 Click through to save this country!
Lord Nazh claims he quit blogging at least for now...read here
| Monday, December 3, 2007 |
| Ding Dong the Witch is Dead? |
CARACAS, Venezuela - Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state. "I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent. Opposition activists were ecstatic as the results were announced shortly after midnight — with 88 percent of the vote counted, the trend was declared irreversible by elections council chief Tibisay Lucena. Some shed tears. Others began chanting: "And now he's going away!" Without the overhaul, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012. Foes of the reform effort — including Roman Catholic leaders, media freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders — said it would have granted Chavez unchecked power and imperiled basic rights. [link] I'm not sure how Chavez let this happen, but it is good news for the people of Venezuela. Of course, I expect him to again try to consolidate his power before 2012 when he is supposed to step down (see Putin). Until Chavez is officially gone and someone else steps in, I'll be cautious on this one.
tag: Venezuela, socialism, vote, Blogpower, Lord NazhLabels: Venezuela, vote |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 08:04 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, July 18, 2007 |
| House tried, now the Senate tries (and fails) |
After the House recently tried (and failed) to surrender in Iraq, the Senate stayed up all night (yawn) to try their hand at giving up. Too bad the only thing the Democrats could lose is the vote to surrender (to bad for them that is).
Senate scuttles troop withdrawal billBy ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war.
Notice from the language just who the reporter was betting on? (hint, it's not the guys with R behind their name)
The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot tame the sectarian violence in Iraq. "We have to get us out of a middle of a civil war" said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. A political solution must be found "so when we leave Iraq, we don't just send our children home, we don't have to send our grandchildren back." The best way to avoid sending his (or your) grandchildren to Iraq is to win the war; and avoid a draft. As it is at the moment NO ONE sends their children to war (a point lost on the liberal left).
Republicans were mostly unified in their opposition to sidetrack the legislation, with four exceptions. Three Republicans — Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel{heh-LN} of Nebraska — announced previously they support setting a deadline on the war.{surrender-LN} Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election next year, also voted to advance the bill. Spokesman Kevin Kelley said Collins believes the measure should be subject to a simple majority vote and not the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. She opposes the legislation, however, Kelley said.{don't believe the lie, if she voted to send it to a vote, she wants it to pass, but wants a safe vote for re-election} (link)
We need some Republicans in these seats... not these RINO's. Love how Kelley tried the yes-cloture to no-pass vote trick, after all the writing that has been done on that procedure, you'd think someone up for re-election would learn. Of course, it is Maine and the N.E. is mostly blue.
Labels: senate, vote, war |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 15:43 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Sunday, June 10, 2007 |
| Vote for President |
Tags: Vote, poll, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, John Edwards, Ron Paul, BlogPower, LordNazhLabels: U.S. President, vote |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 09:32 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, January 2, 2007 |
| Voters in Massachusetts to vote? |
News from Mass. allowing (maybe) the people to decide what laws to enact in their name: Mass. lawmakers vote to allow proposed amendment banning gay marriage to proceed By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Last update: January 02, 2007 – 4:12 PM BOSTON — Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice. Within two hours, they voted to reconsider, but then voted again to uphold their initial decision. Sixty-one lawmakers voted in favor of advancing the measure, which would appear on the ballot in 2008 and declare marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The proposal still needs approval of the next legislative session. After the initial vote, gay marriage proponents called for an hour recess. They returned and voted 117-75 to reconsider the vote after a scolding from one of the Legislature's most outspoken gay marriage opponents. Lawmakers later considered the issue a third time, voting 62-134 to advance the amendment to the legislative session. If it makes it on the ballot and residents approve it, the amendment would leave Massachusetts' existing same-sex marriages intact but ban any new ones. (link)
The first step into undoing the judicial 'fiat' that created the same-sex marriages in the first place. I am against same-sex marriages, but I am for government of the people. If the citizens in Mass. vote against the amendment (if they get to vote) then I will support their decision (while still being against them myself). If they vote for the amendment, I'd like to think that others would support that decision also (while not changing their own views) but I highly doubt that. Only a vote to keep the marriages alive and continuing will be seen my the media as a good thing (I'd bet). Jay over at Stop the ACLU has a better post on this (although I was ahead of him on it^^) __________ Reason for democracy Filed: Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, right to decide, Judicial Fiat, LordNazh
Labels: congress, marriage, vote |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 17:29 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
|
|
|