Breaking: Mel Martinez to replace Ken Mehlman as RNC chairman

posted at 3:08 pm on November 13, 2006 by Allahpundit

Just across at CNN. Looking for details. Standby.

Update: Presumably this means he’s leaving the Senate and Florida Gov.-elect Charlie Crist will appoint his replacement. If so, that’s all to the good: Martinez has been a disaster on immigration. Kyl’s prospects for a filibuster just increased by one vote, assuming Crist chooses wisely.

Update: I figured it was too good to be true. He’s accepted the position — but he’s not leaving the Senate.

Under the arrangement, Martinez will remain in office and serve as the party’s lead spokesman as well as take a major role in fundraising and political outreach, while RNC General Counsel Robert (Mike) Duncan will oversee the committee’s day-to-day responsibilities.

Update: As for the DNC, get used to Dean-o. Harold Ford says he’s not interested.

Update: Hot Air commenters agree: it’s an awful pick, transparently aimed at appealing to pro-amnesty Hispanic voters. If the GOP goes ahead and puts Boehner and Blunt back in place in the minority leadership, you’re looking at a very dire electoral situation in 2008.

Update: Via reader Enoxo, I think Darth Vader speaks for all of us.

Update: The boss says nooooooooooo…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

MARTINEZ had a 100% conservative rating from the American Conservative Union for 2005. How do you do better than that? Why all the negativity ?

Maxx on November 13, 2006 at 11:39 PM

Probably should stop bothering to reply to him, though. It makes him feel less inconsequential.

Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 11:27 PM

You’re right Puritan. Sometimes you just can’t help but hang the kids on a doorknob when they get on your nerves though.

Anyway, they heve their fun, we have ours.

BacaDog on November 13, 2006 at 11:40 PM

Speaking as an independant here…isn’t it smart business to pick someone who is actually widely known to be the head of anything? Steele garnered huge national attention. Who the hell is Mel …? Never heard of the guy until tonight. I can’t even keep his last name in my head after reading this many comments. All I can remember is that he has a Hispanic background and apparently supports amnesty (which I oppose). Other than that…crickets in the brain.

I’ve never given a dime to the RNC or DNC, but I’m quite sure I’d fork over 5 bucks to someone who has a “national” image instead of favoring someone I never heard of.

Until either party can come up with a notable person to run around begging, I’ll donate to neither. If someone like the REAL JFK asked me to contribute, I’d toss some bucks. If someone like Reagan asked me to contribute, I’d toss some bucks.

When the hell is either party going to learn? They must put forward a person who is widely known and who strongly supports the ideals of their base first and foremost.

For Reupblicans, their choice of RNC boss is suddenly well known, but I doubt will appeal to the base.

American_Jihadist on November 13, 2006 at 11:50 PM

Ah, the RNC. The gift that keeps on giving depression. No, we didn’t learn anything. I’m so glad I haven’t bothered to cheer up; I guess they didn’t want the president out there on a limb screwing the base so he’s got some cover now. They’re setting the table…complete Republican obliteration from both houses…Hillary as the new president…negotiating with the Iran/Iraq Shia Superstate..in a burqa…presented by the press as diplomatic triumph. The is country is going to spend the next 20 years on its knees. A rotting shell..ah never mind. I hope I’m not around to see what this country is going to become.

austinnelly on November 14, 2006 at 12:17 AM

Anyway, they heve their fun, we have ours. — BacaDog

…that’s the way to look at it…just having fun….

Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 12:30 AM

Grebrook isn’t funny, or ‘just having fun’. He is an enemy, and should be treated as such. Anyone who deliberately and repeatedly tries to damage Republicans and conservatives–and who goes back to his own moonbat website and opnely brags about it–should be kicked off.

If I want to listen to half-educated dishonest assholes, I can watch CNN

Janos Hunyadi on November 14, 2006 at 12:40 AM

I have to agree with Grebrook on a few points today.

Black Americans aren’t going to vote for anti-affirmative action Republicans because Democrats legalized 20 million illegal immigrants.

If blacks where ever going to come over the Republicans, this would have been the year. We had a strong economy, clear social conservative values, and tax cuts that helped lower incomes proportionately more than higher incomes. If those didn’t do it, we have nothing to offer against race-based give-away programs.

I happen to be a free-trade conservative, and feel wherever there are no national security issues, then I have no problem with jobs going to the most desparate, wherever they live or come from. I’m just cold-blooded that way, I guess. We are not going to stop people who are desperate for jobs, and need to adjust the laws accordingly. It’s the right thing to do morally, and it helps make the US more cost competitive.

