GOP Governors Support Obama
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-17
In Reply to:
By Jackie Calmes ![](http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/nyt_logo_140x252.gif")
updated 2:43 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.
The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.
Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.
In the states, meanwhile, many Republican governors are practicing a pragmatic — their Congressional counterparts would say less-principled — conservatism.
Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.
Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.
“It really is a matter of perspective,” Mr. Crist said in an interview. “As a governor, the pragmatism that you have to exercise because of the constitutional obligation to balance your budget is a very compelling pull” generally.
With Florida facing a projected $5 billion shortfall in a $66 billion budget, and social costs rising, the stimulus package “helps plug that hole,” Mr. Crist said, “but it also helps us meet the needs of the people in a very difficult economic time.”
Click for related content |
Mr. Obama’s two-year stimulus package includes more than $135 billion for states, to help them pay for education, Medicaid and infrastructure projects. Yet even that sum would cover less than half of the total budget deficits the states will face through 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research and advocacy organization.
The states’ reliance on the federal government in times of distress will be showcased this weekend, when the governors come to Washington for their annual winter meeting. Their focus will be on infrastructure needs and home foreclosures.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
GOP Governors Support Obama
By Jackie Calmes
updated 2:43 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.
The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.
Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.
In the states, meanwhile, many Republican governors are practicing a pragmatic — their Congressional counterparts would say less-principled — conservatism.
Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.
Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.
“It really is a matter of perspective,” Mr. Crist said in an interview. “As a governor, the pragmatism that you have to exercise because of the constitutional obligation to balance your budget is a very compelling pull” generally.
With Florida facing a projected $5 billion shortfall in a $66 billion budget, and social costs rising, the stimulus package “helps plug that hole,” Mr. Crist said, “but it also helps us meet the needs of the people in a very difficult economic time.”
Click for related content |
Mr. Obama’s two-year stimulus package includes more than $135 billion for states, to help them pay for education, Medicaid and infrastructure projects. Yet even that sum would cover less than half of the total budget deficits the states will face through 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research and advocacy organization.
The states’ reliance on the federal government in times of distress will be showcased this weekend, when the governors come to Washington for their annual winter meeting. Their focus will be on infrastructure needs and home foreclosures.
Is Obama losing support or winning support?
John Clodfelter of Mechanicsville, Va., whose son was among the 17 sailors killed in the Cole bombing, said he arrived at the meeting with apprehension over the decision to close the prison. But after listening to the president and being assured that the terrorism suspects would not be released, Mr. Clodfelter said his opinion changed.
“I did not vote for the man,” Mr. Clodfelter said, “but the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe in him. He left me with a very positive feeling that he’s going to get this done right.”
I Support Obama
I'm for Obama in my words and deeds. I'm 58 years old and this is the first time that I've actively participated in a campaign. I always vote in presidential elections, but in the past it has been for the most part a perfunctory action. This campaign though, I feel that I'm an important cog in the wheel that can turn our nation in a better, more fair, more uplifting direction. This is the first time I have ever donated my hard earned money to a campaign. I have been sending $25 a month to the Obama campaign since January. It's not much, but I find it empowering to know that by combining my little bit with thousands of other like-minded individuals' "little bits" to support a candidate who cares about those of us who are not rich and priviledged, we might be able to get our concerns addressed in the halls of power.
Yes, I know that the president does not run this country by himself, but I am hopeful that an intelligent man of integrity such as Senator Obama will be able to figure out how to persuade those in power to work with him in our interest.
I have read both of Senator Obama's books and I am convinced of his honesty, integrity and intelligence. I have read the information available on his website http://www.barackobama.com. I am especially impressed with his common sense ideas about simplifying and making our income tax system more equitable.
Also, his ideas for making insurance coverage affordable for all Americans makes a lot of sense to me.
I am convinced that the only voters who do not support Obama must be the ones who have not taken the time to get to know this amazing man.
I used to support Obama
Then the light popped on...duh, duh! I don't know who all these people are that do all these polls on the news every day, but I've never taken one of them. Neither have all of my sisters, my mother, my entire family! We're all MCCAIN SUPPORTERS! There are those of us out here who haven't been accounted for, so don't be so quick to give Obama his win. MCCAIN IS A PATRIOT! He is a true American...to the core! He will defend this country and stand up for it. Obama's making candy promises to lure in his voters. You're all in for a bit let-down if he does win. All my prayers are going out to Senator McCain these last few days. God's word - "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." KEEP PRAYING FOR MCCCAIN!
Why is it just because we don't support Obama
we are all of a sudden pubs?
I guess I was a little misleading in my "we" statements. Sorry.
But on another note, I don't consider myself a pub. I guess I would be independent. Heck this was the first year I could even vote in a presidential election. I really didn't care much for Bush. I actually liked Clinton a little (until Monica). I think Hillary only stayed with Bill for the sake of running for president.
