June 30, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far. Obama sought to reassure voters about his commitment to the country, choosing the aptly named town of Independence as his backdrop.
Oh, really?
Then what was this comment?
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a [flag] pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the attack on the patriotism of a whole lot of people -- after all, you are indicating that you are a true patriot, and that those who wear a flag pin are phony patriots.
I guess this means you've made another flip-flop, Senator. Do you think you could make up your mind?
Posted by: Greg at
09:47 AM
| Comments (353)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
Gov. Bobby Jindal announced today that he has vetoed the legislative pay raise.After days of saying he would not reject the unpopular measure, Jindal said this morning that he had changed his mind.
"I thank the people for their voice and their attention," Jindal said of the public outcry against the raise. "I am going to need your help to move this state forward. ... The voters have demanded change. . . . I made a mistake by staying out if it" originally.
Jindal said that legislators "are going to be angry I broke my word to them" by promising to stay out of the pay raise issue. "Let them direct their anger to me and not the people of this state," Jindal said.
It isn't always the right thing to follow the majority voice of the people -- but this time it certainly is. The more I found out about this bill, the more I personally recognized it was not just a bad idea to break that campaign promise, but that the increase was bad public policy. After all, this is a part-time legislature with benefits and a per diem that made their total compensation package quite generous to begin with -- a $21,000 increase in their base pay (something like 123%) was clearly inappropriate.
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
05:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days.Surprising many Republican insiders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain. But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.
“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.
Campaign insiders say McCain plans to name his running mate very shortly after Barack Obama does, as part of what one campaign planner called a “bounce-mitigation strategy.”
A major factor in this is the ability of Romney to raise money. He's got a base that hasn't been tapped yet by McCain, and it is very possible that Romeny is the only guy who can get at it.
Unfortunately, there is still bad blood between McCain and Romney dating back to the primary season. That could yet derail this pick.
In the end, I agree with Hugh Hewitt, who was also a Romney supporter during the primary.
No matter who the selection turns out to be, I'd prefer a nominee announcement sooner rather than as part of a "mitigation bounce" strategy as outlined by Mike. Every day as the veep allows the nominee to make four or five appearances on the trail, generating enthusiasm and contributions, especially if the nominee is throwing hard punches at Obama. 30 or 60 days of extra effort is too much of an advantage to keep on the shelf pending an Obama selection.
We need a pick sooner rather than later -- and not simply a reactive choice following Obama's selection.
Posted by: Greg at
04:26 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.
The system also requires extensive and unnecessary background checks before voting rights can be restored for some applicants, making it hard to reduce the backlog. Florida could clear up that backlog in a hurry, treat all ex-offenders fairly and enhance democracy by automatically restoring voting rights to inmates who have completed their sentences.
That last line is the real kicker -- that is precisely what the law requires -- that the full sentence, including restitution to the victims, be completed before voting rights are restored. But therein lies the problem -- the editors of the New York Times don't recognize the restorative justice portion of the sentence to be a part of the sentence.
But I'll tell you what. I'm willing to go along with the New York Times on this one -- provided they are also willing to support the restoration of Second Amendment rights at the same time. After all, it seems highly improper to deny these folks the right and the means to defend themselves with a gun if we entrust them with the ballot -- which I fully believe to be much more powerful force than any pistol.
Posted by: Greg at
04:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.
While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.
What do the numbers show?
On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.
Now am I accusing Senator Obama of invidious sex discrimination against women in his office? No, I'm not. But I cannot help but notice that when it comes right down to it, Senator John McCain offers more opportunities for women, promotes them to higher level positions, and pays them better. Seems to me that he puts into practice hat liberal Democrats often preach but fail to implement.
Over at Hot Air it is pointed out that Obama has 18 more staffers than McCain, with nearly $1 million dollars in extra payroll expenses -- despite the fact that he chairs no committees and has no significant legislative accomplishments during his half a term in the Senate, while a senior senator like McCain gets by on a smaller staff and a smaller budget. I wonder why?
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.
This bit from Wesley Clark's Face the Nation interview today is absolutely astounding -- and indicative of the fact that Clark has ceased to be a patriot, and instead become a partisan whore.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'
So never mind three decades of military service, nor a quarter century of experience in Congress. because John McCain has never ordered anyone into combat, he is really unqualified to be president.
Oh, and Clark's candidate, Hopey McChangerson, who not only has two decades less congressional experience than John McCain, no military experience, and no executive experience at all?
Gen. CLARK: But Barack is not--he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
Oh, I see, he lacks the credentials to be president, but he has "other strengths". He's a pretty boy who gives a good speech and shows such good judgment that he hangs out with domestic terrorists, anti-American polemicists, and corrupt businessmen. That might qualify him for office in the Illinois legislature -- maybe even to be mayor of Chicago -- but certainly not President of the United States!
Oh, and exactly how respectful is Wesley Clark of John McCain's military service? I think this line sums it up nicely, when taken in conjunction with Clark's denigration of McCain's time as a squadron commander.
Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Yep -- highly respectful words there, Wesley. That shows quite well how much you honor that time as a POW.
Seems to me that what you really deserve is something like this.
I personally like the response by the McCain campaign.
Brian Rogers, of the McCain campaign, was quick to hit back in a release: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right. But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is, he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."
Interesting, isn't it, that Barack Obama is neither man enough to make such an attack himself, nor decent enough to denounce this sort of attack himself. I guess this lets him have both sides of the issue -- sort of like on guns, religion, campaign finance, FISA, and most every other issue.
Blogs for Victory sums this one up quite well.
![clark[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/clark[1].jpg)
CLOSING QUESTION: Will Barack Obama add Wesley Clark to the list of those thrown under the bus, or will this attack move him to the head of the VP list?
UPDATE: Over at Q and O, McQ asks the following question about the relative qualifications of the two remaining presidential candidates.
But here's a question: if the willingness to fight for your country, put your life on the line and suffer the brutality McCain suffered as a POW doesn't make the cut as far as qualifications go, how far below that does a "community organizer" show up on the list of non-qualifications?
