I'm not a Bill Maher fan.

I've never found him to be particularly insightful or funny.

And now he has put this horrific image in my head.

I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him too much. I don't think he thinks that he's all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him....It's embarrassing.

A three-way between Olbermann, Matthews, and Obama?

I may be turned off for life.

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

While the Dems are on the attack against the GOP vice presidential candidate on experience, there is one obvious comeback.

More executive experience. More experience on the energy issue.

Pro-life. Pro-gun. Pro-defense. Anti-terrorist. Anti-earmark. anti-corruption.

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, that is the assessment made of Sarah Palin by a number of historians.

Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.

So unconventional was McCain’s choice that it left students of the presidency literally “stunned,” in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency. “Being governor of a small state for less than two years is not consistent with the normal criteria for determining who’s of presidential caliber,” said Goldstein.

“I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.

Interestingly enough, both Goldstein and Dallek, along with the rest of the scholars quoted in the article, share a certain common denominator -- all but one of them are Democrat donors, and the remaining scholar is a former speechwriter for a major Democrat Party figure!

After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

Odd, isn't it, that the "objective media" managed to find not a single Republican-leaning scholar of the presidency to talk to or quote. I don't know about you, but it looks like a partisan hit piece to me, wih the conclusion drawn before the first question was asked.

Oh, and I like Don' Surber's observation.

Question: Do scholars question her qualifications?

Answer: Of course: “Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.”

Question: Is it true?

Answer: It depends on whether you think LincolnÂ’s one term in Congress was more experience than being a mayor and a governor.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

For all that Pat Buchanan has been trying to assist the Jew-baiting, Hamas-supporting wing of the Democrats by claiming she was a big donor and organizer to his 1996 campaign.

Because, you see, she is on record as backing another candidate in 2000.

The McCain campaign says that instead of supporting Buchanan -- or even McCain -- in 2000, Palin actually supported Steve Forbes.

And indeed, another AP story from August 7, 1999 -- one month after the Buchanan trip to Wasilla -- states that joining state sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks on the Forbes campaign's Alaska "leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs."

When combined with the fact that there is no record of even a single donation to Pat Buchanan by Palin or any family member, the fact that not even one Buchanan campaign press release or news story reports on her being in any way involved with the Buchanan campaign, the evidence is clear -- Sarah Palin was never part of Pitchfork Pat's Buchanan Brigades in any capacity, and wore that button only as a courtesy to a visiting candidate of her party.

And if wearing that button for a couple of hours makes Palin an anti-Semite unacceptable to Jews, how ought Barack Obama's two decades of membership at a church where anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist sentiments were spewed from the pulpit and printed in church publications be treated?

H/T Soccer Dad

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, only if you look at the evidence.

LGF has the report on a website claiming that Palin supports gay marriage.

In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.

host sarahpalingayrights.com

sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232

Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.

host 74.208.74.232

232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com

Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?

And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browserÂ’s address line?

Why, youÂ’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site thatÂ’s supposed to be defending him against smears.

Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.

Don't believe that? Enter 74.208.74.232 in your address bar in the browser and see where it takes you. You'll find it is FightTheSmears.com -- a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign, as mentioned above.

No way this is a coincidence.

Either this is an intentional smear by the Obama campaign -- or someone on the Obama campaign is misappropriating the campaign's resources to set up the website. Either way, this move is likely illegal.

Posted by: Greg at 08:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Which really seems to be a tempest in a teapot, since under Alaska law and the Alaska Constitution, she has the right to fire a political appointee for any reason -- or no reason at all.

But let's consider what the controversy is about.

The first serious scandal in Gov. Sarah Palin's administration has roots in a family feud. It erupted into public view with the July 11 firing of the state's top public safety official.

Some call it Troopergate.

Palin's abrupt dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan is now being investigated by a special counsel hired by the Alaska Legislature as to whether there was any official misconduct.

* * *

At issue is whether Palin, her administration or family improperly pressured Monegan to fire Alaska state trooper Michael Wooten, the ex-husband of Palin's sister, and whether Palin fired Monegan when that didn't happen. Palin's sister, Molly McCann, and Wooten are divorced but still battling in court over custody and visitation.

Now what this comes down to is a "he said/she said" dispute between Gov. Palin and a disgruntled political appointee she fired. And Palin has laid out a case for the firing that seems compelling to me.

Monegan was a Palin appointee, and she had a right to fire him for any reason. She's previously refused to say exactly why she got rid of him, but laid out several reasons Wednesday, saying she's decided to talk about it because Monegan is.

Palin said he wasn't doing enough to fill state trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues. She said he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."

Palin said it's fine to have debates during cabinet meetings over the budget but Monegan went further and indicated to legislators she wasn't proposing enough spending. Palin's acting chief of staff, Mike Nizich, said Monegan asked legislators for spending that hadn't been authorized by the governor.