If a central, Christian, black woman ran from the democrats who didn't just pander to what the lefts want, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat! I don't care that he's black, white, or polka dotted! He is to liberal, and I think his agenda is to further what DEMOCRATS want, not what AMERICANS want. When he shows me he can reach across the aisle and start working with ALL sides, then I will start to trust him.
So far, not good.
We have four years to right the wrongs in our party. He has about two months to build a team of advisors. I suggest he chooses very wisely if he hopes to garner the support of us "bible thumping conservatives".
And I pray to God that he rethinks the FOCA. I know abortion won't be abolished completely, but it should at least be up to the individual state!
To Dog Owners Who Support Obama...
To Dog Owners Who Support Obama
Is Your Freedom To Own Dogs The Most Important Issue?
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
The 2008 presidential election has become emotionally charged for dog owners, resulting in a virtual brick wall that divides supporters of Democrat Barack Obama from those of Republican John McCain. The two candidates present a stark contrast in both style and substance.
As the campaign draws to a close, neither side seems willing to listen to the other.
We are asking Obama supporters to hear us out, but want to be up front from the beginning. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is opposed to Obama's candidacy because of his close relationship with the Humane Society of the United States and his political alliances with several key animal rights movement supporters in Congress. We also think he has been dishonest about
his views regarding hunting and firearms, and these are issues of major importance to many of our members.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this election as a watershed for animal owners. We think that its outcome will determine the future of the private ownership of animals in America.
We are convinced that animal ownership is doomed if Obama becomes our next president.
Some people may ask if this is really important in comparison with the candidates' views on foreign policy, the economy and social issues. The truth is that animal issues have played no role in this election for mainstream voters, because the news media, political pundits and politicians
have not identified them as important.
But they are important to us.
We also believe that these issues should be important to everyone, because the way Obama would implement the animal rights agenda is a perfect microcosm of his views on the future of America. Those views accurately predict Obama's approach to foreign policy, the economy and social issues.
Throughout American history, animal ownership has been regarded as a personal choice. Each individual has had the freedom to own animals or not, to eat them or not, to enjoy them or not, and to hunt or not to hunt.
It has been freedom based on the idea of "live and let live." You do your thing, and I'll do mine.
The principle was to create a society that is based on the maximum possible amount of freedom for each American to live the way that he or she chooses.
America was founded on the simple yet radical principle that the purpose of human life was to be happy. The Declaration of Independence used the words "pursuit of happiness" as a vital aspect of freedom. What makes a person happy was seen as each person's private choice. Government was seen to exist only as a way to ensure the greatest opportunity to make and pursue personal choices.
"Happiness" was not mentioned specifically in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because it was seen as a given. Those documents attempted to create a government that provided the greatest possible opportunity to pursue choices in one's life, and to protect Americans from both foreign and domestic threats to our freedom to make personal choices and live our lives accordingly.
All of the complex protections of due process, voting rights, civil rights, checks and balances on political power, and redress to the courts boil down to exactly that: Protecting our freedom to make and live by personal choices.
Our relationship with animals is one of the choices each of us has had the freedom to make and live by. It was part of our American identity, and still is for most of us.
It was all about the freedom of the individual.
In the Twentieth Century, however, a new philosophy swept over much of the planet: Collectivism. It boils down to a belief that "social good" is more important than the individual. It defines benefit to society as a higher value than benefit to the individual.
It was a philosophy of sacrifice, maintaining that each person should be willing to sacrifice him or herself to "the greater good," which was defined by the collective. In real life, the collective usually translates into government and those who have the power to influence it.
This philosophy was at the heart of Marxist/Leninist thought, and it also was the underpinning of Nazi ideology. In both cases, the collective - that is, government - became the sole arbiter of how people must live. Government existed under the pretext that its job was to define and promote the common good. This was seen as the highest value - not freedom!
Collectivism actually is a very old idea that reached its greatest influence during the Medieval Period of European history, when the concept of individual freedom was viewed as heretical. During the Dark Ages, the purpose of human life was to serve and glorify the monarchy and the church. A belief in basic human rights and individualism often led to being burned at the stake.
In light of this historical background, the American emphasis on personal freedom was truly revolutionary. It's core belief is that the job of government is to protect freedom so that people could live the way they choose. Many people mistakenly believe that this was meant only to protect people from religious and political oppression.
In fact, it was meant to protect the individual from any kind of oppression that threatens the individual pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. The right to own and enjoy property was a major issue for the founding fathers, as this is basic to the freedom to pursue happiness.
Obama represents the modern reincarnation of collectivist thought, and his views and alliances on animal rights issues illustrate this clearly.
The endorsement of Obama's candidacy by the radical Humane Society of the United States should send up a hailstorm of red flags for anyone who values individual freedom. The HSUS ideology embraces collectivism in its purest form.
Without exception, every political position advocated by HSUS boils down to a belief that individuals have an obligation to society to sacrifice individual freedom in order to achieve the "common good" - as defined by HSUS. Every HSUS position tells animal owners that they must sacrifice their own freedom in order to pay for the sins of a few people who treat animals
callously.