UPDATE 2: Looks like that weasel John Aravosis has decided to renew his campaign of attacking John McCain's military service with a post entitled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"
I wonder if he would consider it fair game to ask the question "Honestly, besides picking up a live hand grenade while waiting for a beer, what did Max Cleland do to excel in the military?" After all, he was one of the folks who argued that it was illegitimate to even question Cleland's record on defense issues in 2002 -- how dare he actually denigrate McCain's service.
And I wish to associate myself with this post written by Robbie at Urban Grounds about Aravosis and his disgusting post.
The Next Right/Blog, P.I. documents the depths of the depravity of Aravosis' commenters, too.
UPDATE 3: Newsbusters points out that this isn't the first time Clark has made this sort of comment while acting as an Obama surrogate.
Greetings to visitors from Right Wing News.
UPDATE 4: Blackfive reminds us that Wesley Clark's judgment was so bad that he was fired from his job as Supreme Commander of NATO because he personally almost provoked a war with Russia -- something that every other American commander managed to avoid for 40 years. Speaks to the judgment issue for me -- both Clark's and Obama's.
But at least Wesley Clark got to exchange hats with war criminal Ratko Mladic!
UPDATE 5: LGF points out that the KOSsacks are at it now. I guess we see what Obama's new style of politics is -- and reminds me of why I love Kathryn Jean Lopez so very much.
And GayPatriotWest points out that even Andrew Sullivan is condemning Clark -- though he doesn't see the very real difference between this and the questions raised by some of John Kerry's fellow Swift boat vets in 2004.
UPDATE 6: Confederate Yankee actually finds an honest Obama supporter (and campaign cash bundler) who comes right out and says what Barack and his surrogates really mean when they talk about McCain's military service -- Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin.
"I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero."
Or at least not anyone who fought on the American side -- and we know her position on today's soldiers as well, given her providing material assistance to the enemy during time of war.
He also links to this piece by NRO's Jim Geraghty, noting that Wesley Clark is the SEVENTH prominent Democrat supporting Barack Obama to engage in this sort of attack on John McCain.
Newsbusters notices the media's refusal to give the attacks on McCain's service the coverage they deserve.
UPDATE 7: Obama rejects Clark's comment -- in a very tepid manner.
MORE AT Neptunus Lex, STACLU, Gateway Pundit, Ace of Spades, Sister Toldjah, In From the Cold, Joshuapundit, America's Election HQ, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, , The Amboy Times, Beagle Scout - Support the No More Excuses Energy Act, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, Stageleft, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Nuke's News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
03:27 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1410 words, total size 15 kb.
June 29, 2008
A Win by McCain Could Push a Split Court to Right
But then again, the article isn't any more balanced.
A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.
Notice -- a victory for McCain pushes the Court to the right -- but a victory for Obama "would probably mean preserving the. . . balanced status quo."
Yeah. Right. Sure.
While I'll concede the two most likely retirements are liberals Stevens and Ginsburg, does anyone really believe that Obama would appoint a successor in the mold of Scalia or Thomas if one of those two were to unexpectedly die? No, we'd get another doctrinaire liberal on the court, pushing it firmly to the Left -- even as the majority of the American people find the Court to be in balance too liberal.
Posted by: Greg at
02:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
June 28, 2008
When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.
The only problem is that the actual story, as revealed in the second paragraph of the story, is a little different. It seems that there is a reason that the tax bills have not been paid by the bank that manages the trust on Cindy McCain's behalf.
San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain's trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."
Gee -- that does rather make a great deal of difference, doesn't it? The US Postal Service has been returning the bills to San Diego County, which has not made any particular effort to get in contact with the bank or Mrs. McCain about the matter. And unlike a little blurb at HuffPo implies (even cutting that detail out of their Newsweek excerpt along with the bit about the bills being returned by the post office), this isn't some sybaritic retreat for the super-wealthy -- it is the residence of an elderly family member of Mrs. McCain's. Yeah, that's right -- Cindy McCain is making sure that her aunt has a roof over her head and is well cared for.
What happened when the matter was brought to Cindy McCain's attention? The bills she was given were paid -- though there still seems to be an outstanding balance that will no doubt be taken care of on Monday, probably relating to this year's bill and some penalties on the back taxes, I would suspect.
So while this is a nice attempt to create a scandal, it really isn't one. But I'm sure that the feral pigs at Kos and DU, as well as the rest of the fever swamp that is the Leftosphere, will try to gin up a controversy over it anyway.
More At Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, OTB, The Other McCain
Posted by: Greg at
04:20 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.
Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.
With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.
Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.
I'm sorry, people -- this is cult-like behavior. What next? Tattooing the name across your forehead? You sound like a bunch of followers of the Manson family or some fringe religious group that begs for money on the street corner and survives by dumpster diving.
However, Sweetness and Light reports that this might not be much of a phenomenon at all -- and that based upon a quick search of Google, the buzz is more about the New York Times writing about the phenomenon rather than any grassroots movement to do this.
Posted by: Greg at
03:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.
This is Thursday.
Dear Readers,I have just been informed that three anti-obama blogs have been locked up by Blogger.
I myself have had posting locked up since June 3. I am lucky though, I can post but I have to use word verification until blogger "reviews" my blog. It seems that blogger has to check to see if I am not a spam blog or "bot".
I suspect that the vicious Barack Obama campaign is behind all of this. They want to turn America into a Marxist state. These people are nothing short of evil bastards. It is my guess they have reported our blogs en masse as "bots" or "spam blogs". My God, may this evil bastard and his vicious campaign sycophants never ever be in charge of this country!
Followed by more nefarious action on Friday.