"The response he got was don't come to us and ask for more money when you cannot fill the 56 or 58 trooper positions that were vacant," Nizich said. "So he was making a pitch for additional funding when he couldn't even fill what he currently had available to him."

All of which, frankly, makes this a tempest in a teapot in my eyes -- right there is your good cause for the firing. Especially since no one other than Monegan has made a claim (much less presented evidence) that Palin herself placed any undue pressure on him to fire Wooten. And the calls by Todd Palin to Monegan? Seems they were made at the direction of the head of the governor's security detain -- because he saw Wooten as constituting a threat to the governor he is tasked with protecting.

Oh, by the way, what is Wooten alleged to have done that might have been grounds to fire him? is this just a case of trying to ruin her sister's ex-husband out of spite?

No, it isn't -- as official records released by the troopers' union at Wooten's request clearly demonstrates.

On July 17, the Public Safety Employees Association, with Wooten's permission, released the investigative file concerning the complaints brought against the trooper by the Palins, Palin's father and others.

The internal personnel investigation began in April 2005, long before Palin became governor and months before her October 2005 announcement that she was running. The investigation into Wooten wrapped up in March 2006.

Troopers found four instances in which Wooten violated policy, broke the law, or both:

- Wooten used a Taser on his stepson

- He shot a moose without a permit, which is illegal. At the time he was married to McCann, who has a permit but never intended to shoot it herself.

- He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

- He told others that his father-in-law - Palin's father, Chuck Heath - would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Drinking (presumably when on duty) while in a patrol car? Hunting illegally? Assault on a 10-year-old with a Taser? Threatening to murder a parent for helping his daughter get a lawyer -- a right guaranteed by both the US and Alaska constitutions? And all he got was a 10-day suspension, cut in half after union officials protested that punishment as too harsh? Would somebody tell me why this man is even walking the streets, much less wearing a uniform and carrying a badge? Why were there no criminal charges brought -- especially over the assault on the kid?

And let's not forget that these are just the charges confirmed by the state police. That doesn't get into the claims of restraining orders he violated, possible other incidents of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and the domestic abuse of Palin's sister. Trooper Wooten seems like a mighty unstable character to me -- a true menace to society with a gun and a badge.

For more details, see what is clearly the internet's definitive post on the issue, over at Flopping Aces.

But the reality is that the evidence really doesn't support the charge that Palin herself did anything wrong -- but even if it did, wouldn't a reasonable person see it as simple over-zealousness based upon a concern for public safety?

After all, let's consider a hypothetical alternative.

Suppose, just for a minute, that no one in the Palin administration or family said anything about Wooten after Sarah Palin became governor.

Six months or a year from now, Wooten shoots someone, wrecks a patrol car while drunk, abuses another kid or gets busted for other serious illegal activity.

Wouldn't Palin's opponents then ask "Knowing what she knew, why didn't Gov. Palin do more to get rid of this cop who she knew to be unstable and dangerous?"

I know I would -- and I've been mentioning her as an attractive choice for VP (and possible future presidential candidate) for about six months now.

So if anyone erred in this case, I'm glad that they have erred on the side of protecting the public from a rogue cop with a history of violence and threats of violence against the innocent.

H/T Hot Air, Wizbang, Strata-Sphere, Victorious Opposition

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, , Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, , Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, Cao's Blog, , NN&V, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, , Beagle Scout, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1151 words, total size 11 kb.

Let's see if I get the logic of the Obama supporters.

Obama has no executive, foreign policy, or national security credentials -- but he's ready to lead from day one.

Palin has executive experience, including being head of her states National Guard and leading the only state that borders on TWO foreign countries (Canada and Russia) -- but she shouldn't be VP because of a lack of experience in case of John McCain's hypothetical demise.

Am I the only one who sees a logical disconnect there?

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

O Wondrous Lightworker, in light of your record as a legislator and public statements during the campaign, would you please enlighten the people of this great nation on the following two questions.

1) Given the fact that Sarah Palin's youngest child has Down Syndrome, do you believe that the governor and her husband were "punished with a baby"?

2) If, at the last minute, Gov. Palin had decided that she did not want the baby, should it have been legally permissible to allow him to die unattended in a linen closet in order to preserve a woman's "right to choose"?

Americans want to know -- some more than others.

UPDATE: Looks like the Libbies are in an uproar that someone at the RNC suggested running with a similar comment from Rush Limbaugh. Given Obama's staunchly pro-abortion and pro-infanticide record, I don't see the problem with Limbaugh's comment or the staffer's suggestion -- unless your objection is that it is truthful information that would be bad for Obama.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, , Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, , Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, Cao's Blog, , NN&V, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, , and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 6 kb.

