A BRAVE, BOLD ATTACK, MR. SENATOR

Shame on Sen. Ken Salazar for attempting to breathe life into his former aide Betsy Markey’s faltering campaign by calling her opponent, Marilyn Musgrave, an “agent of hate.” (Rocky Mountain News. . . p5 10-16-08). Salazar’s devastating attack on the 4th District Congresswoman follows the same tone of the totally undeserved racial remarks made a few days earlier by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) against John McCain and Sarah Palin.
I don’t know whether Lewis lays claims of being a moderate or not. But I do know that Salazar did –- before he was elected, that is.
One more reason for Coloradans to send Bob Schaffer to the U.S. Senate -- two leftist-liberals embedded there is simply one too many for our politically diverse state.
P.

Who Am I?

I am under 45 years old.

I love the outdoors.

I hunt.

I am a Republican reformer.

I have taken on the Republican Party establishment.

I  have many children.

I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with

   less than 2 years in the governor's office.

Who am I?

I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

(From forwarded e mail.)

Your Tax Payment is Democrat Economy Solution

The Democrat candidate's speeches have two main points on the economy: it is terrible and only Democrats care.

The economy is not great for some of us and prices are rising, but do the Democrats really care? Gas prices go up but Democrats in Congress went home instead of considering ways for America to fill its own energy needs and keep money in America. Republicans, including Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, were in Washington to urge Democrats to address the issue but Democrats did not return.

We read that the ranks of the wealthy have risen in America. Over 800,000 have wealth of $2 million or more and 604,000 have over $3 million. These people pay 97% of all income taxes, and their wealth is invested in American businesses and industry.

I would like to have their excess dollars handed to me, but the Democrats' plan is to take the money through higher taxes. The Democrats can then distribute money to their home districts or set up expensive and wasteful government programs and bureaus to administer the entitlements. Their stimulus plan to fix the economy includes taxing oil companies to fund $1,000 rebates to lower income families, even those who pay no income taxes.

Elect Republicans to help America create jobs, not raise taxes. Elect Marilyn Musgrave to the House and Bob Schaffer to the Senate.

A letter from an Alaskan RE: Sarah Palin

Submitted by Dana. Unedited to keep the Alaskan "accent".

A letter from an Alaskan re: Sarah Palin---McCain’s pick for VP.
It’s a little long but informative.

Sarah Palin is the USs answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who
thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and
efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments
well, they havent met our Sarah .

As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK,
where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor I can speak with
confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she
portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly
what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if
there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo
and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isnt an
issue here as far as Im concerned) as anyone could ask for at
the head of government.

Sarah is no nave small town mayor she just **started out**
there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this small town
through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her
term having grown to the 4^th largest CITY in Alaska a lot of
growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.

She has EXECTUTIVE experience **running a government**
(something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast,
even John McCain ) as Governor of Alaska and got there by
defeating the **incumbent** Republican Governor, who was
definitely part of the old school and who WAS very much in the
pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change
and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her
approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95%
and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80
percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the
HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.

Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of
Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting
spending in spite of the increased income the state is
currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has
insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into
savings for the future rather than spending, spending,
spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers
to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more
closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies
thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to
their chagrin.

She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we
_all_ face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she
was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless
"laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently)
temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the
pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has
ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in
an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for
the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough
for now . She isnt doing these things to be popular she
is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially
and she can help.

She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent
Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the
support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself -
and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time
totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way.
She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and
is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps
more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her -
she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.

Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going
to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the
job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR
State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger
purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill
her shoes here and continue the job.

As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die
or step down or whatever ... Theta, up here in AK we've only
been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in
Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the
USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she
would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no
doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a
second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in
Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.

Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know
he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady
as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President
... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential
candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW
her will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win
by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only
wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of
A . She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong
wind.

Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ...
Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to
vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too
much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race
was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a
little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our
candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all
before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR
GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us
or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the
opportunity.

Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and
spam those who arent!).

-Deb Frost in Alaska

WE CAN'T ALL GET ALONG

We can't all get along
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News
mikerosen@850koa.com

Originally published 12:05 a.m., August 15, 2008
Updated 01:43 a.m., August 15, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/15/rosen-we-the-people/

'We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."

When those words, the Preamble to the Constitution, were crafted, the context was to introduce a document prescribing the foundation, organization and general rules of a new system of government based on a bottom-up model of governance.

Power would derive from the people, not from the "divine right" of a king or from the condescending benevolence or superior wisdom of some ruling elite. Fortifying that document was the Bill of Rights, reinforcing the clear understanding that fundamental rights belonged naturally to individuals and were beyond the whims of government.

Respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives

The phrase "We the people," it should be understood, does not imply that the United States is a commune, a homogeneous collective of like-minded people who all agree on issues of public policy. When Democrats talk of their party as "the party of the people," they tend to apply that in just such a collective - or socialist - sense. As a Republican, I prefer to regard my party as "the party of the person" - the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives.

That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or selfish or have no sense of community. I like to think I'm a good neighbor and a good citizen. But I also believe that voluntary, cooperative associations are more desirable and productive than mandatory ones. There have been times when Americans have forged a consensus on vital matters. But even during the American Revolution and World War II there were dissenters, to say nothing of the Civil War. Our motto, E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one" - is an ideal, not an absolute. I have no illusion that people in this or any other nation are of one mind.

"We the people" – a meaningless cliche.

That wonderful, inspirational expression "We the people" has become, all too often, a meaningless cliche. It's repeatedly used by writers of letters to the editor or populist talk-show hosts - both liberal and conservative - who sanctimoniously utter platitudes like: "We must demand that those in our government follow the will of the people, since they work for us."