That said, liberalizing immigration is going to kill any hope of attracting black voters to the Republican party. As Grebrook pointed out, there is not going to a majority Protestant base for much longer. People can storm off to fringe parties if they want, but if conservatives are going to have any say in government at all, we need to find a way to ally ourselves with a growing group, and Hispanics is a good place to look.

pedestrian on November 14, 2006 at 12:55 AM

If blacks where ever going to come over the Republicans, this would have been the year. We had a strong economy, clear social conservative values, and tax cuts that helped lower incomes proportionately more than higher incomes. If those didn’t do it, we have nothing to offer against race-based give-away programs.

1. It takes time, effort, patience and the right touch to break people of a long-held partisan allegiance. Eisenhower was the first Republican presidential candidate to do well in the South. That was 1952, and it took until 1994 before congressional realignment final happened in the South.

2. The problem is that too many in the GOP try to appeal to black voters in a groveling, “please don’t hate us” kind of way. You’ve got to deal from a position of honesty and strength. If you’ll check the exit polls, you’ll find that Richard Shelby got 20% of the black vote in 2004 which — if it were replicated nationwide — would mean more than doubling the GOP share of the black vote.

The pandering, “me too” kind of appeal never won over anybody. And a sharp, conservative spokesman like Steele: That’s the right way to go. He’ll make a difference. As long as he stays true to his conservative roots, he’s gold.

Ali-Bubba on November 14, 2006 at 1:10 AM

2.) Democrats will reject Janice Rogers Brown. No one will care.

Keep believing that if you want to. Go ask any Black person what the reaction will towards Democrats going Clarence Thomas on Janice Brown. Seriously, just ask. I love the arrogance. “We got black people in the bag they’ll never leave us”, that will be your undoing.

3.) No one in the black community is stupid enough to base their entire vote on gay marriage. Hence why your side was crushed in 2004, and again, more so, in 2006.

Crushed in 2004? When Bush pulled even more black voters than in 2000? And just for the record my side is the Conservative not the Republican side.

Gay Marriage Miscue?

Black people also can be socially conservative folks, and Bush’s opposition to gay marriage struck a positive chord with African Americans. A majority of them agree with him on that point, even if they don’t support his call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Even the civil union alternative has little support in Black communities.

It’s a subject that Washington radio talk show host Joe Madison says resonates with callers to his program on WOL/XM “The Power.” “They just simply believe it’s a man and a woman that should be married,” he said. “They aren’t strong on that liberal viewpoint (regarding gay marriage). They don’t like it.”

Bush didn’t make gay marriage a central issue of his campaign and he didn’t need to. Conservatives managed to get measures banning same sex marriage on the ballots in 11 states. Voters approved all those measures. The exit polls don’t say how Black people in those states voted on those questions, but there is no doubt that the ballot issues helped fan the flame of same sex-marriage and that could only help Bush’s cause.

Yep keep calling us stupid.

4.) Black Americans aren’t going to vote for anti-affirmative action Republicans because Democrats legalized 20 million illegal immigrants. I know you saw that episode of Hannity & Colmes where the black dude in the rastafari clothing claimed illegal immigration was more dangerous than slavery, and I know you thought it would be the salvation of black Republicans. It wasn’t. Not even Michael Steele could pull in 30% of the black vote in Maryland. It was a miserable train wreck.

One what I said was the perception of AA is that it benefits white women and not black people. I did not equate that to Black voters voting for Anti Affrimative Action Republicans. It is a sign of distrust and skepticism. That is the first step to voting on issues, instead of entrenched dogma. People will ask questions of themselves. Since they aren’t getting anything from the Democratic party besides a pat on the head, which you wonderfully demonstrate, they start looking for something else on which to base their votes. Two years of slobbering over Hispanics will Black voters with alot of questions about your party’s intentions.

