Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Victory. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Victory. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013

OPINION: The Truth About Sanford's South Carolina Victory

Mark Sanford won the special election in South Carolina’s first congressional district Tuesday night. Democrats really thought they could win this seat, going so far as to outspend Sanford.  

But it was not in the cards.  

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, their preferred candidate, was a terrible candidate in a heavily Republican district.

In 2009 and early 2010, the Democrats won a series of special elections and trumpeted that voters were embracing Barack Obama. They went on to get spanked by the voters in the 2010 general election. Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

What is there is the simple fact that, despite what the national media would have voters believe, there are still many parts of the country that do not like liberals.  

Just as a Republican could never win Nancy Pelosi’s district, Nancy Pelosi helped Mark Sanford rally conservatives to his side in a very Republican district.

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch showed her shallowness on a number of issues, including not recognizing what “Toomey-Manchin” is in a very second amendment state.  (If Ms. Colbert-Busch is reading this, that would be the gun control measure that failed in the United States Senate)  

Consequently, she opted out of most debate opportunities.  Instead of debating her, Mark Sanford toured the district with a life sized cut out of Nancy Pelosi.  It worked.

Sanford, for all his personal faults, is a master of retail politics.  He opted for large, wooden, spray painted campaign signs put in the front windows of local shops and the side of roads.  

He toured the district aggressively while the Democrat held meet and greets with rich donors.  

He ate a lot of barbecue.  

He shook a lot of hands.  

He spent time one on one with voters at their doorsteps.  

He let those who had issues with him address them on their front porch to his face.

On election day, Mark Sanford voted and make almost a dozen campaign stops.  Elizabeth Colbert-Busch voted and disappeared.  

The pace was consistent throughout the special election. Even with news about Mark Sanford getting in trouble with his ex-wife, Colbert-Busch did not hustle on the ground, just expecting voters to embrace her.  

In the end, Republicans found a mug shot of her arrest during a messy divorce. The Democrats were caught off guard and did not respond.

The irony now is that Democrats are left to say Mark Sanford’s victory is a loss for women.  These very same Democrats are putting up a man, Chuck Sheheen, to run against South Carolina’s female Governor, Nikki Haley.  

Democrats can claim the GOP is hypocritical voting for a guy like Mark Sanford while claiming to be for family values.  

Between Bill Clinton and Kermit Gosnell, no one would ever accuse the Democrats of being for family values.  They will also accuse the GOP of selling out its fiscal values by supporting a guy like Sanford who, while being paid by taxpayers, went to Argentina to see his mistress.

But the lesson of South Carolina’s special election Tuesday night is actually simpler than all that — some areas of the country just hate liberals. 

The Democrats may have yellow dog Democrats who’d rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican, but the Republicans have Sanford Republicans.  They’d rather Mark Sanford, warts and all, than an elitist liberal whose greatest claim to fame is her brother Stephen.

Now the real fun begins.  

Mark Sanford is no fan of Republican leaders in Congress. They yanked their money from his race, choosing to let him fend for himself. 

On election night, the National Republican Congressional Committee, in charge of helping Republican candidates, mentioned Mark Sanford once and Nancy Pelosi twice in its press release on the race.

They opposed Sanford, a strident fiscal conservative, in the primary and did not help him against the Democrats.  

This should be fun to watch.

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

Rosicky guides Gunners to victory

Tomas Rosicky

Double act ... Gervinho (R) set up Rosicky for the opening goal. Source: AAP

A rare double from Tomas Rosicky sent Arsenal into the top four for the first time since Boxing Day as they survived a late scare to beat West Bromwich Albion 2-1 at The Hawthorns.

Rosicky scored after 20 and 50 minutes to put Arsenal in control before James Morrison gave West Brom hope by converting a 71st minute penalty after Per Mertesacker had been sent off for bringing down Shane Long.

Arsenal created their first opportunity after eight minutes when a Claudio Yacob tackle rebounded to Rosicky. The Czech midfielder had time to take a touch, but instead shot first time and snatched at the ball, screwing it badly wide.

West Brom soon responded, however, and the pace of Jerome Thomas against Bacary Sagna forced a couple of corners. From the second, Yacob had a header cleared off the line by Rosicky and, when the ball was played back into the area, Long could only turn his attempt over, with Lukasz Fabianski struggling.

After 20 minutes, Arsenal took the lead when a long, raking pass from Mikel Arteta held up for Gervinho to chase down. The Ivorian turned Gareth McAuley inside and out before sending a shot on goal, which was going wide, but Rosicky intelligently directed the ball home with his head from six yards.

Fabianski did well to hold a low Chris Brunt free-kick as West Brom tried to react to going behind, but it was Ben Foster who was forced into the next saves as he comfortably kept out attempts from Gervinho and Aaron Ramsey.

PWDLGDPts
1Man United3025233977
2Man City3018842962
3Tottenham3117681557
4Arsenal3116872756
5Chelsea3016772755
6Everton30131251251
7Liverpool3113991948
8West Brom3213514-144
9Swansea32101111141
10Fulham3010911-339
11Southampton3291013-737
12West Ham3010614-936
13Norwich3271411-1935
14Stoke3271312-1134
15Newcastle319616-1533
16Aston Villa328915-2433
17Sunderland3171014-1031
18Wigan308616-2030
19QPR3141116-2323
20Reading325819-2723

Ten minutes before the break and the home side had an appeal for a penalty as Laurent Koscielny planted a foot into the midriff of Yacob, but Howard Webb turn down the appeals.