My own blogger "unblock request" was completed for the third time again this morning. It was completed the first time on June 3 and the "verification" that it was listed mysteriously disappeared on June 17. I filled it out again on June 17. The "verification" for that request was gone this morning. So I have submitted the "request" again. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that Blogger isn't going to do this "review" and, if I dont' check to see if the "verification" is there every single day, it can disappear arbitrarily. I think it's pretty safe to say that Blogger is never going to "review" my blog and that in a few weeks this "verification" will also "disappear" and I will have to resubmit the request again. Since I can honestly say that the word verification I have to go through to write a post is horrendous and the worst I have ever seen. Sometimes I have to try a half dozen times. I no longer have "autosave," so everytime I want to save my work, I have to verify and then "save as draft". Then I have to reopen the post and go through the same process to save or publish. Blogger just isn't worth it. I am lucky next to the people below though, who have been COMPLETELY blocked from posting. Frankly I am tired of being toyed with by Obama people and Blogger. Therefore I will stay with blogger till the "four days" is up for the other bloggers who have been completely blocked and then I am permamently moving.
Now one PUMA blog shut down would be nothing. Even two or three would not draw attention. But six in one night? Seems mighty suspicious -- especially since there seems to be some buzz among Obama bloggers that there has been an organized effort to get this done. And given that the liberal wing of the Democrats has always been pro-censorship -- consider their efforts to reimpose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in an effort to make sure that conservative talk radio is severely curtailed.
Why raise this issue now? Because I can imagine a similar effort against pro-McCain blogs come September and October. These people have no scruples against silencing members of their own party -- why would they respect the free speech rights of members of the GOP?
Just a little FYI on who has been hit.
A list of Anti-Obama blogs locked up as spam in the past 36 hoursLocked Out:
Old location: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/
New Location: http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
Old Location: http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/
New location: http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/ (no alternate blog listed as yet)
Locked Out:
Old Location: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/
This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or Bust.com
The Hillary or Bust site also lists the following additional blogs have been unfairly locked:
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/
New Site:http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/
Locked out:
Old Site: http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://comealongway.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://comealongway.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Greg at
02:29 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 6 kb.
"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.
Let me say for the record -- if he wants my support, Barack Obama can kiss my ass, too. And even then, he won't get it.
But I love the reaction of come of the anonymous sources in this article.
"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
Why the hell can't he talk like that about Obama? You friggin' Democrats have spoken far worse about the President of the United States for 7 1/2 years -- if you can do that, why can't Bill Clinton speak in such a manner about the unqualified flip-flopper your party is about to nominate, especially if he does not actually support the man's candidacy?
Other Perspectives At Cannonfire, Buck Naked Politics, Gateway Pundit, Political Byline, Baldilocks, The Other McCain, Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
05:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.
June 27, 2008
Barack Obama has won over more than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former supporters, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll that finds party loyalty trumping hard feelings less than three weeks after their bruising Democratic presidential contest ended.
Like that is a surprise? No one doubted that Barack Obama would eventually get over half the supporters of Hillary Clinton. After all, a lot of them are like my favorite Democrat -- they think that Obama is under-qualified and something of a phony, but they could no more vote for the Republican nominee than they could disown their own grandmothers. That has never been at issue.
The problem for Obama was always that some 20-25% of Clinton supporters indicated that they could not support him. That loss -- about 10-15% of the Democrat base -- would be critical in November. Being at 50%, then, really doesn't matter. He needs to be at 90-95%.
And he isn't. According to the survey, 23% of Clinton supporters favor John McCain, and 16% are undecided. Good God Almighty! He has lost (at least for now) 4 out of 10 Clinton supporters -- which if the election were held today would quite possibly mean that 15% of Democrats would be voting for John McCain.
And those Clinton supporters are not enthusiastic about him, nor do they find him qualified for the office. Indeed, only 25% of Clinton supporters view Obama as experienced enough to be president, which drops to 5% among that 40% of Clinton voters not supporting him.
What does this mean? Obama isn't the lock some people think he is -- and he might be forced to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate to secure the Democrat base.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Nuke's News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
04:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 4 kb.
McCain, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, edged out Obama on national security issues. When asked who “would best protect the U.S. against terrorism,” 53% of respondents chose McCain to just 33% for Obama. And nearly half, 48% to Obama’s 38%, trusted McCain to handle the war in Iraq, though 57% said they believed the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq and 56% said they would like to see the troops brought home within the next two years.
Only 1/3 of Americans believe Barack Obama is the best candidate to protect America against the threat of the jihadi horde, while over half believe the best choice is John McCain. Americans even think that McCain is the better choice to handle the war. And since national security is Job 1 for a president, that bodes well for John McCain.
Maybe that explains why most national polls show McCain within 5 points of Barack Obama -- and why the electoral college totals are stacking up so very close as well for McCain when one looks at the state-by-state numbers.
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
Rick Noriega -- Daily Kos Diarist
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Rick Noriega said Tuesday that America should not try "to drill our way out of this problem" of soaring gasoline prices but instead rely on Iraqi oil and alternative energy sources.
* * * In a speech before taking questions, Noriega asked, "Why should we tap into what finite resources we have left versus using the enormous reserves we're sitting on in Iraq?"
Needless to say, Noriega has taken shots from Senator John Cornyn and others for his asinine proposal to make America more dependent on foreign oil -- and in particular foreign oil from an area that Noriega believes is completely out of control.
To which Noriega's press spokesperson offered this priceless response.
"This is a five second soundbite, not a serious proposal."
Translation -- Rick Noriega doesn't have proposal for energy independence. And this is the guy who thinks he ought to be a US Senator? You've got to be kidding me!
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT
Posted by: Greg at
03:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 3 kb.
After all, they had evidence of much closer linkages between Rezko and Barack Obama -- and approval from the judge to use it.
And then they didn't.
Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.
The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial.
"Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.
Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.
Seems to me that the feds had evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of a major Obama supporter and Obama's campaign -- and yet it was not invoked at the trial. Could it be because of Democrat attempts to argue that any charges against Democrat politicians are evidence of the politicization of the Justice Department? Or were there threats of retribution against the lawyers involved in the case should the Democrats win this fall.