But which people? The people who listen to left-wing Air America or agree with liberal editorials in The New York Times are not the same people who support the conservative opinions of Rush Limbaugh or agree with free market editorials in The Wall Street Journal.

And politicians don't represent some abstract, unanimous "us."

In the real world of politics, they tend to favor the agendas of the majority of voters and interest groups that put them in office. It's understandable that the minority of voters who supported a losing candidate feel poorly represented, but that's the way elections work. Boulder's "ins" are the "outs" in Colorado Springs.

It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, seniors and juniors, protectionists and free traders, pro-life and pro-choice, unions and businesses, big government and small, public and private, gays and straights, men and women, blacks and whites, urban and rural, nannyists and rugged individualists, rednecks and hippies, etc.

On most issues, grand and petty, and on the very definition of the "common good," there is no monolithic "we." There's you and me and them. Always has been, always will be.

James Madison spoke of an offsetting multiplicity of factions as preferable to the inordinate influence of a few dominant interests. Minor political parties can be single-minded, purist and uncompromising. That's why they're minor parties with small followings.

Major parties are the clearinghouses of multiple factions, harboring their own internal disagreements while coming together to form a generally like-minded coalition. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties." And, I'd add, no freedom without parties that disagree.

And that, Rodney King, is why we can't all get along.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com

Walking Eagle

Senator BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York.

HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should HE one day become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his 'red sisters and brothers'.

At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.

Reality Check from Scotland

Reality Check from Scotland

U S Election-2008

An email from Scotland to all of their brethren in the States... a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
'We, in Scotland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you have a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.
Now... On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology, married to a good looking, blond younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What in Lords name are you lads thinking over there in the colonies?

The "election" is a gimme, right?'
..

I Changed My Mind!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 8% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?

Becoming Illegal!
FORMS ARE GOING FAST- SIGN UP TODAY!

Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald RuppertBurlington, IA

Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040.

Please pass this on to your friends so they can save on this great offer!

Udall too far to the left for Colorado

Publish Date: 3/21/2008
GOP chairman: Udall too far to the left for Colorado
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
LONGMONT —
Mark Udall is a “Boulder liberal” whose congressional voting record doesn’t represent most Coloradans’ viewpoints, according to Colorado Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams.
Eldorado Springs Democrat Udall, who’s running for U.S. Senate rather than seeking re-election to his 2nd Congressional District seat, “has been a great congressman for Boulder,” Wadhams told 20 people attending a Longmont Republican Women’s luncheon Thursday at the Terroir restaurant.
“Need I say more?” he asked.
Wadhams said he has Boulder friends, but “Boulder’s out of the mainstream of Colorado.”
Wadhams — who also is the campaign manager for former 4th District Congressman Bob Schaffer, the GOP candidate in this year’s U.S. Senate contest — said: “We can beat Boulder liberal Mark Udall.”
Wadhams said Fort Collins Republican Schaffer is “probably one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers we’ve ever put up” for public office.
Wadhams said a Schaffer victory can be won by getting Colorado voters to compare Udall’s 10 years of congressional votes and bill sponsorships with the record Schaffer compiled during his six years in Congress.
Wadhams said an example of how Udall’s liberalism is “to the left of Colorado” was Udall’s onetime co-sponsorship of a bill that would create a U.S. Department of Peace and would fund that department by diverting billions of dollars in annual federal budget appropriations from the Defense Department.
Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said in a Thursday interview that Udall initially supported that bill “because there was a severe lack on the part of the Bush administration of using the tools of diplomacy ... as part of our overall foreign policy.”
West said Udall later withdrew his co-sponsorship of the measure because he ultimately couldn’t support creation of a new cabinet-level Peace Department and its projected expense.
However, Wadhams charged that Udall dropped his support for the bill only when he began considering a Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate seat up for election in 2004.
Democrat Ken Salazar won that seat and Democrat Bill Ritter won the governor’s office in 2006 by running as moderates, Wadhams suggested.
But Wadhams said that, unlike Udall and Schaffer, neither Salazar nor Ritter had state- or federal-level legislative voting records that Coloradans could scrutinize during those campaigns.
Wadhams suggested that he and Schaffer will repeat many of the successful political tactics used by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, the Larimer County Republican whose 1996 election and 2002 re-election campaigns Wadhams managed.
Wadhams said Allard “was not afraid to draw clear and distinct contrasts” between his positions and those of Democratic candidate Tom Strickland in both contests.
Later on Thursday, though, Udall spokeswoman West said: “Bob Schaffer is not Wayne Allard. Bob Schaffer spent six years in Congress and got next to nothing done for Colorado.”
Wadhams said this year’s race offers clear contrasts between Udall and Schaffer, who was the Longmont Republican Women’s guest speaker last month.
Wadhams said Allard made it a point of campaigning in every Colorado county, running on what Wadhams said were such mainstream Republican principles as balancing the federal budget and returning power to state and local governments.
For more than a year, Wadhams and other Republicans have brandished the “Boulder liberal” label when talking about Udall, but the Democrat’s campaign staff has dismissed the tag as narrow and misleading.
But West said Wadhams and Schaffer “know that Bob Schaffer’s record is far out of the mainstream for Colorado. The only way they can deal with that is by calling names and making up labels.”
Udall’s record and reputation, West said, are that of “a guy who reaches across the aisle to get things done for Colorado.”
West said Udall was unavailable for comment Thursday because he was on the road and taking advantage of Congress’ Easter recess to spend time vacationing with his family “before the campaign really kicks in gear.”
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.