and a very weak candidate in Dole,  Clinton still never got more than 48% of the vote. I guess, despite Dems furious bribes to people with more and more taxpayer money this is a center right country.


The lib armies are already trying push this strategy to make the union issue in Wisconsin a "middle class issue".   They are actually trying to persuade most Americans that government spending for public union workers is great for all.     
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #87 on: March 18, 2011, 07:08:32 PM »

Clinton still never got more than 48% of the vote. I guess, despite Dems furious bribes to people with more and more taxpayer money this is a center right country.

A popular vote majority is a rather rare presidential election.  Don't read too much in Clinton's inabilty to get 50% or more. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #88 on: March 18, 2011, 11:34:23 PM »

"A popular vote majority is a rather rare presidential election.  Don't read too much in Clinton's inabilty to get 50% or more. "

 - This is true. I remember in 2000 that Al Gore won with only 48.4% of the vote.   smiley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #89 on: March 19, 2011, 12:31:21 AM »

GM posted this elsewhere: "US Cost of Living Hits Record, Passing Pre-Crisis High"
Read differently, if incomes are flat, and cost of living hits record, then the standard of living is falling.  Begs the reelection question, are you better off now than you were...

I would judge Presidents by the success or failure of their policies, not the chronology of the days their name was on the door.  This was a 6 year experiment in leftism. Power in Washington changed in Nov 2006.  That's when Obama came into the ruling majority and when Bush became fully a lame duck, at least on economic policies.  In Nov 2008 it was all-Dem, even during transition.  In Nov 2010 it switched halfway back, to stalemate, with two parties to fight over policy.  R's can't quite repeal what happened and Dems can't enact any more of it.  So the most telling part about these policies is the part between the elections in 2006 and the elections in 2010.  Coincidentally perhaps the worst economic times of our lives - for most of us.  Unemployment doubled, revenues imploded, spending and deficits exploded, energy prices, all the best investments have gold in their name, etc.  Not everything that went wrong was 100% their fault (RINOs have their fingerprints over all of it too, and same goes for the Fed), but buy now people hopefully see some correlation.  Maybe things grow from here, we'll see.  I'm predicting sputtering, mixed results, near zero growth.  Certainly not consistent growth of more than the 3.1% or so we need just to break even.  Whatever the case, this is the record he will run on.  Kind of hard for any core constituency to get ecstatic about.  I can't quite hear the sound yet of full stadiums with the styrofoam Greek columns chanting:  'Four More Years!'

The flip side of my argument is that if Obama succeeds in framing it as coming into power after these crashes, the are you better off question becomes more like a 50-50 rather than a slam dunk against him.  Then it just comes down to how well he can spin his accomplishments of spend and regulate.

Contrast Obama's record with the President he likes to contrast with, Reagan was having 6 consecutive quarters of nearly 8% economic growth at this point in his Presidency and went on to win 49 states.  The difference: Reagan enacted pro-growth policies, Obama and his allies enacted anti-growth policies.  That, over time, goes from conjecture to that which is readily apparent.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 12:34:13 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #90 on: March 21, 2011, 06:32:08 PM »

Numerous articles in this week's Economist mag. delving into the issue of how much government is good and bad.  The world wide trend is for less government at least in the West.  All over Europe are movements that are akin to the Tea Party here in the US.  The Economist also seems seems to come down on the side that too much gov. is bad, is like a tsunami that is impossible to stop from growing and is leading the West to financial ruin.

Great Britain is actually leading the way to reign in on the costs of an out of control state.

GB is also going the opposite way on health care that the lobs here in the US are praising them for.

After reading several articles one can only conclude as we here on this board have already believed that Bamster, to the contrary of what he and his liberal cronies allege are not on the right side of history, but instead are on the WRONG side of history.

And this leads me to believe that this is the fundamental issue to take him on for '12. 

The two problems in convincing a majority that he is the one who is wrong and pushing us the wrong way are:

50 % pay no taxes.  So this groups has to be convinced despite the bribes, that this situation is not sustainable.

The other is Republicans MUST in my small time opinion address the wealth gap and how the middle class is not going to continue falling behind and ever more government entitlements paid for by taxpayers including years of retirement, health care, is not the answer to sustain a middle class lifestyle.

 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #91 on: March 23, 2011, 11:05:58 AM »

My prediction that Obama won't be the nominee of his own party still looks absurd, but pieces of that puzzle slowly begin to fall into place.  a) Dems are starting to notice his unique combination of inexperience, incompetence and unattainable expectations, b) Any perceived move away from hard left is a move against the angriest wing of politics today, the ones coincidentally who spearheaded his election in the first place.  Obama now is what they once called General BetrayUs.