For example, everyone knows that there are a few bad "puppy mills" in America that should not be allowed to exist. All of us would agree with that statement, including owners of commercial breeding kennels.
But HSUS argues that these few bad kennels make every breeder of dogs suspect, and that this requires "Big Brother" to look over his or her shoulder in order to protect dogs from exploitation. It is like saying that we shouldn't enjoy our supper because people are starving in Ethiopia, or that all parents should be licensed and inspected because a few of them abuse their children.
The fallacy of this argument is easy to see. All of its premises are utterly illogical.
It assumes that government is somehow morally superior to individuals, and that government can be trusted more than people. Read any history book for an hour and the flaws of this argument become apparent. Throughout history, government has been the greatest oppressor of people, animals and the Earth itself - by far! I doubt if AL Capone harmed as many people as the average corrupt restaurant inspector in Chicago.
It assumes that the answer to bad government is more government. HSUS and Obama believe that current laws are not being enforced. Their answer is to create new laws, which is a laughable example of intellectual absurdity. The answer to bad government is to make it work better, not to create new laws and bureaucracies whose only purpose is to burden and oppress good people.
It assumes that exploitation of animals is the norm, rather than the rare exception. Anyone who raises dogs knows that this is absurd. The lives of dogs have never been better at any time in human history. They are beloved members of millions of American families, most breeders dedicate their entire lives to their animals, and thousands of dedicated rescue people save
the lives of millions of dogs that are doomed to suffering and death in government-run animal shelters.
Would you want the fate of your dog to rest in the hands of any government-run animal shelter in America?
And yet, HSUS and Obama see government as the answer.
Obama's well-documented belief that government is the answer to America's problems is at the heart of our objection to his candidacy.
For example, every improvement in the lives of dogs in America is solely because individual people have made personal and ethical choices that benefit their animals.
No improvement of any kind can be attributed to the actions of government.
Each political victory by HSUS and its allies in government has resulted in terrible suffering for animals. For example, the HSUS-backed ban on domestic horse slaughter has led to tens of thousands of horses being trucked to Mexico, where they are slaughtered under the most inhumane conditions imaginable. Every mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has led to the terrible
deaths of thousands of abandoned pets at the hands of government-run animal control programs.
Compassion for animals is one of the highest human virtues. It happens only through the dedication of individuals. Compassion and government are mutually exclusive concepts.
The HSUS endorsement of Obama is but the tip of the iceberg.
Consider that his primary political mentor, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, has been the major proponent of anti-dog-owner animal rights legislation in Congress. Durbin is the sponsor of the current "PUPS" legislation that would extend the heavy arm of federal bureaucracy into most kennels in America, and also was the author of the failed amendment to the Pet Animal Welfare
Act that was attached to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Obama's main allies in Congress read like a "Who's Who" of radical animal rights activism: defeated Sen. Rick Santorum (author of the failed PAWS legislation three years ago), Sen. Diane Feinstein, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Ted Kennedy and several others. Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, consistently gets 100% HSUS ratings.
The Obama ticket is an animal rights dream team.
Please remember, too, that political endorsements and support come with a price tag. We believe that price tag includes:
* Support for federal animal rights legislation to restrict dog ownership and virtually eliminate the breeding of companion animals. A federal spay/neuter mandate is likely, as are prohibitions about using dogs for hunting, herding or in competitive events. These are all parts of the HSUS agenda.
* Support for the camouflaged but very real HSUS agenda of forcing America into becoming a vegetarian society. This would be done by increasing federal regulation of farming, ranching and slaughterhouses with the goal of making meat, milk and eggs too expensive for most people to afford.
* The gradual elimination of hunting, both by outlawing specific kinds of hunting and also by changing policy to eliminate hunting as a tool in wildlife management.
* Naming HSUS-sanctioned people to be the new Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior, and also filling many administrative and leadership vacancies in both Departments with HSUS-anointed personnel.
* Creating a federal task force to study and recommend legislation on animal issues that is heavily weighted toward HSUS.
* Nominating pro-HSUS judges to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and federal district courts. Even if judicial nominees don't have a track record on animal issues, it is likely that most of the nominees will strongly support the concept of federal intervention on
social issues, and strong opposition to the concept of private property and the rights of individuals.
* And, based on Obama's track record as an Illinois state senator and his endorsement by gun control groups this year, many restrictions on the right to own firearms are likely. This also is a major goal of HSUS.
When it comes to political paybacks, to the victor go the spoils.
The HSUS Legislative Fund's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to endorse Obama. This is the first time ever that HSUS has endorsed a candidate for president, and this says a lot about the importance of Obama to HSUS.
This endorsement didn't happen out of the blue. Our review of the HSUS questionnaire submitted by Obama shows clearly that he actively sought the endorsement. He wanted it. He went after it. Obama stated his total acceptance of every HSUS position on dozens of different pieces of animal rights legislation. He did not disagree with any of them.