No, you failed to explain “trends”. There have been no “trends” in the black vote. In 2004 Bush got 12% of the black vote. In 2006 the GOP got 10%. If that’s a trend, I’m on board, because it’s heading in our direction

Heh. Conservatives got 10% inspite of the wildly anti-Bush sentiment? Trying finding a rallying cry like that in 2008. Bush is not running in 2008. What would the percentage have been without Bush? I’m on board with that. Democrats have nothing to run on except their record in 2008, nothing. What happens when all the Katrina victmis cannot find jobs but our “new citizens” are fully employed? What will Dems do to combat Conservatives? Dems gave the black communtiy amnesty and a Republican Congress tried to stop them. You have yet to answer that Grebook, because you know what it means. Oh wait Black people will never leave you, I forgot.
I guess the trend of more and more Black candidates running as Republicans is no trend at all, just a fad, it won’t grow the Black community will be content to support illegal immigration. Nor steadily increasing income and home ownership among Blacks. Which for every minority makes them more conservative. A mortgage and kids will do that to you. Another trend is high profile Black like Cosby, amd Morgan Freeman admonishing the black community not to spend their time blaming but doing. Hardworking industrious Black folk are quite socially conservative I assure you.

1.) 18-24 year olds support gay marriage in the majority
2.) 18-24 year olds voted for Democrats by a margin of 60-38%, the most lopsided win in the youth vote ever recorded
3.) Black Republicans have been using the same rhetoric about how “Blacks will start voting Republican on social issues” for literally 20 years. And for twenty years, nothing has changed. Because most Americans are not stupid, and don’t really base their vote on social issues. They base them on fiscal matters, and African-Americans are not fiscally conservative

Wow politcal gains with the most apathetic voting block. Nice. Again a result of Bush which you can not repeat in ’08. Whadda ya gonna do? Get ‘em all motivated to screw Guillani? McCain maybe? Aint gonna happen. Sloths that they are will still be gloating about ’06. Even with that there was no landslide, RINO”s leaving office were your best wins, and Dems running on conservative issues did not lanslide a thing, they won by the slimmest of margins. I’m sure Pelosi will take that as a clear sign to charge. I’ll enjoy every last misstep. And again “new citizens” getting preferential treatment in relation to college tuition and financial aid could turn that same block against you. Not to mention babyboomers. I’m doubting they want to share their retirement with illegal aliens. Keep over playing your hand. Two years of Pelosism will make this the shortest majority ever.

Wait did you just say Black are not socially conservative? And it is stupid to base your votes on social issues? See above.

That Michael Steele won 45% of the vote in a state where about 50% of the population is registered Democratic does not impress me. Ben Nelson won 60% of the vote in a state that is 50% Republican. Steele also held an advantage as lieutenant governor whom all of the voters were familiar with, whereas Ben Cardin was just a congressmen no one outside of hiw own district would have been aware of. The voters chose the unfamiliar Democrat over the familiar Republican.

Try 2/3rds of the state is registered Democrat. So Steele got roughly a third of the registered Democrats to vote for him, hmmm. Heres another trend for you. I know in your world black people are your eternal pets, but were going to expect something in ’08. Amnesty and liberal social policy will not cut it. You can’t get Black voters to vote against Bush again. In a one pony race you are going to have to show up, which will inevitably wear off on all Congressional races and Senate races. No bush to boost turn out, aww.

Theworldisnotenough on November 14, 2006 at 1:28 AM

So many typos. I need to start using Word.

Theworldisnotenough on November 14, 2006 at 1:30 AM

Try 2/3rds of the state is registered Democrat.

No, it isn’t. You’re being manipulative with the figures by excluding independents and unaffiliated voters. Yes, if you only include Reps and Dems, then obviously it’s 66%. When you include independents, it’s about 52%.

Amnesty and liberal social policy will not cut it.

Yes they will. First off, there won’t be any “socially liberal policy” since the Dems don’t legislate on social issues. What exactly do you honestly think they’re going to do when it comes to social policy? Legalize gay marriage, narcotics and find a way to somehow to make abortion more legal than it already is? Get real. As for amnesty, they won’t care. If they did, they would have voted Republican. They didn’t. You offer no proof on why you believe black voters will vote for Republicans in 2008. As for Democrats disappointing black voters. Well, they’ve been doing that for a while on some issues such as welfare reform. That didn’t provoke them to jump ship. You’re making baseless speculation, and with all due respect, it’s getting obvious at this point that the reason for it is that you’re a disgruntled black Republican who honestly wants to believe that the rest of your collective ethnic group is finally going to see things “your way”.

Sorry, but they aren’t. When you find some substantive proof that blacks are going to vote Republican in 2008, clue me in.

Wow politcal gains with the most apathetic voting block.

Actually, no, that’s no correct. As Allah Pundit pointed out, they actually increased their percentage of the electorate consistently for the last three elections. They’re starting to get less apathetic. And you can’t shrug off this “voting block” since obviously it’s going to REPLACE the others over time.

