About Me

Name:Young Republican
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Penatly: Killing Dogs

Posted by Young Republican on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:06:52 PM
You know those crazy people who love their dogs way too much and look like idiots. Well I'm one of them. I love my dogs as much as I love my family and most of the time like them more. I also love football, so the news that Atlanta Falcon quarterback Michael Vick is charged with having dog fights made me angry. I never liked Vick call it an extra dog sense, but my younger brother was devastated. The more and more I heard, my anger rose in response as did his number one fan. Soon as my brother and I talked further we agreed Michael Vick needs to hear that wonderful phrase from Donald Trump "You're Fired". 


                                                             
                                                       Which one is the animal?

For the innocent before convicted crowd, need to remember that the standards for firing are extremely low and usually slaughtering dogs makes the list, in particular for a public persona job. Vick as a human, in the most basic of terms, deserves that protection in the legal world not in the business one. Not being a member of PETA, I fully support the raising of jail time for people who torture animals, and if there is any justice in this world those that do would endure the pain that they put Earth's kindest creatures through. The public needs to demand that at the very least; Vick never steps on the field until he gets a verdict in his case. Hopefully his money cannot buy an acquittal the way it bought him the pleasure of an animal's brutal pain.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review: The Most Exclusive Club

Posted by Young Republican on Monday, July 30, 2007 12:05:52 PM
I always judge a book by its cover, and am usually rewarded with the superficial technique. So when I picked up The Most Exclusive Club by Lewis Gould, I thought it would be a great book about the modern US Senate. Instead the book rewarded me by giving me instead a history of the chamber in the 20th Century from 1900 to modern day. At first I thought of putting the book back, because reading about President Wilson is usually boring but soon with author Lewis Gould guiding me, the history came to life, and I noticed something very special, history repeating itself again and again. If gave me a fresh perspective on the 2008 election, reminding me to take a breath, and that this most likely is not "the most important election ever". The book is filled with wonderful stories about maverick Democrats and Republicans challenging the system, the power one Senator can have, and the election cycle and how closely tied it is to the president in power. 
                                              
I was born under Reagan in 1987, and only cared about politics when I was 13 in 2000 so even a Social Studies geek like me who knows of FDR and the "New Deal" really doesn't get an understanding of the conflict that existed then. Out of the books I've read this year, this was probably the best one for me. While Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are fun to read, I've read it all before. Now to point out a fault, the book is written with some opinions, which in my mind should have been left out. A true examination of history, which this book provides, is better when uncolored by even the smallest bias. It written from the center-left but is not an extreme book in any sense, but it may strike some as unfair. The book however does not limit negative light to Republicans (who are seen more as stagnant) but also to power hungry Democrats like Wilson, FDR, and Johnson. I highly recommend this book and give it **** out of ****.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Support Planned Parenthood

Posted by Young Republican on Saturday, July 28, 2007 1:44:09 PM
Things are not often black and white, but some congressmen, would prefer it that way. Such as the simplistic congressman, and conservative darling Rep. Mike Pence (Indiana). He proposed one of the stupidest amendments in recent history, by prohibiting federal funds to Planned Parenthood. Before those in the Pro-Life community attack (I'm one of you), I'm against funds going to abortion as well. But the money allocated went to preventing pregnancy in the first place. Who can be against that? Planned Parenthood does wonderful work in that department and is organized well to help those in our community so they never have to face the tough decision of abortion in the first place. A Pro-Life Democrat on floor said it well that if the bill passed (which thankfully it didn't) it would cause more abortions. 

                        (Doesn't Represent The Pro-Lifers)

Pence deserves the scorn not the admiration of Focus On The Family and others. Rep. Mike Pence has again and again shown that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, saying on an Iraq trip that the marketplace in Baghdad reminded him of home as he was shielded by hundreds of soldiers. Conservatives would to best to ignore this funny little man, but he has been instead putting up on a misplaced pedestal putting some of us in the Republican community in the precarious position of having to defend him. Sadly this pathetic bill was supported by numerous Republicans scared of losing support of Pro-Lifers, 173 in all, while 21 had the common sense and courage to defeat it. Coming from the Pro-Life community, I'm trying to stop abortion, while Mike Pence is more interested in piety politics with Planned Parenthood.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sorry, You Can't Debate

Posted by Young Republican on Monday, July 23, 2007 1:42:06 PM
CNN is bringing us another debate tonight with the Democrats answering questions from the regular people at Youtube. Never mind the fact that most of the people on Youtube are not normal. Leaving the wonderful world of Youtube alone, the debate itself brings to mind the debate we should be having about the candidates and sheer number of them. Should we limit who gets to participate in these debates? To be considered a viable candidate as to earn a place up on stage, you have to be or been at one point a Representative, Senator, Governor, or really, really wealthy. 
                                           
