I like the idea of being able to support only conservative politicians, yet I distrust anything coming from any Washington insider. Recent history shows us that our current crop of craptastic politicians can screw up a free meal, and that is why my money will stay in my wallet … for now.

Never forget this. Give Washington the job of building a simple mouse, then after being subject to Washington intrusiveness which gets you several plan revisions, the lowest bidding contractor, cost over-runs, more plan revisions, and then when everything is finally said and done [a decade later] they deliver to you … A Donkeyphant.

Of course McCain is far from perfect. But he’s voted conservatively most of the time throughout his career except for the really big, important issues, & he’s the only one who can beat Obamarxist left to vote for.

jgapinoy on June 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Fixed it for you.

Increased domestic energy, (I don’t like the phrase energy independence… not possible), and border security, and immigration reform… meaning making it easier to immigrate legally and harder to immigrate illegally. So unless McCain and other squishes can come around on ANWR, and offshore dilling, and securing the borders then it makes supporting them financially very difficult.

My own senator Norm Coleman has shrunk from a ACU rating of 68 in 06 to a 64 in 08, is one of them. He votes correctly fairly often, but messes up on big votes. Just this week he voted with the Dems on “punishing the oil companies” for doing what they are supposed to be doing. Can’t vote for Franken, and will likely vote for him, I don’t have to send him any money.

GOP is the New Coke of politics.

The Grand New Party?

I hope they consider supporting Steve Pearce in NM and Bob Schaffer in CO. Both are running against Udalls. The Udall family is a bunch of revolting wankers…shudder.
It would just be lovely to see the whole Udall family crying in their beers this November.
funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM

WORD!!!!
(in the vernacular)

Steve Pearce is the one bright spot in my political horizon. Even though he would make a superb Senator,I almost hated to see him risk his Congressional seat for the senate run, because he could keep that seat for as long as he wanted it without breaking a sweat. Winning the entire state however will be a hard row to hoe since all of the liberals from the north half of the state and all of the illegal aliens that Gov. Richardson (essentially) gave voting rights to will be voting for Udall….Twice..

I’ll have to look into Schaffer. Don’t know anything about him, but he might be a good way to invest a few bucks.

funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM

GOOD FOR HATCH!!!

Too bad the guy running for President can’t come up with any concrete solutions… or at least steps in the right direction… like this.

Of course when the guy’s agenda is 179 degrees opposite of ACTUALLY achieving reasonably priced energy, offering platitudes about weaning off foreign oil while throwing roadblocks into achieving it are about the best you could expect.

Nope, I’m just going to continue to to give directly to the guys I support, and continue to tell them directly what I expect from them.

Why add another bureaucratic layer that can pass out your money to someone that you may not want to support…. After raking off their operating expenses and rather than delivering YOUR message, delivering the groupthink message of the committee bosses.

Washington Committees are one of the things that are killing this country.

Washington – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today called on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to lift a moratorium that essentially bars the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from leasing land for commercial oil shale development.

During his testimony, Hatch also presented a letter from Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., who asked committee members in the letter to lift the oil shale-lease moratorium, calling it a “matter of great importance for Utah and the nation.”

Hatch also submitted a written statement to the committee in which he stated his stand on oil shale and asked committee members about their stand.

“The question . . . for the members of this committee, and I should add, for the Democratic leadership of Congress, is whether you will adopt the anti-oil agenda of the environmental movement as an element of your own energy policy.” Hatch said in the statement. “So far, I have heard of proposals to tax successful energy production, to investigate the oil futures markets, to ban Canadian oil imports in favor of oil from Venezuela, Russia, and the Middle East, and to call for delay after delay in the commercial production of oil shale. … These policies would not produce one drop of oil.”

The moratorium was imposed as part of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2008 and it inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), which directed the BLM to lease several tracts of federal oil-shale land for research and to issue commercial-leasing regulations.

Hatch said oil shale and tar sand development are more economical, environmentally responsible and require less water than ethanol production. What’s more, he told committee members, Utah and Colorado have between 800 billion and two trillion barrels of recoverable oil.