Even with that there was no landslide, RINO”s leaving office were your best wins, and Dems running on conservative issues did not lanslide a thing, they won by the slimmest of margins.

1.) Yes there was, the Democrats won a larger margin of victory in the popular vote than the Republicans won in 1994.
2.) Gerrymandering protected Republicans from an additional 30 seat loss, hence why 20 Republicans survived by the skin of their teeth, winning with less than 5% of the vote.
3.) Only 7-9 Democrats who won were actual conservatives. The three in Indiana, one in Pennsylvania, one in North Carolina. All of the rest are liberals who won marginal districts or blue districts that the GOP will never recover in primarily locations, places such as NY, PA, NH, CT, and also IA and CO. Sorry to disappoint all of this “Oh, the Dems were all conservative, that’s why they won…”. It’s pure B.S.

I guess the trend of more and more Black candidates running as Republicans is no trend at all, just a fad, it won’t grow the Black community will be content to support illegal immigration.

Yeah, that is a trend. But you left out one part. The part where they lose. Constantly.

Dems gave the black communtiy amnesty and a Republican Congress tried to stop them.

But not a Republican president. Your fixation on illegal immigration is meaningless. When you ask voters what the most important issue is to them, illegal immigration generally ranks 5th or even 6th on most polls. Know what ranks higher than that?

1.) War – Dems win
2.) Healthcare – Dems win
3.) Economy – Dems win
4.) Terrorism – Dems win even this one
5.) Immigration – Dems win, every poll shows them ahead on this issue as well

Hence you can spin all you want about what “might” happen. I can plainly lay out what “is” happening, and what is happening is that voters trust Democrats on these issues, especially black voters.

That is the first step to voting on issues, instead of entrenched dogma. People will ask questions of themselves. Since they aren’t getting anything from the Democratic party besides a pat on the head, which you wonderfully demonstrate, they start looking for something else on which to base their votes

Once again, where’s your PROOF. PROOF. SHOW IT. You HAVE NONE. This is just more wishful thinking.

. Go ask any Black person what the reaction will towards Democrats going Clarence Thomas on Janice Brown. Seriously, just ask. I love the arrogance.

Most black people I’ve met don’t even know who the hell Janice Brown is. And when they find out she’s against affirmative action something makes me doubt they’ll care what happens to her in the senate.

Once again, you’re making very ridiculous assumptions. The first is that the Democrats will savage her. They won’t. They’ll simply reject her. The second is that she’ll be nominated at all. She won’t. Bush won’t bother wasting his time choosing a fanatic. Third, how do you know there is even going to be a vacancy? More speculation.

So, let’s lay out your plan to get the ENTIRE black community to revolt against the Democratic Party, step by step:

1.) Vacancy appears on Supreme Court
2.) Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown, knowing she’ll never get through
3.) Dems point out she’s a fanatic, note that she opposes affirmative action, and vote her down along with a hand full of RINOs, such as Specter, Snowe, Collins, etc…
4.) The black community cries foul and votes Republican to help Republicans get a supreme court justice who will outlaw affirmative action

Yeah, there’s absolutely nothing ridiculous about that chain of events.

When Bush pulled even more black voters than in 2000?

You’re actually gloating over the fact that Bush increased his percentage of the black vote from 8%-11%. A three percent increase?

A… three percent increase? George W. Bush only lost 89% of the black vote? This is what I’m supposed to be impressed by?

ROFL.

You keep calling us stupid

No, I called people who vote on social issues stupid. Apparently, most of your community didn’t. So I only called you stupid, considering that a mammoth 87-89% of the black community voted for Kerry.

Lots of stuff about black people talking about gay marriage, blah blah blah

Yeah, and all of this was in 2004 during the debate. And yet it didn’t have any recognizable impact on the black vote. A 3% increase is not significant enough to really attribute to anything. Bush increased his overall percentage of the electorate by about 4%, thus his increase in the black community was actually less and is nothing more than a statistical glitch. A 3% glitch. That is all it really is. If it were 10%, then we could talk.

Don’t waste my time on 3%. Or your own. Wishful thinking isn’t something that you should let dillude your view of reality.

Face it, America is getting more liberal by the moment, and more Democratic.

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 2:04 AM

Face it, America is getting more liberal by the moment, and more Democratic.