There ought to be an investigation of this stuff -- but since Obama is a Democrat and the Democrats control congress, there won't be. Expect massive file shredding to be ordered at the Justice Department and the office of the US Attorney in Chicago on January 20, 2009 if Barack Obama wins the presidency. After all, it wouldn't do to leave around evidence that could trigger another investigation like that against Bill Clinton, would it.
Posted by: Greg at
02:09 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
June 26, 2008
SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.
Of course, the chemical castration is not mandatory for the convicts. They may choose to be surgically castrated if they don't want to take the drugs.
I'm pretty sure that Justice Kennedy isn't going to like that at all, Neither will the pedophile-cuddling editors of the New York Times, who have never met a child molester (outside the Catholic clergy) who they didn't like.
And remember folks -- even though Barack Obama says he opposes the decision, he has promised to appoint more justices like the ones in the majority.
Posted by: Greg at
01:47 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.
But don't worry -- Barack Obama is prepared to force you to lower your standard of living by increasing taxes on gasoline, thereby raising the price you pay at the pump! After all, he is a typical Democrat -- like these in Virginia.
And remember the words of Michelle Obama -- Barack Obama never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.
Let's not give him that chance.
A vote for McCain is a vote for energy independence.
Posted by: Greg at
01:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval.On a vote of 80-15, mostly Republican supporters of the bipartisan measure, which would also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock.
As Ed Morrissey points out over at Hot Air, 48 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for cloture, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Why is the cloture vote therefore labeled as "mostly Republican", even though Democrats voted 2-1 for cloture and supplied some 40% of the votes for the motion?
But on a more important note, this means the bill will be voted on (and presumably passed) on Friday, and that it should be in the hands of President Bush for his signature by next week.
Posted by: Greg at
12:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
June 25, 2008
She said the pair of them had an email relationship.
He says not.
She said Obama had responded to one note about a debate, commenting to her that the questions were "silly."But speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"
The Obamateur just lost major cool points. And after all, since he is seeking to be the first second black president (remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first) despite his utter lack of qualifications for the job, he needs to show America that he at least has the good judgment to do the job.
Take a good look at the decision here, folks. Does it really show good judgment?
![scarlett_johansson_red[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/scarlett_johansson_red[1].jpg)
On the other hand, I think this shows much better judgment.
![cindy_mccain_4.15.08-thumb[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/cindy_mccain_4.15.08-thumb[1].jpg)
Any questions?
H/T Ace
Posted by: Greg at
06:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.
A local Hillary Clinton supporter has filed a challenge to Texas delegates elected to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National CommitteeÂ’s rules and bylaws panel last week alleging that the makeup of the Texas delegation is invalid.
The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates based partly on the results of the March 4 primary and partly on the results of precinct caucuses held statewide that evening.
That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule that delegate selection must "fairly reflect" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.
So tell me -- with Hillary winning at the polls here in Texas, how does awarding the her 94 delegates while the Obamessiah got 99 delegates begin to "fairly reflect" the preferences of the primary voters?
Simply put, it doesn't -- especially given some of the shenanigans pulled by Obama supporters at precinct caucuses and senatorial district conventions. Seems o me the best solution would be to refuse to seat those delegates chosen through the caucus process, and seat only those reflecting the vote on primary day.
And they already have a precedent -- the stripping of delegates from Florida and Michigan over procedural issues.
Posted by: Greg at
06:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
- Between Chuck Schumer and a microphone; and
- Between Chuck Schumer and a photo op.
I suppose that explains this picture from today's New York Post.
![news008[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/news008[1].jpg)
NOTE: Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski (center, crushed between the two senators from New York) was not injured in the course of this photo op.
I was also struck by this bit of information in the article about Hillary!'s return to the Senate.
Also yesterday, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a triumphant return to the Senate, where she was greeted by a large group of female interns and exchanged hugs with Democrats.
Hmmm...
"Greeted by a large group of female interns."
Isn't that where a lot of Bill Clinton's problems started?
Posted by: Greg at
05:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."
"Talking white?"
Could you imagine if some conservative argued that Obama was some sort of Oreo trying to make himself palatable to white voters by rejecting his blackness? How on earth does Nader get away with this stuff?
On the other hand, we've seen seen that the only difference between Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis is that the latter two were more qualified for the presidency when nominated than Obama is -- and yeah, that he is half African (not African-American -- in the interest of accuracy we have to remember that his father was Kenyan). But it is really just the same old liberalism, repackaged to sell Hopey McChangerson to the American public.
By the way -- I love how Ralph nader attempts to set himself up as the arbiter of authentic blackness.
"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
WTF, Ralph? I'm an anti-Obama conservative, and I find that crap to be offensive. And for what its worth, Ralph, as a Republican descendant of a Union Civil War veteran and having been born a century after the issuance of the Emancipation proclamation, I don't feel any sort of "white guilt".
On a related note, rumor has it that Nader will soon announce his selection of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd as his vice presidential running mate this year.
More At Hot Air, OTB, Protein Wisdom, Suitably Flip
Posted by: Greg at
04:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.
The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month.The increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with considerably more money available once expenses are added in. It has touched a nerve in this impoverished state.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't find that increased legislative salary of $37,500 to be all that outrageous (although a 123% pay raise is galling) -- though I am unsure whether or not the legislature is a year-round entity or only a part time, limited session institution like we have here in Texas. But when you add in the per diem and benefits, this looks really bad. And due to a promise during the campaign, Jindal finds himself in something of a bind on this one.
More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul LouisianaÂ’s reputation for dubious ethics.During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. Once elected, he quickly pushed through a package of measures increasing the LegislatureÂ’s transparency and stamping out conflicts of interest, basking in the subsequent glow of his image as a youthful Ivy League reformer doing battle in a shady subtropical outpost.
Governor, less than six months ago you were saying that you would veto pay raises. Why haven't you done so on this one? I could understand letting one slide through after you have cleaned up Louisiana government, but you still have a long way to go to accomplish that end.
And if you are afraid that a veto would doom the rest of your legislative agenda, then use the bully pulpit provided you by your office to make the case for that agenda with the people directly. After all, they responded to your ambitious reform agenda during the election -- they can pressure the legislators to do what is correct, not what is personally profitable. Indeed, a string of governors whose leadership failed (or who were as corrupt as the legislature) is precisely why your state is in the mess that it is.
