Say Anything Blog

When I watched this the fist time I thought it was a little over the top. I watch FSN a lot with the Wild and they do all kinds of stuff like this. This clip is a real head scratcher, I wonder how they came up with this one. I kind of actually wonder if the guy in the Sioux jersey woke up with any bruises the next day?

Not much needs to be said here.

Don't get me wrong I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances, however, is the best republican candidate we have? The man is a RINO that has no business being the nominee for the republican party. I believe that McCain is wrong for the Republican party and won't be able to win a general election. If McCain is the nominee you might as well pencil in Hillary or Barrack Husein Obama. I might just stay home if this empty suit is the nominee...

I consider Jon Edwards a political light weight, who had no chance of winning anything, let alone getting re-elected for the senate in his own state of North Carolina.

You know the Jon Edwards candiate; the do as I say not as I do candidate. The candidate with the huge house that is sucking up carbon foot prints. Edward's claim to fame is shaking down the insurance companies using questionable tactics. The same candidate that talks about the two America's.

In listening to this pretty boy political half weight, I heard him talk about redistribution of wealth, classic Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give it to the sick lame and the lazy. Edwards made the comment that it cost 58.00 to fill up his vehicle; what is he driving an Escalade? and an also ran and he should have suspended his campaign before it began. If you listen to him talk all he has in his quill is class warfare and socialism.

I do believe that some of the people voting for Edwards will probably go to the Barrack “Hussein” Obama camp as some in the primaries had hinted.

Boy if this isn’t a stretch. I see no reason a person shouldn’t need a ID card to vote. The problem is this the dems want everyone to vote, even illegals and felons, this just makes it harder for people to vote that shouldn’t be voting. Here is the link.

What’s Next Poll Taxes Again?
by Forgiven
In what I can only call absurd the Supreme Court appears primed to uphold the Indiana Voter ID law recently enacted by a Republican majority in the State Legislature to disenfranchise the poor and the minority voters of Indiana. As I have written before, this is a red herring cooked up by Republicans in states where they hold a majority to suppress voter turnout of primarily Democratic voters. The simple fact that these legislatures are able to do this crap should be a reminder to all of us that we can never take our civil liberties for granted. There are constant challenges to our citizenship and our ability to exercise our rights. There are currently three states that require all voters to present photo ID’s to vote they are Florida, Georgia, and Indiana

Really looks like the left is trying to manufacture votes again.

Seems that the GOP isn’t doing as bad some said they were, or maybe people don't hate Republicans as much as the left claims.

Remember the left wingers saying that they GOP is in decline and on the run and will really get shellacked in the 2008 election. Well it can’t be that bad if they actually are still winning elections The GOP won two special elections on Tuesday night.

Status-Quo on Tuesday Is Good News for GOP

By Stuart Rothenberg

Republicans got some good news Tuesday when they won special elections in Ohio and Virginia to retain two Congressional seats that became open upon the death of sitting GOP U.S. House members.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn’t seriously contest Virginia’s open 1st District, but the DCCC and the National Republican Congressional Committee ended up pouring considerable resources into Ohio’s 5th C.D.

Republicans have reason to feel good about holding both seats, particularly given the nasty GOP primary in Ohio 5 and the party’s continued problems in the Buckeye State.

Ohio Democrat Robin Weirauch didn’t do any better than she did last year even though the seat was open, she was running for the third time, and Democrats tried to tie Republican nominee Bob Latta to discredited former Ohio Republican officeholders.

GOP strategists were successful in turning out Republican voters, some of whom are less than enthusiastic about the President. In other words, the NRCC still knows how to motivate the party faithful.

Democrats can take pleasure that they forced Republicans to spend heavily to defend a solidly Republican district. Part of the Democrats’ 2008 House strategy obviously is to force the NRCC to play in as many districts as possible, bleeding the under-financed GOP dry and, possibly, sneaking off with a few extra seats next fall.

The NRCC was able to hold the Ohio district, in part, by outspending the DCCC. It will not be able to do that very often next year. But before you give the DCCC a trophy for forcing the NRCC to spend money on the race, remember that the Democrats just tossed away $250,000 in Ohio 5 and have nothing to show for it.

In reading this clip I wonder how Stuart Rothenberg can claim to be a non-partisan political newsletter covering U.S. House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns…

Unfortunately, the NRCC’s post-election press release once again reads far too much into the results in Virginia and Ohio.

“The results of the special elections…are further confirmation of a shifting political environment, an electorate desperate for change in Washington, and a wide-open congressional playing field,” asserts the NRCC in its release.

First, let’s deal with - and dismiss - the easiest point, that the results demonstrate that voters want change. If anything, the results argue against change, since both districts are reliably Republican and the GOP nominees held the seats.

National polls certainly show that voters want change, and voters in Ohio’s 5th District and Virginia’s 1st C.D. may want change, as well. But the election results don’t show that.

Does the NRCC want people to believe that Democratic victories would have been a sign that voters don’t want change? That would not be a credible argument.

The other two NRCC points are more reasonable, but that isn’t saying a lot since the first one was so absurd.