I've never seen the left turn so hard against one of their own as the quotes coming out now against Pres. Obama.  Losing his base does not bring him support from the middle -ask Bush about that.  When the key charges are incompetence, cluelessness and disengagement, support can erode from all directions.
---------------

Speaking of troubled candidacies, I was reading about frontrunner Mitt today, found  a couple of items that don't help him win with conservative activists.

Judicial appointments: 9 out of 36 were Republican.  From Boston.com:  “Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.”

HealthCare Form HC Massachusetts: http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dor/health%20care/HC.pdf  Take a look.  Square this up with a right to privacy or with a movement seeking smaller government.  It doesn't fit.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #92 on: March 23, 2011, 11:17:11 AM »

Mittens is a non-starter with me.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #93 on: March 23, 2011, 11:36:08 AM »

Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing much contrary commentary from the current field of potential contenders on Libya, on the feebleness of budget cuts, on much of anything.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #94 on: March 23, 2011, 11:49:04 AM »

Yes, pretty damn disturbing. Leadership vacuum.


Just great.

Well, good thing the world is stable and the economy is doing well, otherwise I might worry.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #95 on: March 24, 2011, 10:41:58 AM »

a) I saw that Newt apparently was for an invasion of Libya a few weeks ago, until now he was against it.

b) Pravda on the Beach (Left Angeles Times) reports this morning that Haley Barbor has been caught in a fib about not representing the Mexican govt as a lobbyist in its efforts to secure amnesty for its citizens here illegally or something like that.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #96 on: March 24, 2011, 01:44:21 PM »

"I saw that Newt apparently was for an invasion of Libya a few weeks ago, until now he was against it."

I think a number of the so-called candidates have that same problem, Romney, Pawlenty, Palin, and Huckabee also come to mind.  It is very easy to criticize no matter the policy choice, and very hard to put a successful policy in place. 

Huckabee, for one, at least acknowledged some of that while Obama was dithering: "I'm always a little careful to say, here's what I would do, because I think you have to base a decision based on good intelligence and information which a person in my capacity as an ordinary citizen at this point simply doesn't have." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/24/huckabee-talks-libya-2012/

Giuliani said regarding Obama's disengagement and travels: A leader would WANT to be right there in the middle of the discussions and negotiation and critical decision making that was going on without leadership.

I find much of the conservative radio reaction immature (Hannity comes to mind).  Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama.  These candidates become the guests on these shows doing much of the same.  US policy and involvement in the Middle East and North Africa is more important than that.  A serious candidate needs to instead lay out a serious case for what criteria goes into all these questions,  who leads the coalition, whenr to go to congress, how to communicate what we are doing to the American people and what we want to communicate to others who will read something into our actions, such as the tyrants and rebels in other countries. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #97 on: March 24, 2011, 02:18:21 PM »

"My prediction that Obama won't be the nominee"

Who else?

Hillary puts her self on the line with Lybia.  Outcome good her loyalists will tout her as the courageous one who pushed for the policy despite BO's reluctance.  Outcome bad - silence from her worshipers.

"Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama."

Agreed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31831


« Reply #98 on: March 24, 2011, 05:48:30 PM »

Doug:

I agree on points both small (e.g. Hannity is an ass) and large ("Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama.  These candidates become the guests on these shows doing much of the same.  US policy and involvement in the Middle East and North Africa is more important than that.  A serious candidate needs to instead lay out a serious case for what criteria goes into all these questions,  who leads the coalition, whenr to go to congress, how to communicate what we are doing to the American people and what we want to communicate to others who will read something into our actions, such as the tyrants and rebels in other countries.")

EXACTLY SO.  Let this sentiment guide all of us here! 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #99 on: March 29, 2011, 01:27:03 PM »

From CCP: "Republicans MUST...address the wealth gap and how the middle class is not going to continue falling behind and ever more government entitlements paid for by taxpayers including years of retirement, health care, is not the answer to sustain a middle class lifestyle."
-----
One example of wealth gap: Black unemployment is up 25.4% under Obama.  That causes more dependency, but it is also evidence of failure. 

The message (IMO) needs to put a new opening of optimism, opportunity and economic growth - for all.  Contrast that with the current message of abject pessimism - we collapse if we don't spend trillions in pretend stimuli.

The bully pulpit needs to mention that we also need our best and the brightest to design and build products, invest and hire in the private sector, not just agitators and regulators.  smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!