And Governor, this isn't just an issue for the people of Louisiana. For many of us among the GOP base, you have been seen as a great hope for our party's future, and we have been backing you for five or six years, going back to your first run for governor. Your failure to stand strong here will not only damage your effectiveness as a leader and your ability to bring about reform in your state, but also your ability to be that leader for the future that our party needs.
Stand strong, Bobby Jindal -- wield that veto pen like a sword, and then be prepared to get down into the mud and wrestle with the corrupt alligators in the legislature. You can do it -- and you will have the support of the people who elected you AND Republicans nationwide.
And remember, the people might well support you in recalling some of the recalcitrant legislators, Bobby -- or they might recall you if you don't do the right thing here.
UPDATE: Some movement?
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
03:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.
June 24, 2008
The latest on the triple-default, single-foreclosure Democratic congresswoman from Long Beach: "Rep. Laura Richardson initially failed to disclose economic interests -- including a loan from a strip club owner -- when she served on the Long Beach City Council, public records show," the Long Beach Press-Telegram reports.From the Press-Telegram: the loan in question was for $20,000, in 2000, and came from a family trust controlled by Jerry Westlund, who owns the Fantasy Castle strip club in Signal Hill and 13 other strip clubs in seven states. Two years later, Richardson -- who had not yet disclosed the loan -- voted with the council to place Westlund's father on the city's board of examiners. She eventually disclosed the loan in 2004.
It gets more complicated: Westlund tells the newspaper that the 60-month loan, at 15.5% interest, was made to Richardson and her then-husband, Long Beach Police Chief Anthony Batts, but Batts strongly disputes that, and the newspaper reports that only Richardson's name is on public records of the loan.
Now here's the interesting twist -- the loan wasn't called in by Westlund until 2005. Why so long? Well, it seems that the Long Beach police started to raid his business establishment.
What does that say to you, folks?
Am I the only one who thinks that Richardson needs a full rectal exam by both state and federal law enforcement authorities seeking evidence of official corruption?
Too bad the California GOP doesn't even have a candidate running against her this fall.
Posted by: Greg at
06:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.
(H/T Hot Air)
Barack repeatedly said he would take public financing. His party is suing John McCain to try to force him to do the same for the primaries. But Barack Obama is now going to chuck that system out the window because it is to his advantage to do so.
Not, mind you, that I support public financing. I don't. But once Obama made the commitment, it seems he is morally obligated to stick with it -- unless the "Change" he is for is changing his own mind.
I do wish, though, that The McCain campaign had used one of the following for background music.
Posted by: Greg at
06:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 2 kb.
June 26, 2008
In a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and key members of Congress, Governor Palin stressed the need to enact an energy policy that includes oil and gas production from domestic sources, since failure to enact a sound energy policy is having real-life consequences. The Governor reminded members of Congress that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres. She also assured members that any development would be conducted in a responsible and environmentally safe manner.
Bravo, Governor -- especially for the statistic cited in your letter that the area of drilling would be less than 1/4 the size of Dulles Airport. Or to use a different yardstick, the area is 80% the size of Boston's Logan International Airport in an area nearly three times the size of Massachusetts! In other words, the footprint of the development is miniscule.
Does this help Palin's case to be the GOP VP nominee, or does it hurt it? I'm not sure. On the one hand, it does show her to be a ballsy politician willing to take a stand. On the other hand, John McCain doesn't support drilling in ANWR. In the end, though, I don't think she is a serious candidate right now.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin as a GOP candidate for president in 2012 or 2016? I could see it -- and think that any ticket composed of her and Bobby Jindal would be a winner.
UPDATE: Great interview with Gov. Palin by Larry Kudlow.
Kudlow: Why don’t we just liberate, and decontrol, and deregulate the whole bloody energy business – whether it’s oil, gas, shale, nuclear, coal, natural gas, as well as wind and solar – why don’t we just decontrol, deregulate, go for an America first energy policy? Get independent of Saudi Arabia? America first. Create all of these millions of high paying jobs. Why isn’t anybody talking about that in this race? That’s the natural, Reaganesque thing to do. Isn’t it?Palin: Yeah absolutely! You’re hitting the nail right on the head. That’s what so many of us normal Americans are asking. The same thing. Why aren’t the candidates talking like that? Where we can secure America and we can be more independent when we talk about energy sources if we could drill domestically.
Here we sent [Energy] Secretary Bodman overseas the other day, and our president had to visit the Saudis a few weeks ago, to ask them to ramp up development. ThatÂ’s nonsense. Not when you know that we have the supplies here. You have the supplies in your sister state called Alaska, where weÂ’re ready, willing and weÂ’re able to pump these supplies of energy, flow them into hungry markets across the U.S. We want it to happen. ItÂ’s Congress holding us back.
A real plan for American energy independence. Go Sarah!
Posted by: Greg at
05:33 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.
June 23, 2008
Barack Obama
- opposes school vouchers for poor families but sends his own children to a private school;
- supports “campaign finance reform” but opts out of public financing since he can raise more money privately under the old, presumably corrupt system;
- attests to the centrality of his religious experience in shaping his identity but regards others, who are less privileged and culturally and politically different, as “clinging” to religion;
- promises an end to bitter partisanship even though his own record (what there is of it) is one of the most partisan in the Senate and his opponentÂ’s is one of the most bi-partisan;
- promises to transcend race even though he a) married, sat passively for 20 years in the pews of, and raised his children in a church led by and permeated with a militant afro-centrism that often found expression in parnoid (they invented AIDS to kill us), anti-white (“greedy whites” etc.), hatred of America (AmeriKKKa, etc.), and b) continues to support government programs that benefit some and burden others because of their race.
- claims to face the future “with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations” while, several lines later in the same speech, claiming that his own nomination will be regarded in the future as “the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless … the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal….”