In arguing that there is “a wide open congressional playing field,” the NRCC may mean that there are lots of seats in play this cycle. There may, in fact, be more competitive seats this cycle than last, but Tuesday’s two special elections don’t prove that.

Given that GOP special election nominees held reliably Republican seats, all the results prove is that Democrats will have a hard time winning solidly Republican districts next year. That suggests that Democrats aren’t likely to gain another 30 or 40 seats in 2008, hardly an earth-shattering conclusion.

This post makes him sound like he is a cheer leader for the Democrats. If you look at the approval numbers of the house and senate they are abysmal, I can’t see how anyone is in favor of the Democrats. The house and senate are run by the Democrats and have an approval rating that is lower than George W. Bushes.

Marching for Impeachment

Where do they find these people? This tard is marching on foot to Washington, DC 15 miles per day to get Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment on the table. All I can say is walk on.

This statement by Rudy is the reason he is not going to get the nomination by the GOP. The man is all over the place on gun rights.

~Lets refresh everyone’s memory.

~Rudy on the NRA

Rove urges GOP to ditch Bush

I couldn’t believe it when I first saw it but, it did make sense. It is also funny to watch the MSNBC people foaming at the mouth no one is ever going to accuse MSNBC of being objective or fair and balanced. In a way the Rove advice makes sense Bush is sitting at about 32% approval rating. Also better advice if you want get elected make it about Hillary and not about Bush, because Bush is no longer running for office.

For some reason Media Matters is sending me updates of article they post on line. This one is classic whinning. It is pretty much a stretch to think that NBC is going to support a Republican candidate. In case anyone is confused Media Matters is Hillaries hand lynch mob, so they will never accuse this person of being objective.

More Whinning by the Leftards

NBC News anchor schmoozes Giuliani, badgers Democrats
by Eric Boehlert
Searching for more proof that celebrity Beltway journalists enjoy warm, friendly relations with Republican presidential hopefuls? Look no further than last week’s cozy sit-down between NBC News anchor Brian Williams and GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani.

According to the running tally posted at MSNBC.com, where video of the full 34-minute interview is hosted, the Q&A has been viewed less than 6,000 times. But it deserves far more attention since it conveniently captures how the media landscape is unfolding for the 2008 campaign, where prominent Democrats are bedeviled by all sorts of probing press inquires while their Republican counterparts skate through the primary season without a media care in the world.

And that’s thanks to people like Brian Williams.

I watched the Giuliani interview last week and was busy taking notes when I wasn’t picking my jaw up off the floor. That was partly because of the forced, old-friend vibe that permeated the interview, but mostly because Williams never asked Giuliani a single uncomfortable question. The treatment stood in stark contrast to the relentless and often factually challenged grilling Williams and his NBC News colleague Tim Russert unleashed on the Democratic front-runner at the Philadelphia debate two weeks ago. Not to mention the type of loaded, contentious questions Williams posed to Democrats when he moderated their debate (solo) in South Carolina in April.

Sitting down with Giuliani though, Williams suddenly lost his edge and was content with lobbing vague questions, refraining from meaningful follow-ups, and allowing Giuliani to attack Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at length for being on “the defensive” in fighting the war on terror and for promoting “higher taxes for the whole country.”

The result was a virtuoso performance for Giuliani at the expense of Williams, who seemed more intent on befriending the candidate than in seriously questioning him. To paraphrase comedian Chris Rock, I’m not saying the Giuliani campaign should buy blocks of air time and run the entire Williams interview as a long-form promotional ad. But I understand.

While I will never vote for the democratic candidate. I have issues with Rudy and he just makes me want to puke, while less of two evil’s compared to Hillary and or Edwards and Obama, I don’t want to see a RINO republican in the white hose. Because in many ways he isn’t much different than Hillary or Ted Kennedy. I cringe at the thought of an Anti-Gun, pro gay marriage anti family values candidate, Rudy is everything that is wrong with American values. I agree with this guy, lets get behind Huckabee or Thompson. I don't have to want to plug my nose and vote for Rudy. We don't need another slick lawyer in Washington, we are trying to get rid of some of the ones we got now.

I Want to Stop Giuliani

Monday, November 5, 2007 8:07 PM

By: Phil Brennan

Paul Weyrich, one of the nation’s most influential conservative leaders, says he is out to prevent Rudy Giuliani from winning the Republican nomination for president — and predicts the religious right will unite behind any GOP candidate except Rudy.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.com, Weyrich also predicts Republicans face a “disaster” in the Senate in next year’s elections, says Hillary Clinton would be the easiest Democratic candidate to defeat, and charges that the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has been a “mistake” from the beginning.

Weyrich is no stranger to speaking his mind. As Chairman and CEO of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, he has long been recognized as one of America’s most thoughtful and principled conservatives.

He was founding president of the Heritage Foundation, one of the largest and most respected public policy research institutes and a major force in advancing conservative policies.

He was also instrumental in the formation of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.

Weyrich is a regular guest on radio and television talk shows, a frequent contributor to major U.S. publications, including Newsmax.