Just before half-time, Ramsey missed a glorious chance to double Arsenal's lead when, after intricate work from Santi Cazorla and Olivier Giroud, he was through on Foster put somehow poked the ball wide.

Arsenal started the second half by again dominating possession, and Foster saved smartly from the adventurous Sagna before Rosicky scored his second. Cazorla played a beautiful ball into Ramsey and he fed the Czech, who tucked away the rebound after his first shot was saved.

West Brom finally brought on Romelu Lukaku with half an hour remaining, and within five minutes he had forced Fabianski into a save from a free-kick, and the Polish keeper then saved very smartly from a stinging Brunt volley.

The hosts were back in the game with 20 minutes remaining when Mertesacker was sent off for a rash challenge on Long and Morrison drilled the resulting penalty through Fabianski.

Suddenly, it was backs to the wall for Wenger's side as West Brom pressed, with Lukaku the most dangerous threat.

McAuley headed just wide from a corner and then Lukaku somehow steered the ball wide from eight yards before Long blazed over from close range as Arsenal grimly held firm.

Speaking after the game, Wenger praised the spirit of his Arsenal side after seeing out the closing stages of the match with 10 men.

"It was a fabulous win and it needed a special performance," Wenger said. "The last 20 minutes was obviously very nervy because we had 10 men.

"They had a lot of strong bodies who were very determined to score. But we kept our nerve and we were committed."

West Brom boss Clarke felt his team created enough chances to have scored an equaliser and was left to rue the lack of a clinical touch.

Clarke said: "With 11 against 10 we had a right go. We created chances through good football and we created chances through just getting the ball into the box.

"Chances fell to people that you would normally expect to score. Perhaps today just wasn't our day."

Read more: http://www1.skysports.com/football/live/match/261880/report


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 10 tháng 3, 2013

'SIGNIFICANT VICTORY': Bin Laden's Son-in-Law Captured, Charged in US

A top Al Qaeda spokesman who is the son-in-law of Usama bin Laden has been captured overseas and is in the United States to face federal charges, sources tell Fox News. 

The confirmation comes after Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was captured in Jordan. 

Sources told Fox News he was apprehended "some time ago," without giving specifics. Sources said he could appear in New York federal court to face charges as early as Thursday. 

King said Ghaith was bin Laden's son-in-law and was part of the Sept. 11, 2001, plot against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 

On Thursday, King called Ghaith's capture a "very significant victory" in U.S. efforts against Al Qaeda.  "The propaganda statements in which Abu Ghaith and his late father-in-law, Usama bin Laden, praised the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are alone enough to merit the most serious punishment," King said 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the capture when asked during Thursday's press briefing. 

Fox News' Mike Levine and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 7 tháng 3, 2013

Sen. Paul Declares Victory After Holder Gives Assurance on Drones

It's one of the few remaining issues that can bring Democrats and Republicans together -- fear of unchecked government drones. 

Sen. Rand Paul's historic 13-hour filibuster has drawn renewed attention to a technological expansion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and new legislation that's meant to rein it in. 

While the Obama administration increasingly employs armed drones as a pivotal counterterrorism tool overseas, domestic law enforcement agencies are also moving to broaden the use of surveillance mini-drones over the next several years. The Federal Aviation Administration projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017. 

The lethal drones used in Pakistan are a far cry from the unarmed eyes in the sky used in America. But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and a host of other lawmakers see constitutional pitfalls across the board -- namely focusing on how armed, and unarmed, drones might someday be used against American citizens. 

Paul and the senators from both sides of the aisle who joined him on the floor Wednesday described a bleak future where an unscrupulous government might use drones against its own population if left unchecked. 

"Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?" Paul asked. 

Despite the filibuster, a vote on the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director -- whom Paul was technically holding up with his speech -- is expected to proceed as early as Thursday. 

But lawmakers have already started pushing legislation to rein in the drone program -- legislation that might get a second look after Paul's dramatic performance Wednesday, and into early Thursday morning. 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, last month introduced a bill to regulate domestic drones much like the government regulates wiretaps. 

It would require officials to obtain a warrant in order to perform many kinds of surveillance with those drones. Further, it would prohibit law enforcement drones from being equipped with firearms or explosives in U.S. airspace. 

"As we enter this uncharted world of drone technology, Congress must be proactive and establish boundaries for drone use that safeguard the constitutional rights of Americans," Poe said in a statement last month. 

The use of armed drones in U.S. airspace fueled Paul's lengthy filibuster Wednesday. Before he took the floor, Paul announced that he had received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder which opened the door, in extremely rare circumstances, to using a drone to kill someone within U.S. territory. Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary. 

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat. 

Paul, during his filibuster, said he wanted a formal assurance from the administration that it would not use drones to kill noncombatant Americans. 

Aside from the legislation in the House, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have floated the idea of establishing a sort of drone court to screen potential targets -- much like a court screens surveillance of foreign targets in the U.S.


View the original article here