Yet we still get numerous "undeclared" candidates even before the swarm of declared candidates crowd the stage. Bill Frist, Russell Feingold, Evan Byah, were all men who bowed out of the fight this time. Al Gore and Fred Thomson are still testing the waters. Then with the declared list it seems anyone is allowed up there. Jim Gilmore recent departure simply highlighted the fact that ego alone seems to be keeping these men alive politically. The parties should allow a pre-nomination nomination that would highlight the top five candidates and allow for a richer, fuller debate. If one were to falter and bow out the process would select another. For the nomination process to work the debates have to stop being full of five-second sound bites and start being solid conversations.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Common Hypocrisy

Posted by Young Republican on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:28:41 PM
A lot has been written about Senator David Vitter (R-LA) calling him a hypocrite because he supports family values and also was involved with a call girl service. Now Senator Vitter to state the obvious was morally wrong but his stands on morality, of which I disagree on quite a few, should not be smeared. Calling someone a hypocrite seems to be an enjoyable sport on both sides politically. Republicans have delighted in the size of Al Gore's home calling him a hypocrite because he calls for energy conservation.
                                 
Nancy Pelosi called for an end of entitlements yet wanted a bigger jet; Strom Thurmond spoke on segregation yet had a black daughter. Robert Byrd is called the moral center of the senate yet was a member of the KKK. I myself speak on behalf of animal rights yet eat meat. This game can go on for hours. As far as I'm concerned Vitter and Gore are human which means they are not perfect, as none of us are. Can you imagine how often all of us would be called a hypocrite if we had the eyes of the nation on us? We as people, who love politics, are at our best when discussing fundamental ideas and at our worst by taking pleasure in someone's misfortune exposed. Yes I am a hypocrite, and so are you. The ideas we all represent are pure but we ourselves are not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Target: Republican Women

Posted by Young Republican on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:28:53 PM
Watching C-SPAN last night, (a nasty habit to break), I saw Rep. Christopher Murphy of Connecticut praising his predecessor, Nancy Johnson, who he defeated last November for her good work over and over again. He then went on to say how he only wished that voices of moderation such as hers still were present on the Republican side of the aisle. To state the obvious if you are such a fan of hers, don't take her seat. That made me realize though that the fraction of women serving in the House of Repesentives on the Republican side is getting slimmer and slimmer. Out of the 202 seats the Republicans hold only 21 are held by women. For roughly for every 10 Republicans serving only one is a woman. While both sides are vastly represented by men, Republicans are worse. However what's interesting is the fact that Democrats are particularly targeting Republican women.               
                                         99372
The Democrats took the seats of Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Katharine Harris of Florida (though she left on her own to run for Senate), Sue Kelly of New York, and Anne Northup in Kentucky. Johnson and Kelly were both moderates, and Northup a conservative, but a likable one. However were it gets shocking is that Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Thelma Drake of Virginia, Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, Deborah Pryce and Jean Schmidt both of Ohio were all on the Democratic hit list and barely kept their seats by razor thin margins. And while a few of the congresswomen are safe, quite a few "didn't make the cut this time". In 2008 they say they try again adding Senator Susan Collins of Maine to the list. With such a limited number of Republican Women serving they are considered the high level targets. Perhaps it's time for Democrats to admit that they are not the party of women, since all four seats taken were replaced by men. The Republican Party also needs to make more effort to recruit and support women in the party. It's getting harder and harder to defend our party as the party of the American people when we have eleven white males running on our side for president, while the Democrats have a woman and black man as their frontrunners.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review: Party Crasher

Posted by Young Republican on Monday, July 16, 2007 12:43:24 PM
Book Review: Party Crasher by Rich Tafel

The most basic objective in a campaign is to get more votes than your opponent. So it's shocking to see the Republican Party's aversion to gays in elections. A lot of factors went into the 2006 loses, but a silent factor is creeping up on the Republican Party, it's position on gays will be looked at historically as homophobia at it's worse. Now being young, just turned twenty, I grew up with gay friends, the fact that I was a Republican and Christian just enhanced our friendship. I made very clear that I thought of them no differently than any of my straight friends, and as I often hanged (hung is incorrect) around the political group in middle and high school we often discussed all the issues of the time. I support gay marriage, adoption, and open military service. So now being in college and the day's of friendships in school behind me, I was interested when I saw a copy by the one-time head of the Log Cabin Republicans, Rich Tafel. Written in 1999, the book has barely aged, as gay issues have unfortunately not gotten much better under President Bush. "Party Crasher" is a testimony of a man who has conservative principles and happens to be gay. The book discusses his experiences, often a mixture of hilarity and heart breaking reality and the history of the gay movement. The book is at it's best with the stories of his life such as the Dole $1,000 check debacle and appearances on the homophobic Armstrong Williams show who recently got caught up in a male sexual harassment case.
                                          