As dog owners, we cannot ethically support any candidate who is in 100-percent agreement with HSUS.
Here is how the HSUS announcement describes Obama:
" Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal shelters, to promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently co-sponsored multiple bills to combat animal fighting and horse slaughter, and has supported efforts to increase funding for adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal
fighting and puppy mills.
"In his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and said he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to make their policies more humane.."
That statement is a nightmare come true for dog owners, farmers and hunters. It also is a nightmare for any American who believes in the sanctity of individual freedom.
An Obama victory, especially by the wide margin now shown in the polls, would place collectivists in firm control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Obama and HSUS would be able to get almost any law they want.
What all of those laws will mean is that government will not respect your freedom to make and live by your personal choices. You will be required to sacrifice your life to the collectivist ideal of "total animal liberation."
That means the elimination of almost all breeding of dogs. That means tight restrictions on the ownership of dogs. That means laws making it impossible to raise food animals, or for most people to be able to afford to buy animal products. It means the destruction of hunting and gun ownership.
It will all happen in the name of the "common good," as defined by HSUS and Obama.
The animal rights agenda is a totalitarian philosophy to force you to sacrifice your life to achieve the political goals of HSUS. Obama quite clearly has signed on to that agenda, and his signature is written in your
blood.
Like most totalitarians, HSUS favors only "top down" leadership. For example, they know it is hopeless to try to convince Americans not to eat meat or to raise dogs. They don't even bother to try. Instead, HSUS pushes for laws aimed at making it impossible for Americans to afford to eat meat or raise dogs.
The strategy is to gradually remove meat and dogs from the lives of a large majority of Americans, until the day when those things don't matter any more. At that time, they will be politically able to achieve their long-range goal of the complete elimination of animal ownership in America.
Obama is a key part of that strategy, because of his willingness to support "do-gooder" animal rights legislation, even though very few Americans are asking for those laws. The animal rights movement is not a popular uprising of political sentiment. Instead, it is an elitist movement that reflects the view of only a small but politically well connected percentage of the population.
Through his support of HSUS, Obama has shown clearly that he is an elitist who is willing to impose the extreme views of a small minority on America to achieve a collectivist goal. If he will do it about dogs, he will do it about any social or political issue.
Freedom is his enemy. Personal choice is his enemy.
Collectivism is all about using governmental power to force people to conform.
In that light, we are especially concerned with the power Obama will have to nominate Supreme Court justices, and other federal appeals court and district judges.
The constitutional system of checks and balances sees the courts as the citizens' final avenue of redress when their rights are infringed upon by the legislative and executive branches of government. The courts are meant to be a check of that power.
For dog owners, the courts are our last line of defense against bad laws that take away our rights to own and enjoy animals.
Obama will nominate the kind of judges who will be inclined to limit individual liberty in order to achieve collectivist social goals. They will believe that individuals must sacrifice personal freedom in order to create someone else's idea of a better world. They will see the right to own and enjoy personal property as something evil.
This year's Supreme Court case about firearms rights illustrates this viewpoint. In this case, gun control advocates tried to claim that individual rights do not exist. Instead, they attempted to say that there are only "collective rights" of the American people as a whole - as they define them.
This was the actual argument used by Obama's allies to try to say that the Second Amendment does not apply to you and me, but only to an undefined "us."
Obama has claimed that he is not opposed to firearms ownership and hunting. We believe he is not telling the truth, and is really saying that he is not opposed to his definition of acceptable firearms ownership and hunting.
His track record as an Illinois state senator shows this clearly, and we are indebted to Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson for making this important information available to the voters. He was the ISRA's chief lobbyist during the years when Obama was a state senator in Illinois.
Here are excerpts from Pearson's account of Obama:
"I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama."
"Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month."
"Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family."
"Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?"
"And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens."
"Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center."
Firearms issues are important to many of our members, and probably half of them are hunters. We also recognize that many dog owners do not own guns or want to own them.
However, we believe Second Amendment issues are important to all Americans. If a politician is willing to destroy even one of our freedoms, then none of them are safe. To compromise one part of the Bill of Rights is to endanger all of them.
Firearms issues also are important in understanding the collectivist mindset. Because an infinitesimally small percentage of firearms owners are criminals, collectivists believe that the other 99.99-percent should sacrifice themselves for the "common good."
The call to sacrifice extends even unto freedom itself.
We cannot support any political candidate who has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice any of our basic American rights. Obama has shown that willingness and, we believe, fully embraces collectivist calls for the sacrifice of the rights of innocent individuals in order to achieve his
social goals.
It is a mindset that would willingly destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of American farmers, dog professionals, hunters, dog owners, hobbyists and the tens of thousands of people whose jobs depend on them, in order to impose Obama's vision of a "New World Order" on America.
We believe Obama would destroy those people without batting an eyelash. He would see himself as the righteous defender of animals, but doesn't want to see the truth.
The people who own animals are the people who defend and protect them.