This is just plain false.
America is getting more Conservative–ask around.
If America were getting more liberal, why did the leading Dems have to change all their talking points in the week before the election, hmmm?
No, we won’t impeach Bush.
No, we won’t stop funding the war.
No, we don’t want to get rid of the tax cuts.
Conservative switches all to get votes. Of course, they lied to get votes.
It’s tantamount to voter fraud.
If America were more Liberal and more Dem, they wouldn’t have had to lie so much on the very platform they’d had for months.
Americans may be becoming more Independent as to party, but this election was hardly the “Blue Wave” the Dems pollsters posited.

Jen the Neocon on November 14, 2006 at 2:58 AM

Yeah, and all of this was in 2004 during the debate. And yet it didn’t have any recognizable impact on the black vote. A 3% increase is not significant enough to really attribute to anything.

How many votes is 3% of the black vote? How many votes did Bush win by?

Laugh on, chucklehead. When 3% makes it’s way to 15%, the Democrats never win another national election.

If we start a civil war the way they have, it’ll rob us of a permanent victory.

Quibbling is to be expected after a loss. the Dems, on the other hand, are starting out with a civil war over whether or not to promote Mr. Culture of Corruption to a leadership position. They don’t even have control yet, and they’re already pissing it away!

You do not have and will not have a permanent victory. But it’s pretty damned funny watching you fools act as if you do!

Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Good on ya freelancer! Go CP go!

hey annoyinglittletwerp,

As for the Constitution Party platform sounding like the “leftbots” on terrorism: I think they just want things done “by the book,” or rather, “by the constitution.” Hey, I’m all for wars, even those entangling us in foreign affairs, IF (notice the big if) they serve to protect us. I firmly supported the Iraq war, but at some point we do have to say, “look folks, we’ve cleaned it up as much as we can, now keep it clean for yourselves.”
We don’t need to stay there indefinately defending the Iraqi people’s freedom. If they allow themselves to be overtaken by another dictator, then that will be sad. We overthrew our oppressors, they can to – especially with as much help as we’re giving them.
I think the CP would be all for this war if it were done more “constitutionally.” I know that’s a mouthful, but look, the yellowbellied GOP controlled Congress wouldn’t even show the way for the President by declaring war. Saddam threatened us multiple times with talk of deploying WMD’s against us and our interests/allies in the region. We were justified to take him/his country’s govenment out in a war. Congress just should have declared it like the Constitution calls for. Now President Bush looks like a renegade with a private vendetta when everyone in Congress (Dems and GOP alike) was crowing 4 years ago about the need to take Saddam down. Checks and balances, baby. We’ll declare war, you oversee it – deal?
When’s the last time Congress declared a war? Exactly.

y2church

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. – Hamilton

y2church on November 14, 2006 at 9:45 AM

I won’t vote for any party that thinks amnesty is a good policy for illegal immigrants. Affirmative action I’m willing to talk about.

Buzzy on November 14, 2006 at 11:23 AM

Just sent my ticked off email to the GOP over Martinez, Boehner and Blunt. Let’s hope enough people write or call them to show them that these picks just aren’t going to cut it.

Benaiah on November 14, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Nice find, BacaDog.

Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM

I think the RNC has completely missed the message they just received from the voters. If the dims manage to moderate themselves and keep control of congress and HRC manages to get herself elected…….

We’re toast.

Dave R. on November 14, 2006 at 2:30 PM

I know this is going to be slammed for being cliche, but it’s the truth…

There is a global war between freedom loving people and terror-minded extremists who have one goal in mind; world domination under shar’ia law. However else it is defined, that is accurate.

The U.S. has been the only power willing to step up to the plate and make our stand clear, that the enemy will not win. Many nations fell in behind us. President Bush declared on 20 September 2001 that this would be a long, difficult endeavor.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

This is not, however, just America’s fight. And what is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom — the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time — now depends on us. Our nation — this generation — will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

Have we stopped believing those righteous words? Have we given the enemies of America their first real taste of victory?

We have done what has never been done before, by removing a ruling tyrant without crushing the entire country to do it. Understand this, our enemies have more to fear than we do. They understand that preventing freedom in Iraq has become a do-or-die situation for them, so they are fighting like the proverbial cornered badger. We have established a condition where islamic extremists are gathering in one region where they are more easily dealt with. Does anyone believe that all of those terrorists/insurgents would have been peaceful citizens if we hadn’t responded? Better they gather in Persia to fight us than they hide in cells to sneak up on us.