It shows the Republican Party's history on Civil Rights, remember we were the North in the that "War of Northern Aggression" to it's decline under the power of Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson. While I agreed with almost everything in the book, Tafel while talented in political circles has some rough travels when writing. This being his first, hopefully not last, book shows the unfortunate strain of the "freshman book". He relays too much on the history of the movement as filler and the political psychology comes off as weak and repetitive. The book would have benefited from being broken up more, (though short, there are only three sections for 240 pages) and perhaps would have been even better just as a memoir. Nonetheless the ideas are superb and the book must reading for both sides of the issue. One final plea to my conservative friends, change on this issue, history will not be as friendly. *** Out of ****.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CNN: Conservative News Network?

Posted by Young Republican on Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:41:29 PM
 CNN is not often a place conservatives can find solace in, but recently CNN senior health correspandent Dr. Sanjay Gupta took on Michael Moore for his lies in Sicko. I was very impressed with Dr. Gupta anyalis and his fact finding that proves what we have all known Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of our times. The fact that Moore and I come from the same state I've been fortunate to know about his lies first hand. My liberal history teacher was in Bowling For Columbine and pointed out that Moore lied about the shooting death of a young girl. I also took a film class in college with a man who worked on Roger and Me again another liberal who pointed out numerous outright lies in the film. 
                                 
Mr. Moore is talented and often equally self-destructive. A fact by fact examination in all four of his major films Roger and Me, Bowling For Columbine, Farenheit 9/11, and Sicko have all been proven without a doubt to be outright proganda. One of my hobbies is to review films, and Moore and Riefenstahl are and were true filmmakers but the passion of their politics and lack of ethics and morals limit their legacy. Dr. Gupta on CNN repeated over and over how he agreed with the general thesis of Sicko but did not back down from the lies of the film. Moore though responded, as we have all seen him, as a out of control person with underlying mental problems. It plagues him and worse his talent.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

White Victims of Racism

Posted by Young Republican on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:35:21 PM
 It's shocking to find the constant new form of racism prevelant within the African American leadership in America. First it was with affirmative action saying that one's race should determine admission or denial to a univeristy. Then recently it was with "school intergration", a policy that bases race as whether or not a child gets to go their school or gets shipped an hour and a half to the inner city for "diveristy". Thankfully the Supreme Court has put regulations on affirmative action and stopped althougher school intergration. Justice John Roberts, sure to go down as one of the best chief justices in history, said "the best way to stop discrimation on the basis of race, is to stop discrimation on the basis of race." The NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson (not even putting the "Rev." in there) all the usual suspects said the rulings where "a return to segeration".

AffirmativeRacism-X.gif
These dishonest arguements soil the history of true discrimation, using the accomplishments of Rosa Parks and twisting the words of Martin Luther King Jr., to fuel their anti-white hatred. The truth is that the white suburbs pay a completly disportuante amount of their tax revenue to the inner city and that no one is forced to live anywhere. The reason some although not all schools are diverse is because for the most part racial groups tend to be more comfortable among themselves. That's obviously a simple statement but has been proven. Racism is clearly giving negative circumstances to someone just because of their race, it was wrong in the days of Jim Crow and it is wrong in these days of Sharpton/Jackson.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Scooter Libby Is No Nelson Mandela

Posted by Young Republican on Friday, July 06, 2007 3:49:53 PM
I'm surprised that any emotion can arise from President Bush's commute of Scooter Libby's sentence. The story was dull from the start, reaked of inside the beltway gossip, and lack any substantial gravitas. A man gave incorrect information and was sentenced to less than three years. This is not the material for a David Baldacci novel. Laura Ingraham had it right when asked to rate how much the American people cared about the CIA leak case, she replyed negative three. Considering this was about testimony not the leak itself, the number could only free fall. For D.C. Dems it was as close as they were going to get to impeaching the President for going to Iraq showing how weak their case was. For D.C. Republicans they were protecting one of their own who messed up and played the victim card. In a world plagued with injustice, Libby is a poor example of it.
                           Image: I. Lewis Libby
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Edwards Vs. Coulter: We Have A Winner

Posted by Young Republican on Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:34:29 PM
It's getting harder and harder to defend/like Ann Coulter. When I was younger, just starting in the Republican Party, she was the first author I turned to. She was beautiful, smart, and a lot of times funny making conservative opinions "young" again. That was then, but her fighting between my favorite Democrats, John and Elizabeth Edwards is making me have to side with them. The Edwards are good, southern people brought up with grace and charm and everyone that I know has a positive opinion about them. I read Elizabeth's book "Saving Graces" and it was a heartwarming take on her life thus far. 
                                   
