 | ||
| Dave Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 6 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
| ||
| Dave Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 6 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
The Union Leader unloads on its own debate moderator in a page 1 editorial. Publisher Joe McQuaid writes: "If readers or New Hampshire viewers of last night's Republican event in Durham are upset this morning, it is no more so than this newspaper. We co-sponsored this Presidential primary program, as we did Wednesday night's Democratic one. Unfortunately, last night's moderator did exactly what many of his brethren in the national media often try to do - decide the contest before the New Hampshire voters have a chance to do so. NBC's Tim Russert apparently decided to make this his own two-man show with candidates George Bush and John McCain, virtually ignoring the four others for much of the questioning. No wonder the two are ahead in the polls!"
GOP Presidential Forum in Grand Rapids, Michigan Sponsored by Fine Arts Center of Calvin College 7-8:30p.m. ET - Live on C-SPAN Also carried on-line by C-SPAN at http://www.c-span.org/watch/
Saturday, January 15, 2000
Des Moines Register GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa. 2 pm ET - Live on C-SPAN Also carried on-line by C-SPAN at http://www.c-span.org/watch/ Iowa Public Television Studios For more info call 515-242-3100
After several days of voting on the results of the Jan 8 Republican debate At www.vote.com, the people have given 43% of the vote to Alan Keyes. Senator McCain on the other hand is showing a puny 9% . Why does the media continue to manipulate the coverage of the debates? Why do they refuse to cover Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes? Are they really afraid that if a conservative message is presented to the people, it might be accepted?
What would be so difficult for the press if it found itself under an administration that would not cave in to media pressure and manipulated polls? Are they afraid that they might find themselves under a conservatively controlled FCC? Would that mean that they would have to deal honestly and truthfully, something they have had very little experience at in recent history? Yes, that might be it. Fear of the unknown is a terrible thing.
If the 2000 Presidential election were held today, for whom would you most likely vote?
| Alan Keyes: | 53.49% |
| Pat Buchanan: | 18.98% |
| George W. Bush: | 11.79% |
| Steve Forbes: | 8.82% |
| Gary Bauer: | 1.71% |
| John McCain: | 1.64% |
| Other: | 1.01% |
| Donald Trump: | 0.96% |
| Al Gore: | 0.60% |
| Bill Bradley: | 0.57% |
| Orrin Hatch: | 0.42% |
Granted you would not expect Gore, Bradley or Trump to do much on a poll at the Conservative Union, but it clearly shows that a strong majority of respondents consider Alan Keyes to be the conservative front-runner.
The interesting fact in this poll is the 3rd place ranking of GW Bush. It is surprising that he ranks above conservative Steve Forbes. A Bush supporter considering himself to be conservative is on the order of people who have never read the Bible, haven't been in church in years, can't define the gospel and are offended by this comparison, that call themselves Christians. It just ain't so.
This poll shows a more accurate standing in our opinion.
Primary Scoop Straw Poll
| Keyes: | 35% |
| Forbes: | 24% |
| Hatch: | 21% |
| Bush: | 13% |
| McCain: | 5% |
| Bauer: | 1% |
Here's a thought to warm the heart of the true conservative. Keyes/Forbes 2000.
McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky said Mr. McCain "has a long record of standing guard over America's national security and has been very critical of pork-barrel that are unneeded or unwarranted when we have national security needs that remain unfounded or underfunded, including men and women who have to subsist on food stamps, a disgrace that John McCain is going to change."
But Mr. Hatch, noting that Mr. McCain last year brought to the floor an amendment for "$3.1 billion in across-the-board cuts in the military," said, "I'm suggesting there was a political advantage in the eyes of the liberal press that hates the military.
"And by bringing up an amendment that he knew he would lose on and that
[Senate Republicans] would have to beat him on, he wanted credit from the
liberal press that says he is willing to attack the military. He wanted to look
like he's willing to cut back on the military."
(From an article in the Washington Times 1/7)
"We don't mean to pick on Mr. McCain, but someone's got to point out the reason for his mutual media admiration society. The media wants to help him or Bill Bradley become President; then they will help the media become the overwhelming arbiter of what the political system spends its energies on. The only loser is democracy." --Wall Street Journal
The Union Leader opines on McCain's FCC letter (and teases the editorial on page 1: "Sen. McCain is both phony and proud). Bernadette Malone Connolly writes: "Why does Sen. John McCampaign - whose entire bid for the Presidency revolves around eliminating corruption and special interests in Washington by reforming the campaign finance system - live so dangerously close to the edge of bald-faced hypocrisy? ... McCain - tainted by his involvement in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s - should have learned long ago that he should avoid situations that even suggest the appearance of corruption. But his head is so swelled by all the media attention his campaign is receiving that he has forgotten lessons taught to him by events of the past, and continues to tempt fate." ( Primary Scoop 1/7)
Ms. Elizabeth Dole endorsed Mr. Bush this week, saying, "Governor Bush
has proven that he is a leader who can work with both parties,
overcome gridlock, build coalitions, and bring competing interests
together...." Obviously Ms. Dole has contracted the same acute case of
Potomac Fever her husband suffered in 1996. Overcoming gridlock and
building coalitions is sick-think code talk for continuing the merger
of the all-but-indistinguishable Republicrats.
(Washington Times 1/7)
During the last week TCN was contacted by a campaign worker about endorsing a particular candidate running for the US Senate. TCN has not endorsed a candidate for the presidency which has been our focus to this point, so it caught us a little off guard and required us to think about some matters that probably should have been decided long ago.
After prayerful consideration we have arrived at the conclusion that TCN should not endorse a candidate, but should remain issues focused. Issues are constant, while candidates come and go, flip and flop. We will take our stand on the issues. If a candidate wants our approval, they need to show us that they stand solidly on the conservative side of the issues.
In the long time liberal Democratic stronghold of North Dakota, a Republican challenger has announced his bid for the US Senate. Take a look at Duane Sand at www.sandforsenate.com He is saying the kind of things we like to hear on globalism, government by the judiciary and other key issues. Mr. Sand is strong on saving the family farm and reforming the broken agricultural system. TCN would very much like to see this Senate seat that has been a dependable liberal vote, converted to conservative Republican
"I have never accepted the national debate on Pro Life and Pro Choice....
Simply put, in the English language, the opposite of life is not choice,
and never will be.
"I support restrictions such as parental notification.
"There should be no use of taxpayer funds for abortion.
"I vehemently oppose partial birth abortion."
"I don't approve of judges determining law by there rulings. Judges have overstepped their authority in this regard. I want to change this. A Republican President with a Republican Senate can change this."
Note to Mr. Sand: Only if they are dedicated conservatives with the backbone to make the change regardless of the polls. There have been many Republican presidents since the judiciary became abusive of their power. We have had a Republican majority in the Senate for some time, but the abuse and the appointment of abusers goes on.
We have heard the rhetoric, it's time for change.
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to theconservative@usa.net .
Thank you.