There are many issues of importance to our nation today, but there are only two that are immediately vital. Our handling of the war with islamic extremism, and our own borders/immigration policy.

Another drunk illegal kills 3 more Americans
How open borders turn Americans into roadkill
Where illegals go for driver’s license
Illegal, 17, runs down hero cop
Murder suspect – an illegal with driver’s license
’12-pack’ illegal in fatal car crash

The threat of terrorist intrusion aside, our immigration policy puts lives at risk on a daily basis. When someone easily enters this nation illegally, one thing you can be absolutely certain of is that they have no respect for American laws. Why should they? While NO FORMAL RECORDS ARE KEPT ANYWHERE regarding the numbers of traffic fatalities related to illegals, a conservative estimate from an insurance actuary suggests that 4,600 traffic deaths per year over the last decade can be attributed to drunk illegal immigrants. THAT’S JUST DRUNK ONES.

In December 2004, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. That’s just warrants, not including those already serving time, in the judicial process, or unidentified perps. An estimate comparable to that for traffic deaths places the number of American citizens murdered by illegals at over 2,700 per year over the last decade.

For every bleeding heart that feigns horror over the number of American combat deaths since March 2003, I call on you to be consistent. Do you hate innocent Americans being killed by foreigners? If those estimates offered above are double the truth, it still equated to 3,650 American deaths EACH YEAR at the hand of illegal aliens, more EACH YEAR than all of our military losses of the last FIVE YEARS, and more EACH YEAR than all of the deaths of 9/11. And which death is more tragic, a servicemember honorably doing the duty they volunteered and swore to do, or an unsuspecting civilian being murdered or crashed into by an illegal alien?

Until our government begins to understand where its priorities MUST lie, we MUST speak. If we are silent, the consequences lie with us. So even if you don’t think you want to leave the Republican party, tell them you are planning to. Increase the voice that makes them face the truth. There is noone else to put their feet to the fire, and they have proven yet again that it will take all of that and more for them to listen.

/rant

Freelancer on November 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM

In the statement above that

95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

It was for the city of Los Angeles only, as of December 2004.

Freelancer on November 14, 2006 at 3:26 PM

I will now become a registered Independent because of the election of Martinez to the RNC.

moonsbreath on November 14, 2006 at 4:06 PM

A unified North America is a done deal, people. There’s nothing that we, or anyone, can do to stop it from happening. Part of the process of unifying North America is mixing the populations of the three nations that make it up. Thus, the north-south superhighway and amnesty bills that (curiously enough) get passed about once a generation (1986-2006 *shock and surprise*).

This is Bush I’s legacy, as well as Reagan’s, truth be told. The Republican party has been moving toward this for decades. The Democratic party is the same. The only difference between the two parties is the final structure of the North American Union, both economically and socially.

Mel Martinez is the red-light indication of the direction the RNC is going. Leaving for a third party will only accelerate the process. Voting Libertarian or Constitution might make you feel better about yourself while you’re serving french fries to Meximericanadian bureaucrats, though, so go ahead.

Right now, we have other fish to fry, namely the Islamists. The Republican party is still the only viable option for protecting our families. I know that a modern Democrat in Congress is the funtional equivalent of a Vichy Frenchman, so you won’t find me voting Libertarian or Constitution any time soon.

spmat on November 14, 2006 at 5:02 PM

spmat,

I’m not about arguing with someone who shares my values, as you apparently do, so I won’t.

Speaking only for myself, I will never again vote with my conscience stuffed in a sack, based on the notion that a party which has betrayed my principles is the “only viable option”.

As long as their base continues to be loyal in spite of their moral betrayal, the national Republican party will continue to scorn that base and move as they have been moving, farther and farther left.

Who’s going to stop them, EVER, if we don’t? Fear of Democrats in power is now an insufficient motivator for me to ignore yet again that my former party has given up the pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-sovereignty, limited government foundation that brought me to them.

Freelancer on November 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM

Who’s going to stop them, EVER, if we don’t? Fear of Democrats in power is now an insufficient motivator for me to ignore yet again that my former party has given up the pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-sovereignty, limited government foundation that brought me to them.

Freelancer on November 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM

The fact of the matter is that too many allowed the politicians who were faithful to your views to lose, and that is truly a damn shame.

Call it what you like, but the cut-and-run conservatives just cut off their nose to spite their face, and it may well be impossible to regain even the meager control the party once had.

DannoJyd on November 19, 2006 at 9:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3