It seems though, that John is "struggling" for the proper word to apply to the Obamessiah, given all these contradictions.
I've got my suggestion -- anybody want to contribute one of their own?
Posted by: Greg at
07:21 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
Legislation that would make it illegal for holders of a New Jersey handgun-purchaser permit to buy more than one firearm during any calendar month is going before the state assembly on Monday, June 23."There's no good reason why anyone would need to purchase large quantities of handguns all at the same time," said Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley (D-32nd District), a sponsor of Assembly Bill 339, in a news release. "Criminal applications or unrecorded resale are the obvious implications of purchasing handguns in bulk."
Quigley added that passage of the measure -- a similar version of which was approved by the Assembly last year but failed in the state Senate -- "would help curtail gun access by criminal street gangs."
Well, other than that little Bill of Rights thing, they may have a point.
So let's apply their reasoning to the amendment just prior to the one thy seek to undermine.
Let's pass legislation limiting the number of issues any periodical can publish to one per calendar month. Let's similarly limit the number of articles any writer can have published to one a month. Prayer and attendance at religious service. Only once every 20 days. Ditto petitioning the government or engaging in peaceable assembly. After all, there's no good reason anyone would need to write, publish, pray, worship, petition, or assemble all at the same time. Limiting them to one expressive activity each month is therefore a reasonable way of achieving order in our society and preventing the irresponsible exercise of rights by those with nefarious purposes.
Unless, of course, one wishes to be exercise the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them free from interference by the government that is supposed to serve them rather than control them. But then again, limitng the ownership of firearms will certainly make it possible for the servant to become the master -- which is the ultimate goal of the sort of statists who seek to limit or eliminate gun ownership.
Posted by: Greg at
05:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.
But Bill Kristol's piece today makes an important point about the ad -- and the philosophy behind it.
Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And weÂ’re not entering any such world.We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he wonÂ’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.
But thatÂ’s not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.
The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.
And the sole responsibility of others.
So the ad is not merely a dishonest distortion of John McCain's support for a post-war agreement for a US presence in the Middle East (much like our current arrangements in German, Japan, and Korea). It is an attack on the soldiers who serve and the fitness of the parents who "allow" their adult children to do so.
Which is why I am pleased that Kristol quotes one of my favorite bloggers, Beth from Blue Star Chronicles, who writes movingly of her feelings regarding her son, his service to our country, and the ad that defames both her and her son. I'd like to share her words, in a somewhat longer excerpt that used in the column.
As a mother, I have learned that I have to let my children grow up and make their choices in life, just as I made mine. I respect the choices my children have made and I support them 100%. I am proud of my son. His deployment changed him, but mostly in good ways. He is definitely a man now. He has a self-confidence and personal strength he never had before. That doesnÂ’t mean I wanted him to go to Iraq. It just means that I understand that at some point a mother has to stand aside and allow her son to become a man.I would rather do it than send my son to do it, but thatÂ’s not how it works. People like moveon.org would rather we surrender and appease than stand up to danger. By doing that, they put our sons in more danger.
Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. SomeoneÂ’s son, somewhere. This commercial makes me angry. What she is saying is that she is not willing to do her part. SheÂ’ll put us all in more danger to hide herself and her child in a corner. I love my son as much as she loves hers. I held him in my lap when he was a baby. I watched him take his first steps and go to school for the first time. I sat with him when he was sick and listened to him when he was confused. I waited in terror the first time he took the car out for a drive by himself.
The hardest thing I have ever done is spend 15 months knowing that he was in imminent danger half-way around the world and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.
This woman should get used to it. ThatÂ’s what its like to raise kids.
I honor the men and women who serve our country in uniform. And I honor the families, too, because I remember all too well what it was like to wait at home while my father served in Vietnam a lifetime ago -- including my mother coming back to the car in front of the post office to find my younger brother and I hysterically crying after hearing casualty reports on the radio at the height of the Tet Offensive. And i condemn the MoveOn.org ad because it insults both groups.
And I'm curious -- given Barack Obama's recent comments about the sorts of ads run by 527s and other surrogate groups, when will we hear him condemn the Baby Alex ad? When will he act to force MoveOn.org to drop the ad, and to rein-in the groups speaking on his behalf? And most importantly, when will he apologize to John McCain, our military personnel, and their families for this despicable ad? I think we all know the answer to that one.
H/T Wake Up America
Posted by: Greg at
04:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 909 words, total size 6 kb.
Conservative journalist David Freddoso’s “The Case Against Barack Obama” will offer “a comprehensive, factual look at Obama,” according to Regnery Publishing President and Publisher Marjory Ross.But the book’s subtitle makes clear its perspective: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”
Ross contends that the mainstream media has offered insufficient scrutiny of Obama and likens the goal of Freddoso’s book to that of “Unfit for Command,” the scathing assessment of Kerry’s war record that rocketed to number one on the New York Times best-seller list.
By highlighting negative aspects of ObamaÂ’s record and background, Ross says, Freddoso may compel others to offer more critical coverage of the Democratic nominee.
“I think it’s critically important that the country gets a clear and honest view of who is running and what they stand for—warts and all,” Ross says. “With ‘Unfit for Command,’ like ‘The Case against Barack Obama,’ we believe the media has whitewashed the candidate.”
Yet for all the attempts to compare this book with "Unfit for Command", I'd have to argue we are looking at something different here. It doesn't appear to be a hit piece per se -- rather, it is an examination of Obama's career and statements on the issues. What on earth is there to object to -- unless you don't like the conclusions that Freddoso draws. But after the lengthy list of anti-Bush books that have been published over the years -- including one long-discredited book that the Left still cites as gospel when it comes to questions of drug use -- on what basis can they object to Freddoso's tome?
And besides, shouldn't we look at candidates critically? Shouldn't we really delve into who they are, their associations, and their platforms? Or are we supposed to accept the words of this particular candidate on faith, without questioning if he has told us the whole truth?
Posted by: Greg at
03:15 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
June 22, 2008
The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.