Because the U.S. is so dependent on foreign oil, the senator added, the nation is sending “$600 billion overseas, often to countries that are our enemies. We need to use that money for development” of domestic oil to meet our energy needs.

“We need to wake up and stop sending money to our enemies throughout the world,” Hatch said.

Fortunately, I trust Jim DeMint, and will continue to do so until and unless he proves that I can’t.

It would just be lovely to see the whole Udall family crying in their beers this November.

Greetings:

I didn’t see “Climate Realism” on your issues list.

But it is critical to stop the stampede toward taxation and regulation of ‘carbon’ because of the ‘global warming’ hoax. Otherwise we’ll see American growth and prosperity stopped in its tracks.

Sen. Jim Inhofe should be high on your list of candidates for funding.

I’m interested. Show me you’re serious.

Why bother with this stunt. Haven’t we been told repeatedly, even by Republican pundits, that conservatives have lost it already?

Esthier on June 11, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Maybe DeMint wants to fight to move forward rather than sit back and whine and suck his thumb?

Although I’m very skeptical about anything that comes from D.C., I will look at it.

It bothers me greatly that his apologists on this site will go on and on about what a wonderful human being McCain is without once broaching the subjects of McCain’s theft of Constitutional rights, his no-questions-asked amnesty scheme, his open borders position on national security, his repeated undermining of the GOP administration, his out-of-control temper tantrums against Rumsfeld over procurement contracts, etc…. highhopes 1:05 pm

Evidently you are a late comer. We have been through the McCain vetting already during the preseason and primaries. Vomit is no good to anything but a dog. More often than not, it’s a matter of anger management in not desiring to kick the dead horse just to make a newby happy. Go on if you must. But the chorus is busy thinking how to get what we need, not wasting too much effort whining the same ol’ same ol’ on cue. That’s a given.

I’m still touting my HOPE that the GOP will only pay for their POTUS candidate McCain to run on Thompson’s platform. The conservative platform is already spelled out and already reached a lot of attentive listeners whether or not they felt the author had enough fire in the belly. Finishing touches via Thompson’s platform would save a lot of time, arguments, dissent and taxes. Should he become the VP, it would also curb Romney’s socialist government sponsored projects from further eroding the conservative’s trademark of the smaller, leaner fighting machine used to incisively make government function according to Constitutional standards instead of Progressive wish lists, INCLUDING the wrong stuff from RINO “compassionate” federal thievery forcing tax payers to pay for corrupt business failures through bail-outs. At least shell out a widows mite or furrow a mustard seed for the PAC.

Meanwhile, absolutely no money or support of any kind for RNC (RINOS, Not Conservatives)!!! And I’ll send my checks directly to candidates with explicit instructions that they NOT be shared with others.

Just like the Republican party to take credit for others ideas.

But will at least hear this plan before I dismiss it as the same old empty promises as before.

volsense on June 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM

John McCain hangs out with the Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, Chuck Grassley, Lincoln Chafee kind of “Republican.” I honestly don’t know that I agree with you that he is any better than Obama just because once upon a time he might have voted the same way the conservatives (i.e. his party) was voting.

It bothers me greatly that his apologists on this site will go on and on about what a wonderful human being McCain is without once broaching the subjects of McCain’s theft of Constitutional rights, his no-questions-asked amnesty scheme, his open borders position on national security, his repeated undermining of the GOP administration, his out-of-control temper tantrums against Rumsfeld over procurement contracts, etc….

If they are going to defend John McCain they need to be at least honest about what the GOP is selling this election year. John McCain is not a conservative and he appears to be downright hostile toward traditional GOP values. He is a liberal RINO who wants to win the election by getting Hillary Clinton’s supporters and he is willing to throw the GOP under the bus to do so. That’s who John McCain is. Shame on us for letting the fraud get the nomination. Shame on McCain supporters for continuing to lie about the credentials of their candidate!

It’s a nice theory, but a total crapshoot. He’s very lucky the Democrats nominated Barack Obama.