Animal rights groups like HSUS want to destroy them: as gently and gradually as practical, perhaps, but destroy them nonetheless.
Please do not vote for Barrack Obama.
For your dogs' sake. For your sake. For everyone's sake.
Just say no to Obama.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
ASDA@.... Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Have You Joined Yet?
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Gourdpainter. I cannot support Obama, but whoever
nm
Try to follow this logic. I support Obama. Therefore,
his platform and every single speech he ever gave, was and never will be MY issue. It is yours. MY issue is with the hypocrisy of Joe the unlicensed, the way he misrepresented his intentions to buy the business (seems to have completely forgotten that by now), misrepresented his income, the income of the business in question and the innocent bystander routine that you so strongly defend. Contrary to popular belief, it seems, ignorance IS NOT BLISS here. His cover was blown and you can't stop crying foul because the underlying agenda is out in the open.
Beyond that, McCain has lifted up JTP and is using him to further misrepresent his alleged concern for the middle class (a phrase which he has yet to utter in any speech) which is clearly the case, given his 24-year record of voting and his 90% undying devotion to the "commonly shared philosophy" with the shrub.
We who support Obama have grown weary of
.
I have no doubt Obama has support...it will be a close election.
"you are one, we are many." Good lord. LOL.
Obama leads in military donations and support over McSame! sm
http://www.knbc.com/politics/17191067/detail.html
I have lots of Christian friends who are democrats and support Obama. nm
x
Fortunately, there are governors who...
...need to answer to their citizens. I personally have a brand new respect for Governor Charlie Crist. He has refused to play the GOP obstructionist game and has PUBLICLY gone on record and placed the needs of his citizens first. I believe they call this bipartisanship.
I just love the gall of the obstructionist GOP in Congress (particularly the ones who find "Barack, the Magic Negro," etc. entertaining), those who publicly beat their chests and say they're against it, yet have no problem with their states taking the money. After eight years of Bush, they must still think Americans are stupid. We're NOT.
And I as well. especially those on the front line...the mayors...the governors...
and at the federal level as well...it will take all of them. This is somewhere where party lines need to disappear. This is where we all need to pull together.
Good grief, BB. If this had been Republican governors.... sm
you'd be screaming bloody murder and calling for their heads on a platter for mismanagement of state funds and poor economic plans as the reason for their situations.
This has nothing to do with whether the parties involved or Dems or Pubs. It has all to do with the fact that everyone and his daddy are lining up at the White House steps with their hats in their hands. Likely, the only reason this story surfaced is because the governors ARE Dems and it makes Obama "look good" just as you believe it does.
I bet if all government budgets were scrutinized closely enough, the fat would suddenly float to the top and everything would be hunkydory. Some of the criteria for the Big 3 automakers getting their handouts were that the top executives either be fired or have their salaries cut as part of the plan for solvency. You don't see top government officials taking any pay cuts or even offering to, now do you?
Government has become nothing more than a money machine, and it's time something were done about those 6-figure salaries for a start.
GOP governors: Stimulus May Hurt in the Long Run
Of course, that doesn't stop my governor from taking the temporary money, probably raising our taxes after the states have to fend for themselves. As he said, he doesn't care. Know why? It's his last term. He's going to let the next governor be the bad guy. We've been suffering since he became governor. He juggles the money all the time, yet the people of this state do not see any relief. He promised property tax relief after the casinos were up and running. We have yet to see a dime of it.
"I'm not sure that we can, over the long run, cope with the high unemployment compensation standard that this mandates for states," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the head of the National Governor's Association, told "Fox News Sunday."
"But I don't care. My people are suffering," he added. "They need that extra money. And right now that's paramount in my mind."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/stimulus.governors/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
It would seem to me that when two neighboring states governors join forces
and declare a state of emergency, that the President would have to pay attention. It's lunacy for him not to. Yes, I totally agree with you in that our borders must become better secured and that's why I posted the petition. If you want to see more about illegal immigration also visit www.numbersusa.com
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout...sm
Democratic governors seeking $1 trillion bailout
Obama and his staff receptive to ideas, Doyle says
By SCOTT BAUER • The Associated Press • January 3, 2009
MADISON — Five Democratic governors are asking the federal government for a $1 trillion bailout package, including $250 billion for education and $150 billion in middle class tax cuts.
Advertisement
The governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio on Friday said they have presented their plan to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team as well as congressional leaders.
They said that level of federal aid is needed to deal with unprecedented state budget shortfalls in 41 states and Washington, D.C., that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pegged at $42 billion for the current fiscal year alone.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle said congressional leaders and the Obama team have been receptive to the governors' ideas.
"That's not to say they've told us this is what they'll do or they're with us all the way," Doyle said. He also said other governors were involved in creating the plan, which grew out of an early December meeting that Obama had with the nation's governors.
Obama's aides and congressional leaders have been talking about a package roughly half the size of the two-year plan the five governors proposed Friday.