Given the fact that Chosun Sinbo does not make a move without the approval of the North Korean government, and that such approval would come from the highest levels, this can only be seen as an expression of support for Obama coming from the top leadership of the North Korean regime.
Of course, this is not the first supportive statement from one of the worlds leading tyrants that Obama has received. Moammar Qaddafi recently expressed his support for Obama (and warned that the evil Joooos are going to try to kill him). And Fidel Castro has also expressed his support for the Obamessiah. These respected world leaders have joined with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas and Columbian terrorist group FARC to express their fervent hopes for an Obama victory in November.
Seems to me that all Barack Obama needs now are the endorsements of Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden, and Iran's Mahmoud the Mad to have completed the Perfecta of endorsements by America's major enemies. Add to that the garden variety Marxists and Communists in this country and abroad, and you can see that the man has clearly formed a Revolutionary Democratic People's Coalition of support for his campaign.
Posted by: Greg at
08:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.
June 21, 2008
But here is more, from another one of the heroes, Col. Thomas Kirk, Jr. USAF (Ret.).
On Christmas night 1970, the North Vietnamese moved Kirk into a 45-man cell at the prison Americans POWs dubbed the Hanoi Hilton, where he met McCain. They spent the next four months becoming close friends, talking politics and sharing memories of their college days, and Kirk remembers how McCain's quick wit often lifted the spirits of his fellow POWs."He's extremely intelligent and tells the greatest stories in the world," Kirk said. "He could almost be a stand-up comic. He's very funny, the life of the party. He has a wonderful personality."
Even more important, Kirk said: "He's a man of absolute integrity and honor."
Despite devastating injuries, McCain rejected the possibility of early release offered by the North Vietnamese because of his father's status as an admiral.
"He said, 'I will not go unless we all go,'" Kirk said. "I will always admire him for that."
Although let's be honest -- Kirk's modesty doesn't allow him to see himself and his fellow POWs to be heroes.
"Every book about prisoners of war seems to make us into heroes," Kirk said. "I don't think we were heroes. We had the misfortune to be shot down, and the good fortune to survive."We were doing what we believed in," he said. "And we were blessed to come home."
Colonel, I admire that modesty, but let me tell you on behalf of a grateful nation that WE consider you, John McCain and the rest of your fellow POWs to be heroes.
And by the way, do you know where Tom Kirk will be on the night that John McCain is nominated to be the candidate of the Republican Party? He will be on the floor of the convention, one of Colorado's delegates to the Republican National Convention. My great hope is that the state's party leaders will allow him to cast the state's convention votes for his comrade in arms.
Posted by: Greg at
11:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.
Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words — “Get over it.” She found them dismissive, off-putting.“Don’t use that terminology,” Watson told Obama.
So much for reaching out to the supporters of his major opponent -- the ones who are making noises about jumping ship to John McCain. He's telling them to be good little girls and do what he says -- after all, he's the Obamessiah.
But for the sake of sensitivity to these women, perhaps he can try Bill Clinton's favorite line to outraged women.
H/T Urban Grounds
Posted by: Greg at
07:47 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.
Gay rights advocates asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.
"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.
"Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution."
The people of California know exactly what this amendment would do. It would reinforce the will of the people, who passed a proposition banning gay marriage in 2000. It would make clear to the courts and the legislature of California that the people meant what they said in 2000, and firmly establish that the attempts of the legislature to create gay marriage in defiance of that 2000 vote and the subsequent act of the California Supreme Court to find in the state's Constitution that which the people said was not there have been and are illegitimate usurpations of the power of the people to govern themselves.
Which is, of course, the very reason that these gay rights groups want to make sure that the people are effectively bound and gagged as the gay agenda is imposed upon them.
Posted by: Greg at
02:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations.
Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress.
The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as "the stronger leadership force in Washington." Today, it's a tie.
While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public's current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today's 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992.
In other words, the Democrats are sinking fast. The American public is finally waking up to the fact that we have an ineffective, do-nothing Congress. That is something that America cannot afford, especially since the solutions they have proposed are higher taxes, higher prices, and higher government spending -- when members are not proposing to nationalize huge sectors of the American economy.
By the way, does anyone notice something about the dates for the low ratings? June, 2008. August, 2007. March, 1992. In all three cases, the both houses of Congress have been controlled by Democrats. Americans seem to instinctively know that there is no reason to have confidence in the leadership of Democrats. Now if they will only go out and vote that way.
UPDATE: Hot Air shows that the the Dems are out of step with the American people when it comes to more drilling, refining, or even the use of more nuclear power. In each area, the American people favor action while the Democrats favor obstruction.
Posted by: Greg at
02:25 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.
The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, yesterday approved a sweeping new surveillance law that extends the government's eavesdropping capability and effectively would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.Ending a year-long battle with President Bush, the House passed, by a 293 to 129 vote, an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill provides a legal avenue for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecommunications firms to ward off about 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Before the vote, Bush said the plan, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, would help thwart new terrorist attacks. "It's vital that our intelligence community has the ability to learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they are planning," he said.
In other words, the current legislation means that there is no need for a warrant to listen in on calls from terrorists that pass through American switching stations and servers. This isn't a program of warrantless spying on Americans. After all, the US Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners outside the US -- unless the Supreme Court decides to grant terrorists outside the US more constitutional protection in defiance of all previous precedent.
Now here's where the political calculus does enter into this one -- Barack Obama has previously opposed such a measure. Does he continue to stick with that position, which is the position of the bulk of his far-Left supporters? Or does he again flip-flop (as he has on public financing for his campaign) -- and risk upsetting his base? Seems to me that the Obamateur is screwed either way he goes. And regardless, it shows that the only change that America can expect is in his positions on the issue -- which we therefore cannot believe in from day to day.
UPDATE: Hot Air notes that Obama has come out in favor of the new bill. Like I said above -- change that shows we cannot believe what Obama says from day to day. Stop the ACLU and Wake Up America note that the NetRoots supporters of Obama are in a lather already. I love it when Democrats eat their young!
Posted by: Greg at
02:17 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 4 kb.
