Vocal Minority

Schmuck Republican: KS House Speaker Mike O'Neal

From the Examiner:

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

    Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
    Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

 The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

Now, I can't wait for Obama and his henchmen to get as far away from the White House as possible. But I don't want him dead, for goodness sake! This is just uncalled for and reprehensible. 

Schmuck Republican: McCain Volunteer Makes Up Own Attack Story

She initially told police she was mugged by a big black guy and then beaten up because he noticed a McCain sticker on her car. He even carved a 'B' into her cheek with a "dull knife." Now college Republican Ashley Todd, of Texas, has admitted she concocted the whole story. She messed herself up. In more ways than one, apparently. Why would she do this? If she's really in need of phychiatric help, then G~d be with her. But if she did this out of some sick desire for sympathy of media attention, then get her outa here. The McCain campaign doesn't need pranksters like this.

 

Schmuck Republican of the Week: Newt Gingrich

I got to meet Newt Gingrich a few months ago at our local Borders book store. He was with co-author William Forstchen to talk about their new book about World War II. He shook my hand and signed my copy of his book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.. It was a very moving and memorable experience for me. Now, Mr. Speaker is in a TV commercial. Sitting alongside current Speaker Nancy Pelosi--one of the most incompetent and left-wing people to occupy the position--he warns the viewer that "our country must take action to address climate change." Oh, Gawd. There's only one thing more pathetic than whiny self-important Democrats preaching the latest left-wing fad: Republicans who jump on the bandwagon with them. I mean, it's one thing for a Democrat to call for taxing and legislating the American people to oblivion. That's what Democrats do: Tax and legislate the people to death and beyond! (Incidentally, George W. Bush is just as much a schmuck on this global warming craze, but he's already had his schmuck column!) In today's American Thinker, Marc Sheppard writes:

Newt's Global Warming Surprise By Marc Sheppard [...] During an April 2007 debate on the subject with the insufferable John Kerry [video], Newt opened by effectively ceding the point of anthropogenic global warming to his not-so-jolly green opponent. Even before Kerry could utter a single word of eco-babble, Newt admitted his thoroughly off beam conviction "that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." Actually, outside of the Massachusetts Senator's emphasis on regulation as a solution, there was surprisingly little discord between the two "debaters." Declared Newt: "I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism." A concept Gingrich would essentially reiterate a year later when he speaks in the Gore-mercial of "spark[ing] the technology we need," not raising taxes or other big-government solutions. To be sure, if the actions of man were ever to be proven contributory, technology would be the preferred GOP response, not taxes. But that's an extremely big and currently unforeseeable if. Which leads to the primary quandary created by the highly regarded conservative's very presence in such an ad -- it broadcasts an acceptance that the actions of man have an impact on climate -- a theory never properly tested, much less proven. Moreover, Newt's suggestion that climate change is addressable in any manner other than adaptive preparation for its natural inevitability undermines the rational demand for empirical-evidence-before-action while supporting the alarmists' "debate is over" lie. How could the savvy political historian fail to foresee the tactical advantages his attendance would hand the loony Left? [...] A growing number (currently hundreds) of scientists -- many giants in their fields -- have signed a declaration during and since last month's New York Climate Conference, affirming their positions contrary to the so called "consensus." They emphatically reject CO2 as a pollutant, and assert that global climate has always and will always change -- independent of the actions of man. And that therefore, any schemes to mitigate anthropogenic carbon are a "dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems." Additionally, such plans "will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate." And they conclude "that all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 [should] be abandoned forthwith." [...] Unfortunately, adding the name Gingrich to a roster of recently greened "Republicans" already including McCain, Schwarzenegger, Warner, Huckabee, Bloomberg and even - apparently Bush, can only serve to recharge the Big Green Scare Machine's eco-friendly fuel cells. [...] Doesn't The Ex-Speaker Also Deserve a Chance to Explain? He does, and he did. But contrast the president's to Mr.Gingrich's explanation, as published on his website After stating that he doesn't think there's conclusive proof of global warming, much less any anthropogenic contribution - a sharp departure from his converse words barely a year old -- Newt moves the discussion to conservation and energy policy: [emphasis added]

"There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of ‘Just yell no!' I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad."

Sorry, but that simply can't hold warming-ocean water. The Newt sitting beside Nancy didn't say that our country must take action to address a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren. Nor did he say anything about energy policy -- surely no one would deny the benefits of energy independence. No -- he stared right into the camera and clearly stated that action must be taken to address climate change. And just which "debate" does Newt think conservatives are missing from? The one the Left declares only a "tiny, tiny minority" of "deniers" and "flat-Earthers" refute is over? The same Left that labels all dissenting scientists, regardless of credentials and numbers, as hacks and oil company shills? And whose de facto leader has refused Mano-a-Mano debates time and time again? The undeniable truth is that by continuing to seek knowledge rather than declaring the science "settled," Conservatives are far more involved in the debate than any of their liberal counterparts. Again, Newt's innovation-over-bureaucracy argument merits none from me. But such actions -- indeed, any actions -- in the glaring absence of proof that global temperatures can be impacted in either direction by mankind's meddling cannot be the conservative position. On the other hand, steadfastly questioning the "science" while inexhaustibly fighting the politically correct scientifically-antithetical hype must be. Bush may just be stalling bad legislation in order to prevent worse policy by fiat, hoping that both climate trends and public opinion continue to cool in the interim. McCain, while clearly wrong, is running as an independent Republican and likely believes he's properly playing the part. Other complicit Republicans are just plain wrong. But somehow with Newt, wrong cuts a whole lot deeper and bleeds a whole lot more. The former Speaker owes us all an amended explanation worthy of his intellect, and ours, soon -- soon.

Well said. I still respect Speaker Gingrich for his service in the House during the 90's and for everything he has done to support the War on Terror. But this latest development is, to be truthful, an extremely hard pill for a supporter like me to swallow.

Schmuck Republican of the Week: Rudy Giuliani

A year ago he was at the top of the polls for the Republican ticket. Now, after being trounced at the primaries, he's ready to throw in the towel and endorse John McCain. Go ahead, Rudy, you go support a tax-supporting, illegal immigrant-coddling, free speech-suppressing candidate. Now there's a real Republican.

It's just as well. Just last weekend I was telling some family members that I was losing faith in Rudy and leaning toward Romney. Now, with Fred Thompson gone and with Rudy's campaign hanging by a thread, that endorsement grows ever stronger. His platform is the closest to Reagan-style Republicanism we've got right now. I also like the way Romney handles himself at debates. He's very eloquent and doesn't take crap from anyone, neither his opponents nor the ever-detestable liberal partisans posing as media figures.

Schmuck Republican of the Week: President Bush

I know what you're thinking: "Bush is a schmuck just for the week?" But anyway ...

Bush Welcomes Gore to Oval Office

Why?
Why??
Why???

To borrow a line from Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Easy Money, these two ought to put their heads together an make an ass out of themselves.