A $1 trillion is equal to 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product, the U.S. economy's total output in a single year. A package of that size is likely to draw significant opposition from congressional Republicans and concern from moderate and conservative Democratic lawmakers who oppose large budget deficits.
In addition to the money for education and tax cuts, the governors said their plan includes $350 billion for road construction and other infrastructure projects and $250 billion for social service programs such as Medicaid.
The governors all said their states are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls that will require deep cuts to services and possibly irreparably harm their education systems.
"We aren't crying wolf," Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. "These are real circumstances, unprecedented situations we are facing."
Ohio's budget deficit could grow to $7.3 billion even after $1.9 billion was cut from its current budget, Strickland said.
A forecast from Global Insight shows that the economy hasn't hit bottom yet.
National economic growth is now expected to drop 1.8 percent this year, rather than increase 1 percent.
The U.S. labor market is expected to lose 3.7 million jobs during the downturn, with unemployment reaching 8.7 percent in the first half of 2010, it said.
That forecast assumes there will be a $550 billion federal stimulus package, roughly half of what the governors requested.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090103/GPG0101/901030590/1978
It appears to me that the governors are just walking in lockstep to politics......
It's all about politics - screw the people! Pretty sad when a political party wants to see our country fail......
Governors closing ranks on Bush for trying to Federalize the National Guard sm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_re_us/governors_guard
O's votes support his claims. JM's votes support Bush.
Believe what you like. Voting records tell the tale. Could use a few more details on that budget. Just what programs will he slash and and how many tax dollars will be directed away from middle class and in the direction of the rich? How much longer can the infrastructure afford to crumble?
JM adopted O's withdrawal plan when he saw how well it went over with the public in an election year. He flipped on the war once. What's to stop him from flipping again once elected? The nation is war weary. Some prefer a surge in diplomacy, not military answers to diplomatic failures. Ask the Iraqis who have lost more than 100,000 among them how sucessful the war has been. Obama has always understood that the OBL/Taliban live in Afganistan, not Iraq. JM, a little slow on the draw there.
I see nothing in JMs platform that backs his claims about transparency. I see specific plan on the O side under technology initiatives, continued initiatives which originated under Clinton and were reversed during the undercover Bush administration. Pork barrel spending for pubs means something different than it does to dems. Slash the poor to give to the rich? Hard seel in the current economic frefall. Also find nothing in JM's plan to address runaway contract corruption in Iraq. Having Halliburton and companies there props up those struggling American corporations. Show me the plan.
Antiglobal/antidiplomacy. No surprise there. This is about the futureworld, not American imperial delusions of grandeur. So much data on the drilling scam being an immediate relief for gas problems out there it is not worth addressing. Can you say T-Bone Pickens, i.e., we can't drill our way out of this one. He should know. Been an oil man all his life.
Since these are just a few, what else do you have up your sleeve?
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
And who would u support?
Is this Tara again?
I don't support HRC but......she has won the
That means, for the people that actually turn out to vote, she has gotten their votes, which is what a democracy is all about. Delegates are not constitutional in the first place....they were illegally put in place to supposedly keep one state from taking over the voting process; however, super delegates are completely illegal and have absolute conflict of interest.
So, Obama has NOT won the popular vote.....HRC has. I don't care for either of them, but looking at Obama's bedfellows, it's quite clear where his thoughts really lie and I certainly don't want anyone like that running my country. We are taxed enough without representation of those taxes and he has made it quite clear, all he wants to do is RAISE taxes and GIVE TO THE POOR. Pleeeeeze, we have so many social programs in my county alone, it's pathetic. THe ones geared towards children are not working, Headstart is just a babysitter for a bunch of teenage moms (in my city) who sit all day, DO NOT work, and are so lazy, they can't even get off their butts and walk their 3 year old out the Headstart bus that picks their children up curbside. Stand at the door in their PJ's, kids aren't even dressed when the bus comes, and the lady has to get off the bus and stand hollering for them to come on NOW. It's sickening to watch. And, Obama wants more of that? How about calling it what it is.......children who aren't learning in school are not learning because they go home to sloppy lazy parents, some no parents at all, living with whoever they're push off on, and homework is the last thing considered important. The only meal most get is at HeadStart OR free lunches at school. Until Obama wants to call it what it is and stop blaming the education system, then he's no better than any other candidate who just likes to point fingers instead of getting a backbone and say what the problem really is......NO parents, drunk parents, doped up parents.....the list goes on and on......
They support NRA
so you can hunt and so you can defend yourself if someone tries to hurt you. It is called self defense. Killing an innocent child isn't self defense....it is called murder and it is also selfish. I just don't understand why some of you people would rather save a rapists and murders life and you don't believe in the death penalty for criminals but you have no problem ending the life of an innocent child who has done nothing wrong and has no choice in the matter.
I support what we need to do -
I do not say I am against war in general - I am against a war that should never have been! I do not want to send my son to die based on lies and deceit.
And yes we have schools in this country - but they are all underfunded and could use a lot of that money we are putting into building Iraqi schools...