I don't know if you could get a more true statement? The thought of her being the next president scares the bejesus out of me. Lets see... Hillary is anti-gun, if Hillary gets elected look for the Clinton assult weapon gun to be dusted off and brought back from the dead. Hillary is anti-busniess, she wants to take profits away from the oil companies. Hillary is very pro-high taxes and just wrong for America.

I can’t believe anyone takes this guy seriously, my next response is bring it on. The Dems don’t have the votes because they know they need 2/3 vote and he will never get the votes and this is a slippery slope because they no that turn around is fair play.... Left Wing Loon Kucinich wants to impeach VP Chenney

Kucinich to Force Vote on Cheney Impeachment

Monday, November 5, 2007 8:25 AM

By: Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor Article Font Size

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, the liberal Democrat who’s launched a presidential campaign, says he plans to force an up-or-down vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on an impeachment resolution against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich announced last week that he will offer a “privileged resolution” on Nov. 6 that would require House members, within two days, to vote on what to do with the impeachment measure.

He plans to discuss the matter in a conference call on Monday evening.

“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said in a Nov. 2 news release. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power.”

House Resolution 333 says Cheney should be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” because he “purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.”

Kucinich insists that Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting on the supremacy of the Executive Branch.

The resolution introducing articles of impeachment against the vice president has 21 cosponsors, all of them Democrats.

“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable,” Kucinich said last week. He accused Cheney of using his office to advocate the “continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran.”

For the record, at a San Francisco rally against climate change on Saturday, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan wore a T-shirt reading, “Arrest Cheney First,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Sheehan is now running for the House seat of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

I am so sick and tired of these people and their liberal grand standing. You would think that some of this stuff is was really important. First off I am not sure if they can actually do this. I think the war powers act allows Bush to attack Iran if he deems it necessary.

More wasting of time from the Do nothing Senate

Thirty Senators Write To Bush: You Don’t Have Authority To Invade Iran
By Greg Sargent - November 1, 2007, 6:12PM
Thirty Senators, led by Jim Webb, have just released a letter they sent to the President. The message: Stop trash-talking about Iran. Key quote:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.
We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran.

Intrestingly, as The Huffington Post reported today, one Senator who didn’t sign the letter is Barack Obama, apparently because he disagrees with the letter’s assertion that Kyl-Lieberman “should in no way” be seen as a predicate for war with Iran.

“It will take more than a letter to prevent this administration from using the language contained within the Kyl-Lieberman resolution to justify military action in Iran,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton told us. “This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one.”

The full letter, and a full list of signers, after the jump.

The letter:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.
This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Signers:

1. Webb

2. Akaka

3. Baucus

4. Boxer

5. Brown

6. Byrd

7. Cantwell

8. Carper

9. Casey

10. Clinton

11. Dodd

12. Dorgan

13. Durbin

14. Feinstein

15. Harkin

16. Johnson

17. Kerry

18. Klobuchar

19. Kohl

20. Leahy

21. McCaskill

22. Mikulski

23. Murray

24. Reed

25. Rockefeller

26. Sanders

27. Stabenow

28. Tester

29. Whitehouse

30. Wyden

First off, there is nothing hard or excessive wanting people to have to show an identificaton card. This is basically a bill by democrats to allow Illegal Aliens to right to vote but also to allow people to vote more than once in other districts under false names. It’s called voter fraud and the democrats will use any tactic to get people to vote. I hope the GOP will stand pat on this bill…

WASHINGTON

Requiring photo IDs to vote in federal elections would be banned under legislation introduced Wednesday by Rep. Keith Ellison, who said such requirements disenfranchise minorities, the poor, women, elderly and young people.

“While photo IDs seem harmless, they are in fact the modern day poll tax,” Ellison, D-Minn., said in a statement.

Ellison, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, got an important backer for the bill, as the panel’s chairman, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, signed on a co-sponsor.

Ellison proposed the bill the day after the chief of the Justice Department’s voting rights division, John Tanner, apologized at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing for saying that aging is not a problem with black voters because they die before they become elderly. Ellison and other Democrats grilled Tanner at that hearing.

At a National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles earlier in the month, Tanner had discussed state laws that require photo identification for voting, saying that elderly voters disproportionately don’t have the proper IDs.

“That’s a shame, you know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance,” Tanner said, according to video posted on YouTube. “Of course, that also ties into the racial aspect because our society is such that minorities don’t become elderly the way white people do. They die first.”

Tanner had also been criticized for clearing a Georgia law requiring voters to show government-issued photo IDs at the polls. A subsequent photo ID law was upheld by a federal judge last month, and the U.S. Supreme Court will consider Indiana’s photo ID law, which is similar to Georgia’s, this term.

Ellison noted that people do not need a photo ID to vote in Minnesota.

“In Minnesota we go to great lengths to make voting as inclusive as possible,” he said, arguing that has helped with voter turnout. But advocates of voter ID laws argue they’re needed to prevent voter fraud.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said that requiring a voter ID helps preserve the integrity of the voting process.

“The right to vote is one of the most fundamental liberties we have as Americans,” he said. “And to protect that right, we must ensure that those who vote do so legally.”