June 20, 2008
Well, not to Congressman Nick Lampson, (D-TX22). He refused to sign a discharge petition to allow the House of Representatives to even vote on a plan to increase the refinery capacity of the United States. This despite the fact that in the last 30 years America has seen a decrease of 60% in the number of oil refineries in the US, and the disruption of only 5% of current capacity at the time of Hurricane Katrina resulted in a 46 cent per gallon increase in gas prices. What happens when the next storm comes -- or a major fire or explosion disables one of the refineries located here in southeast Texas?
And let's not forget where the American people stand on this matter -- 60% of Americans support increased refinery capacity and domestic oil production. Lampson is clearly opposed.
So to all my fellow voters here in CD22, remember that the next time you fill up your tank -- Nick Lampson and his fellow Democrats don't want to increase America's energy independence in order to decrease gas prices. So for all of Slick Nick's talk about not being a liberal Democrat, Lampson sure does walk the walk of one.
Posted by: Greg at
12:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.
The quote -- as these folks are presenting it -- is this:
I really didnÂ’t love America until I was deprived of her company."
Here's how Abrams presented it.
The context of that comment -- which McCain has repeatedly used over the years -- is more like this.
HANNITY: — and then I understand you didn’t get any medical help for nine days. You spent two years of this five-and-a-half-year period in solitary confinement. What does that do to a person, to spend that much time in solitary confinement?MCCAIN: I think it makes you a better person. Obviously, it makes you love America. I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company, but probably the most important thing about it, Sean, is that I was privileged to have the opportunity to serve in the company of heroes.
Clearly, this is indicative of something else -- the impact of his time as a prisoner of war upon his his patriotism. Even Abrams pays lip service to that -- but in the service of defending Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America until her husband became a powerful political figure. I don't know about you, but I see the two statements as very different -- one about the privilege of service to one's country, the other about love of becoming one of the privileged. And given Michelle Obama's long string of comments about America being a mean, awful, racist country that needs to be fundamentally changed by her husband's use of force and coercion, I think the more negative interpretation of Michelle's comments are at least reasonable, even if she now wishes to dispel that interpretation.
But McCain's comment is different. Anyone who has been faced with a loss of someone or something dear, only to regain it, understands John McCain's meaning. I can honestly say I did not truly love my wife until 18 months ago, as I stood in a hospital emergency room and was confronted with the possibility that she might not live out the day. The sense of loss -- of the probability that I would have to live the rest of my life without the presence of the woman whose presence I started to take for granted after a decade of marriage -- made me recognize the depths of my love for her in a way I do not believe would have been possible without that experience. McCain's five-and-a-half years deprived of America -- two years of it deprived even of contact with his fellow American prisoners -- can only have amplified his love for this country and the freedom of which he was deprived in her service.
If the American Left had any shame, they would never make the comparison between the comments of John McCain and Michelle Obama. But we all know that the Left knows no shame.
And so let the comparisons continue -- they can only be good for John McCain, and for America as a whole.
H/T Commentary, Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
11:31 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.
“That’s gonna change, though…gonna be a real Chocolate City!”>
* * * When [film critic Lisa] Kennedy began a question with the phrase, “If Obama’s gonna become president…”, Lee interrupted. “There is no if! It changes everything…it’s gonna be Before Obama, and After Obama. And I’m gonna be at that inauguration, too.”
Chocolate City? I guess that means that when the left says the Obama candidacy isn't about race, that means it is really about race.
However, imagine if such a comment had come out of a Republican -- a white Republican, in particular. There would be outrage. Sort of like the kerfluffle over a disgusting button offered by an outside vendor at last week's Texas GOP convention (of which only four sold -- one to a reporter -- to the roughly 10,000 attendees).
But this is Spike Lee -- a black man of impeccable liberal to radical credentials. It is unlikely that the media will even cover this racially-charged statement and his comments deifying Barack Obama. After all, the "objective media" thinks he's right.
H/T Malkin, Gateway Pundit
Posted by: Greg at
04:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.
![tribune_obama[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/tribune_obama[1].jpg)
So on my way to Saloon Democrats, I stop by the Walgreens on Clark and Lake. And what do I see just inside the entry? A woman with a bunch of baseball hats and tee-shirts trying to sell subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune.The deal is, if you sign up for the Chicago Tribune at one dollar a week, you can get one of the hats or teeshirts for free. And what's on the teeshirt? Why "Obama" of course. It wasn't the official campaign logo but it was his name splashed across the white cotton fabric. The only reason I noticed is because the woman called out to everyone entering the store saying they could get a free "Obama" teeshirt if they signed up for the Tribune.
Now, I have nothing against the Chicago Tribune trying to cash in on the success of Barack Obama. Truth is, this is a candidate that makes all of us from the state of Illinois proud.
Now I can't help but point out that there are a fair number of folks in Illinois who are neither proud nor supportive of Barack Obama -- those would be Republicans and Hillary supporters -- but that isn't the point. How can the Chicago Tribune be viewed as a credible, objective news source when it is enticing folks to subscribe by giving away items promoting one candidate for office?
But the scary thing is that the Democrat blogger didn't even see anything wrong with this.
Being a liberal and therefore a believer in the ultimate redemptive nature of human beings, I can only hope that this marketing scheme is a sign that the Chicago Tribune will finally come clean, do the responsible thing, and endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States.
Excuse me? The only way to be "clean" is to support the most liberal (and least qualified) presidential candidate in American history -- a candidate who has broken his word on running a clean campaign by forgoing public financing and refusing to rein-in his supporters while demanding that John McCain do both?
And how can the Left make the argument that the media isn't in the tank for Obama when they are using him in an effort to improve the bottom line? How can anyone expect objective reporting from the paper when it has become a cheering section for the candidate? That should be the biggest concern -- after all, this isn't the Cubs, Sox, Bears, or Bulls on a playoff run, it is a race the presidency.
H/T Stop the ACLU
Posted by: Greg at
03:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.
74 queries taking 0.3834 seconds, 640 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