We have programs to feed our hungry - but not enough to cover all the hungry or needy!
I just do not think we should be putting our resources into other countries when our country is so in need. Not only our financial resources, but our human resources (our soldiers).
What does that mean.......if we all support?
It is not the job of my country to support or supply contraceptives to anyone outside this country. If those countries want to stop their pregnancies, they will have to figure that out for themselves, not with my dollars.
Maybe start by sterilization? Not our job to "support" any country monetarily to take care of their population of obviously unwanted births. Yes, I will verbally support they stop the reason for the pregnancies in the first place, but I do not agree to my having to pay for it.
That's their problem!
We should support him? Not if we do not like
That is like saying Hail to Hitler because WE HAVE TOO, even though we all know how he turned out. I am not saying O is like that, but gee whiz, I WILL NOT SUPPORT HIM OR GOVERNMENT if I do not like what they are doing and so far, I DO NOT. In fact, give my money back from the last bailout and I REFUSE FOR MY MONEY GOING TO NEW FURNITURE IN AN OFFICE, MONEY FOR PRODUCERS TO MAKE MOVIES THAT SOME FRANKLY SUCK AND SO ON.
Sorry, just irritated with our government who frankly SUCK AT THEIR JOB!
I don't have to support anything I don't believe in...
and I believe we got shanghied into another Vietnam. Sadam Hussein was a vicious dictator, but he kept the lid on that boiling pot. Who supplied him with arms and training in the first place? I have family who served in desert storm and were recycled through this cluster and I still don't support it. Army suicides are at an all-time high, why? Because they believe in what they are doing? It's a crushing shame how our troops have been treated. And that's all I have to say about that.
You don't have to support anything you don't believe in....
We already have to protect ourselves - my uncle's house was broken into the other day, someone else in the community was broken into and their pet dog was stomped to death. I saw on the news a group of 4 armed men attempting to break into a home and the homeowner saw them and had fast access to a weapon and a firefight broke out. You haven't seen nuthin' yet. Wait till the food pantries empty out.........everybody better be armed and dangerous and don't ever fool yourself into believing our country isn't already occupied by terrorists - because it is. I will fight to the death (already have cancer, might as well go out with style instead of in a diaper).
Again with no pub support....(sm)
If this thing works, those pubs need to start grabbing thier ankles.
Right now I don't support any
politicans because they all suck, IMO. I did not vote for Obama and I don't support him or our congress. I don't like him giving Nancy Pelosi free reign to right spending bills. I don't like Obama turning healthcare reform over to congress to write. I just do not see things out of Obama that makes me feel positive about the direction our country is heading.
I don't support all the policies
coming from this administration. Do I think Bush is a good president, yes! Do I think he's great? No, because, personally, he's not been conservative enough for me. To me, Ronald Reagan was great. He was tough, but he still made people like him. Bush not been tough enough on some issues.....however, that's never here or there. I have always freely said that I don't agree with everything coming from the Republican party. I'm a conservative first, Republican second, but as the days go on I am becoming more and more a Libertarian. I will still vote Republican, because I think that's where my vote has the most value, but if the Libertarian movement becomes more of a contender, believe me, I'm going to catch that wave.
I said all that to say this.....I never generalized when it came to Democrats when it came to Clinton in office, because, being from the South where there are still a lot of old Southern Democrats (and, gasp, I was one for several years believe it or not...) I knew all Democrats did not stand behind some of the Clinton policies. There were some Clinton policies I did like, although as a presidential role model he drug the office of president through the mud.....
To me it seems that liberals are all or nothing in hating Bush, but if there are some liberals out that who like Bush speak up and prove that generalization wrong 
Support for Sheehan
Please call (214) 764.6668 and leave your message for Cindy Sheehan.
We'll deliver them to Cindy in Crawford and give them to Cindy on CD
later. We will also broadcast your message on RadioLeft.com, so don't
say anything that you don't want to hear on the radio!
Also, sign the petition of support for Cindy. We helped get her on
Good Morning America but we want to help her get on more TV shows.
Sign here:
CindySheehan.com - http://www.CindySheehan.com
support of Kyoto
The European Union and Canada have signed. There are northeastern states that have created an initiative which would cap emissions and put pressure on the federal govt to support Kyoto. New York is one of them, Maine is another. There are also cities and other states that support Kyoto. Los Angeles is one of them, so is Utah, Texas, Seattle. I think altogether there is about 160 cities and states supporting the Kyoto protocol.
Can you provide support for this
All the research I have seen says that ectopic pregnancies cannot survive, that an embryo must be in the uterus to thrive. I would love to see some support/back up of this if you have any (I am honestly curious, not trying to be difficult!)
Thanks.
I didn't think I could support him more!
But after watching him take the bunch of rotten lemons he was tossed and seeing him transform them into delicious, healthy lemonade, he even surprised me! 
Show our support
A friend sent this to me........ but like she said, please don't do this! It's just all in good fun....
Show Your Support
It's time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.