I have said time and time again that if it had been "Edwards/Kerry 04" instead of "Kerry/Edwards 04" we would be our president currently a thought agreed by most including the Bush team as well as the people I talk to of all political stripes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with attacking positions on issues and even sometimes personality but calling a man whose wife has terminal cancer and his first-born son buried in a North Carolina graveyard a "faggot" is nasty and unbecoming. Last week on Hardball, Ann Coulter when Elizabeth Edwards called in continued her process of attacks and refused to stop personally attacking the Edwards. Ann Coulter does not apologize, a trait that is becoming more and more unappealing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Review: Bushworld

Posted by Young Republican on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:37:49 PM
Book Review of Bushworld written by Maureen Dowd.

While it may be considered a crime in conservative circles, I read The New York Times, and what's worse I enjoy it, particularly on Wednesday and Sunday when flipping to the op-ed page, I see a column by Maureen Dowd. While I disagree with her often, her style is unparallel and her writing as enjoyable. She writes about politicians as if they are her private characters, each with their own vices and virtues. The interaction of the political event of the day merely allows for their personalities to show themselves. It's a fun style that leads to an almost fictional style of factual events while still being able to maintain its place in the non-fiction area of a library. "Bushworld", her first book but really a chosen collection of her columns, ends up being a winner although I was a bigger fan of her last book "Are Men Necessary?". It deals with the presidency of George W. Bush in his first term, and his handling of 9/11 but particularly the Iraq War.


Maureen DowdIt's a fair material since those were the two defining events of his presidency to this day, President Bush will go down in history as a foreign policy president as opposed to a domestic policy one. Her writing on the President will come across as condescending too many, and the effect was not lost of me. Her doing this is to prove the point that while some Presidents form and shape policy decisions on the people in their administration; others like President Bush give that power to people they trust, such as Vice President Cheney and Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The book suffers from its length at 523 pages it is to long and quickly feels dated; more editing would have helped the flow of the book more easily. Dowd likes to dwell into the psychological angst of written subject and it serves to her advantage, particularly with the interaction between President George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. The styles differences between the two administrations are remarkable and often Bush 41 reasons for not finishing Iraq have been proven time and time again, represented by his words back in the Gulf War and with Colin Powell work as Secretary of State during President George W. Bush's first term. To many conservatives her harsh treatment of the responsibility Bush 43 administration for failing to stop 9/11 and her adoring of Richard Clarke will be a turn off and the Clintons get off at least in her chosen columns with nary a mention. However this book is about President Bush and the need to attack Clinton may be forthcoming as she has said before she would like to apply her technique to them in a book entitled "Hillaryland". That's really here nor there with Maureen Dowd you get impossible standards and your faults pointed out in a rotating harsh and humorous outlook. It's a needed style that Dowd is more than happy to accommodate. * * * out of * * * *.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Coward's Vote

Posted by Young Republican on Monday, July 02, 2007 5:51:47 PM
Ok, I'll admit it. I'm a C-SPAN junkie and while it can be fun (fun being used its most odd sense), it can also make me want to rip through my television and give a good screaming to some of my least favorite people at the moment. Such a moment occurred on June 28th, when the Senate rejected cloture on the immigration bill. The 60 proof cloture vote has both pros and cons depending on your support or rejection of the bill to which it is being applied so while it should remain as part of the Senate rules it also stinks. Whether or not you are for or against a bill, it should be given the opportunity for an up or down vote. That was our position when it came to the judicial nominations just a few years ago and mine will not change. While those Senators who voted nay on the cloture, did so legally, I believe it was a morally cowardly vote for most of them. I cannot speak to the soul and mind of a politician but using federal rules to not allow a clear position on an issue reeks of politics, in its worse sense. The majority of the no votes came from the Republicans but if all Democrats vote yes along with the 12 republicans who did as well the limit of debate would have past. Voting no on the immigration bill is a sound position to take, I don't agree with it, but that's neither here or there, but not allowing a vote on the bill after so much debate and the Reid decision to kill the bill if the cloture did not pass the second time around caused my disappointment of the below Senators who voted against allowing a vote.

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
 Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
 Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »