John Shadegg for House Majority Leader Posted by: Jon Henke
on Wednesday, February 01, 2006
With one day left until House Republicans vote on their next Majority Leader, there's not much time left to make them aware of popular sentiment on this election. Specifically, they need to know what the public thinks about Roy Blunt (a monumental disaster), about John Shadegg (an inspired choice), and the consequences of a poor choice.
Both McQ and I have endorsed John Shadegg, because we believe that he's most capable of leading the Republican Party back to the ideals of the Revolutionary Class of '94. That estimation is shared by many others on the right, including National Review, Club For Growth, Townhall, Instapundit, NZ Bear, Ed Morrissey, etc.
At this point, you can help best by contacting members of the RSC to prick their conscience — to remind them of their purported dedication to "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government" and "the protection of individual and property rights". And to remind them that there will be consequences should they choose to ignore those ideals and elect the Status Quo Candidate Roy Blunt. (who, unlike Shadegg and Boehner, didn't even take the time to fill out the RSC questionnaire)
Below, you'll find the contact information for RSC Congressmen who've endorsed Blunt. If your Congressman is not on that list, find his contact information via this page. As Red State wrote:
You can help. It's time to get active.
Call (202) 224-3121 and urge your congressman to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader.
This matters.
Find your Congressman, contact them and speak up today, before it's too late. They may or may not respond — Congressman Eric Cantor's office did not respond to my repeated inquiries, which I will remember — but they will notice.
I would love to call, but mine (OR) are both D’s that were elected by two population bases (Portland and Salem) that do not represent the actuality fo the state.
It’s kind of sad to watch you Q and O guys take this election so seriously. The idea that any of these guys is a "reformer" in any meaningful sense of the word is beyond ridiculous. You seem sincere in your belief that it might actually make a difference. Oh well.
The basic problem is that corruption, profligacy, mismanagment, patronage, cronyism and waste are in the DNA of the modern GOP. The modern GOP is not really a political party, per se, at least not in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a vehicle thru which the monied/business interests in this country can shake down the federal government for payouts and tax cuts, and to effectuate a more friendly regulatory climate. Indeed, the K Street Project was simply a means by which the GOP attempted to achieve this goal. Simply replacing one GOP’er with another can’t by definition change the nature of the GOP.
As for Shadegg, well, I will let the man’s own words speak for him:
During a 2000 dispute over Clinton’s decision to create a national forest near Tucson, Shadegg said: "I would draw a parallel to Hitler. He eroded the will of the German people to resist evil." At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Shadegg described liberal filmmaker Michael Moore as the "anti-Christ" and said supporters of Democratic candidate John F. Kerry "have mental health problems."
Yes - the millions and millions of voters who voted for John Kerry are all mentally ill. Christ, even I wouldn’t say that about Bush supporters. And how many friggin times has this website given lefties crap for comparing Bush to Hitler. And here you are endorsing someone who compared Clinton to Hitler.
So if a lefty compares Bush to Hitler, you say he is raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic. If a righty compares Clinton to Hitler, you endorse him for House majority leader.
The basic problem is that corruption, profligacy, mismanagment, patronage, cronyism and waste are in the DNA of the modern GOP.
Since you haven’t been paying attention at all, I’ll point out that the major premise of limited government philosophy (and our major concern) is that the "corruption, profligacy, mismanagment, patronage, cronyism and waste are in the DNA" of government.
It’s a structural problem. Replacing the persons or the party in charge will not solve it.
Both McQ and I have endorsed John Shadegg, because we believe that he’s most capable of leading the Republican Party back to the ideals of the Revolutionary Class of ’94.
And oh what wonderful ideals they were. Lets return to those heady times. One component of the Contract with America called for tougher criminal laws. To that end, a bill was introduced in the Senate. Here is how one commentator summarized it:
Among the low points of S. 3 are: the abolishment of the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule and the creation in its stead of a tort claim with a cap of $30,000 in almost all cases; the almost complete evisceration of habeas relief; an increase in mandatory minimum offenses; the complete exemption of federal prosecutors from ethical rules other than those adopted by the Attorney General, and allowance of contact by federal prosecutors and agents with opposing parties known to be represented by counsel; the creation of a new obstruction of justice offense for attorneys; the shifting of the burden of proof in cases involving an alleged involuntary or coerced confession, from the prosecution to the defendant; further restrictions on the application of the mandatory minimum safety valve; and the mandatory treatment of juveniles 13 and over charged with violent crimes as adults (with no opt-out provisions for Native Americans on reservations).
Funny, but wasn’t the Contract with America supposed to reduce the reach of the federal government? Again, you libertarians have hitched a ride with those GOP’ers who would seek to increase the power of the federal government at the expense of the criminally accused.
It’s kind of sad to watch you Q and O guys take this election so seriously.
I’m sure it is MK. It’s much easier to be like you and do nothing but criticize and align yourself with a party who’s only contribution to anything thus far is to repeat the mantra "we can do it better!"
OK Alex, Shadegg’s a "bonehead"... how so? He believes that the world is flat? He believes we can tax ourselves to prosperity? He believes that the Moon missions were a fake? A bit more elaboration, please? Because many, here and at other sites praise him...
Otherwise yours just is a gratuitous assertion, to which I respond Alexander Alt is thumb-sucking, pencil-neck geek, a grit eatin’ freak....
I’m sure it is MK. It’s much easier to be like you and do nothing but criticize and align yourself with a party who’s only contribution to anything thus far is to repeat the mantra "we can do it better!"
Right.
The rate of growth of the federal government has been GREATER under Bush than under Clinton. Much greater. Greater means bigger, more, etc. If the debate is over whether the GOP or the Dems are better at slowing the rate of growth, you lose. But then when your party is building bridges to nowhere, what do you expect?
Since you haven’t been paying attention at all, I’ll point out that the major premise of limited government philosophy (and our major concern) is that the "corruption, profligacy, mismanagment, patronage, cronyism and waste are in the DNA" of government.
It’s a structural problem. Replacing the persons or the party in charge will not solve it.
Sometimes life is simply a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. And when it comes to the evils I identified, it is clear that the GOP is NOT the lesser of the two evils. And - if you haven’t noticed - Shadegg is a GOP’er. Replacing the party won’t solve the problem, but it would help.
If he does not get elected the Republicans will be exposed as the liberal phonies mkurltra thinks they are. Based on how they have grown the government the last 5 years he may be right, they may in fact be liberal liars. I think not but if Shadegg does not win I will have to agree with mkurltra that they are the new left in American politics and I bought in to their lie "we are conservative".
The rate of growth of the federal government has been GREATER under Bush than under Clinton. Much greater. Greater means bigger, more, etc. If the debate is over whether the GOP or the Dems are better at slowing the rate of growth, you lose. But then when your party is building bridges to nowhere, what do you expect?
I see the old red herring has again visited you.
How many times do I have to point out that we’ve made the point that the rate of growth of the federal government has been greater under Bush than Clinton? No one here is denying it and we’re certainly not happy with it.
Hello!?
The point is we are backing someone who has a desire to do something about that, and we’re not backing the guy who seems to think Republicans have been doing quite well for the past 5 years.
Of course if you’d pay attention you’d know that and we wouldn’t be inflicted with these insufferable and ignorant comments of yours.
After last night’s "we need more government" speech by the #1 Republican I think the party has been taken over by the liberals. If the liberals do control the GOP then Shadegg has no chance as he is the only one running that is not a liberal. But Americans have shown over the last 80 years that they will vote for a Democrat liberal over a Republican liberal. We need go back no more than 14 years to see a Republican liberal being crushed while only getting 33% of the vote. But the mindset of a liberal (be he GOP or Dem) is that he can buy our votes and he will not believe we will vote him out. That is just what happened to the House in 1994. If Shadegg is not elected we could see history in the House repeat.
"Shadegg described liberal filmmaker Michael Moore as the "anti-Christ"
I agree, Shadegg is wrong on this. Moore is not smart enough, cunning enough, or fit enough to be the anti-Christ. He’s just a child seeking attention from other children.