If you support the policies and character of John McCain, please drive with your headlights on during the day.
If you support Obama or Hillary, please drive with your headlights off at night.
Not hardly. I am glad for her support....
but unlike the rest of you, I do not post to support myself. I do have the courage of my convictions and all the bullying and badmouthing you all throw my way only makes me more determined. So pile it on, bullies, pile it on. apparently that is what you need to feel empowered and relevant. Go ahead, knock your socks off. If you are raggin on me you are letting someone else rest.
only 24% of us support the bailout
Yesterday it was reported only 24% of Americans support the bailout, 56% are opposed so 20% have no opinion. Senators' and reps' offices were flooded with calls and emails all day asking that the bailout be opposed. And I was one of those. Everyone should be contacting their own reps to express their opinions. That's they only way they will know what the people want.
Show our support
Show your support. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans. So: To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show our support for the candidate of our choice. It's time that we
all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike and let our candidates know we are behind them.
So, until the election, if you support the policies and character of Barack Obama, please drive with your headlights on during the day. If you support John McCain, please drive with your headlights off at
night.
Thank you for your participation in this patriotic endeavor! Let's let our candidates know we are behind them.
Can you support this with some facts or is this your take on it?
From what I read if it did not pass there would not be credit to buy ANYTHING, and if small businesses' credit lines dry up, even more job losses. Is there something that leads you to believe that would not happen if the bill was not passed? I don't want to fight, just want to get the facts.
Encouragement and support???.
that sounds nice and comfy, but you sure can't deposit that in the bank.
You are right I did not know but I am not apologizing....I am saying we should not support him (sm)
That is amazing that in this country we do not even realize that there were so many Irish slaves. But I did know that slavery has gone on practically forever and has involved all races. You missed my entire point. My point was that we do NOT deserve to be punished now for what people did in the past and that it is unfair for others to be prejudiced against anyone of any race, including Obama and his church being prejudiced against whites.
How can they support the child
if the child is aborted? Quite a few women get pregnant and have abortions without even saying anything to the father...
Keeping pants zipped goes both ways...
Do you know why other countries support O?
nm
Well, I did't support McCain either but
running around in Harlem saying how happy they were with Obama's pick of Palin as his VP was any indication of where Obama is on the food chain, God help him. That food chain must have started below ground level to begin with.
Since when do politicians support
a group or say they do and then turn around and crap on that group or break promises they made to that group. I think that kind of goes hand in hand with politics. LOL!
Honestly, do you really think Barrack Obama is crapping on the homosexual community because he asked Rick Warren to do this? It isn't changing any laws. To me it looks like a liberal reaching his hand across the aisle to a conservative. To me this shows that even though they may not have the exact same opinions, they can still do something together. Isn't that what we are all about. Reaching across the aisle to show that even though we don't agree, we can still work together. Yet all people can see is this being a bashing session against gay people.
I don't agree with homosexuality. However, if they want some kind of legal union.....whatever. That is about as equal rights as I am going to lean for the gay community. I have gay friends who have no problem leaving the definition of marriage between a man and woman.....as long as they can be joined together legally...that is all that matters to them. I just feel that the ones who are trying to redefine marriage is dead wrong. Leave marriage between a man and woman and give homosexuals some sort of legal union.
This changing every tradition to accommodate every single minority group is what, in my opinion, is hurting our country. All these minority groups want equal rights but in doing that.....they take away from the majority. How much more should the majority have to sacrifice?
I would say MAINTAINING support.
You have my support, Human........
Sh*t happens, whether we like it or not. I'm in the same boat you are. We still have 2 houses, still making the mortgage payments but our ability to do that for how long is in question......fortunately, we didn't buy what we couldn't afford and my kids pay the mortgage on the 2nd house. I don't know what is going to happen to me because we have no healthcare coverage right now (waiting for income tax return to pay COBRA) and my cancer has not been treated since October.......I guess we will see what happens...good luck to you!
I would love to support O but he
believes anyone making over $250K is rich and he is trying to hurt the very people who make this country work.
I'm not bashing him, but I think he is totally wrong in what he is doing. Trickle down does work in a way, but trickle up will never work. Those that have spend more than those that don't.
What he should focus on is those companies that moved oversears to save their profits but then, again, you have the problem of NAFTA and tax loopholes , not the American companies who are trying to survive in a global economy while staying in the U.S.
Obama is focusing on the poor, not the people who make this country work. That is the reason he won the election and those who are on the bottom of the ladder (the poor, welfare recpients, etc.) could not and do not, understand how the country works or what government is all about, and voted for him because he was going to cure all their problems.
Hey, I need a car, but do I rely on government to give me that car? No. I try to figure out how to get one myself. Why can't the rest of the country do that? BECAUSE they think the government should solve our problems. That's not the way it should work. We have to do it ourselves and only rely on the government when necessary, which includes losing our job for a few months, but bouy us for those few months until we find another one, etc. Understand what I'm saying?
|