We all know that the general climate at the Daily Kos alternates between hatefully deranged and derangedly hateful on a second by second basis, but the mouth-frothing over the selection of Sarah Palin is astounding, even by Kos standards.

Take this attempt to impose a religious test for public office.

No less than the official newsletter of the Assemblies of God of Alaska promotes her proudly as one of the denomination's own, and she was actually feted at an official function of the Assemblies' Alaska District as recently as this year....

Got that, folks -- membership in one of the fastest-growing Christian denominations in America is a dangerous association that is so far outside of the realm of acceptability that she should be defeated at all costs.

And then there is this smear not just of Sarah Palin, but also of one of her daughters, on the flimsiest of evidence.

But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.

The evidence? Claims that she never looked fat enough to be pregnant -- something that might be attributed to her rather strenuous exercise regiment that often includes runs of 7-10 miles. So of course, it must mean that her daughter got knocked up, right KOSsacks?

Anybody know if this would be actionable in a court as libel against the daughter? After all, she most definitely is NOT a public figure -- but they post pictures of her and claim she was pregnant out of wedlock anyway.

And then there is a whole host of other sewage over there, all attempting to destroy Sarah Palin as a human being, not just as a candidate.

I'm curious, will any of the high-profile Democrat officeholders who post at Daily Kos demand an apology and retractions from Markos Moulitis? Will Kos Diarist Rick "I apologize for Texas" Noriega, the Texas Democrat running for US Senate, finally disassociate himself with the dregs of his party?

Americans with moral decency want to know.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

Since I've been speaking highly of her for the last six months, you can imagine how ecstatic I am over this development!

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain introduced his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at a raucous rally Friday, praising her "tenacity" and "skill" in tackling tough problems.

"She is exactly who this country needs to help us fight the same old Washington politics of me first and country second," McCain told supporters in Dayton.

Palin, who becomes the first woman to serve on a GOP presidential ticket and the first Alaskan to appear on a national ticket, echoed McCain's appeal to battle the status quo in Washington.

Conservative. Pro-life. Pro-gun. Pro-drilling. A reformer who fights corruption. Exactly the sort of person we need at the highest level of the GOP on the national stage -- and one of the best picks I could have imagined McCain making.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

The Anchoress has this, via Althouse.

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS: Did this Gulfstream private jet, going from Anchorage, AK to Hook Field Municipal Airport, near Dayton, OH (scene of tomorrowÂ’s Republican VP announcement) carry Governor Palin? Track the flight via Flight Aware.

Well, we'll know in a few hours. But it would certainly make me very happy -- and would be the most pro-life pick McCain could make.

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

And it would appear that the falsehoods and distortions Barry Hussein spewed at his Nuremburg Rally would make him appear to be a pathological liar on a Clintonian scale.

ARLINGTON, VA Â– Tonight, the McCain campaign issued the following statement from Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, on Barack ObamaÂ’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harmÂ’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”

BARACK OBAMAÂ’S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS

MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· NPR’s Juan Williams: Barack Obama “Doesn’t Have The Record” Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there’s John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn’t have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn’t have the record.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 5/7/0

· Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPp2usgY6Y

· The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen: “There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically.” “Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “McCain’s Core Advantage,” The Washington Post, 6/24/0

· Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “He’s pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being ‘post-partisan?’” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama’s Third Way: It’s All In The Tone,” Politico, 6/30/0

· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion.” “Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.’” (Tim Talley, “Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse,” The Associated Press, 6/10/0

· “The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …” (Editorial, “Obama’s Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?” USA Today, 1/28/0

· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/0

· In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/0

· In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have “The Equipment They Need In Battle.” OBAMA: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: “These challenges are not all of governmentÂ’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. Â… But the recordÂ’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I donÂ’t know about you, but IÂ’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush “For The Most Part.” REPORTER: “For a couple of days, they’ve been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that’s going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?” OBAMA: “I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I’ve been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there.” (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/0

· Watch Barack Obama’s KMOV Interview

· The New York Times‘ David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are “Just Factually Inaccurate.” “Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Calling Dr. Doom,” The New York Times, 6/3/0

NewsweekÂ’s Michael Hirsh: “As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq.” “In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on ‘Law and Order,Â’ John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to ‘IraqificationÂ’ Â– that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam ‘if we lose popular support in the United States.Â’ The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. ‘I read y our speech,Â’ harrumphed Rumsfeld (that ‘must have been an enjoyable experience for him,Â’ McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They ‘believed there was no need for additional troops,Â’ McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. ‘IÂ’d like to see the president fully engaged,Â’ McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of ‘more details of whatÂ’s going on.Â’ As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about BushÂ’s current Â’surg eÂ’ is that if it had occurred back then Â– when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years Â– it might well have succeeded.” (Michael Hirsh, “Why McCainÂ’s Collapse Matters,” Newsweek, 7/26/07)

· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)

· John McCain Is “Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush” On Climate Change. “On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush’s re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration’s stance ‘terribly disappointing.’ McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming.” (William March, “McCain Bucks Ties To Bush,” The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes WeÂ’ve Made “Great Progress” And Families ArenÂ’t Hurting. OBAMA: “He said that our economy has made ‘great progressÂ’ under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is “Misleading” And “Distorts” John McCainÂ’s Words. “The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: ‘[T]hereÂ’s been great progress economically.Â’ The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. Â… McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during BushÂ’s time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldnÂ’t be enough to comfort families ‘facing these tremendous economic challenges.Â’ His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites ‘challenging timesÂ’ and ‘enormous difficulties.Â’ The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.” (DÂ’Angelo Gore, “Distorting McCainÂ’s Remarks,” FactCheck.org, 8/19/0

· In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In “Tough Times” And Families Are Facing “Tremendous Economic Challenges.” BloombergÂ’s Peter Cook: “IÂ’m going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” McCain: “Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether theyÂ’re going to be able to keep their home or not. TheyÂ’re figuring out whether theyÂ’re Â– why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. ThereÂ’s no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that thereÂ’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But thatÂ’s no comfort. ThatÂ’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of AmericaÂ’s economy are strong. WeÂ’re the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They havenÂ’t lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still Â– keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.” (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/0

· Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain’s Full Response: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WynLgJFBxSs

· ABC News: Barack Obama Proved “He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them” When He Cited The McCain Quote. “Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: ‘John McCain went on television and said that there has “been great progress economically” over the last seven and a half years.’ Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain’s Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is ‘no comfort’ to struggling families.” (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, “Obama Twists McCain On Economy,” ABC News, 4/18/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why IÂ’ve laid out how IÂ’ll pay for every dime Â– by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that donÂ’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less Â– because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama: “I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013.” “‘I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,’ Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/0

· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has “No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending.” “Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending.” (Editorial, “Failure Of Nerve,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/0

· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/0

· The National Journal’s John Maggs: “[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/0

· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of” His Proposals. “The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do.” (Peter Nicholas, “Adding Up The Cost Of Obama’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/8/0

· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: “And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· The Detroit News: Barack Obama’s Energy Plan Will “Do Nothing To Answer The Nation’s Long-Term Needs.” “The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama’s energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they’ll do nothing to answer the nation’s long-term needs.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism,” The Detroit News, 8/5/0

· The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. “When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. ‘It’s an idea to get them through an election,’ Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/0

· Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/0

· Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/0

· Barack Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/0

· Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/0

· Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/0

· The Washington Post: Barack ObamaÂ’s Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To “Higher Prices At The Pump.” “But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump Â– thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes Â– cut taxes Â– for 95% of all working families.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. Â… But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, thatÂ’s not actually how income taxes work. We donÂ’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.Â’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy CenterÂ’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.Â’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/0

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/0

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/0

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/0

###

It must suck to be Barack Obama. After all, he isn't qualified for the job he is seeking. He does, however, combine the failed policies of Jimmy Carter with the finger-wagging sanctimony of Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 3993 words, total size 28 kb.

Over at Patterico's Pontifications, WLS notes that eight years as president would be the longest time that Barack Obama has held the same full-time job.

After Columbia he spent a year in a New York business, a year in a NY non-profit, and then headed to Chicago where he spent 3 years as a “community organizer.”

Then he went to law school, returning to Chicago in 1991. He did some community organizing, then was an associate for a Chicago law firm for three years. After that he was to the State Senate - a part time legislature — and served as a lecturer at the Univ. of Chicago law school — another part-time gig. He was involved in a variety of community organizations during this period.

His Senate seat is the first full-time job he has had since his law firm days — but he’s only been in that job for 4 years.

So, serving 8 years at POTUS would be his longest stint in any position of full-time employment in his life.

And notice, please, that little of his work experience really prepares him to be a competent president -- no executive experience, and no significant involvement with foreign policy or defense matters.

Which is why this quote from Obama's speech at last night's Nuremberg Rally at Invesco Field is particularly amusing.

“If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”

Record, Senator? What record? You have accomplished nothing of significance in your life except for a couple of good speeches, a pair of over-rated books, and getting yourself nominated for a job that is well above your pay grade.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

Based upon what Erick Erickson is hearing from his inside sources.

I'm confident enough to put this up now, but willing to be wrong.

Right now though, every sign, signal, and background chatter indicates John McCain will pick Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's governor, as his running mate.

UPDATE: A source close to the campaign now confirms for me that it "more likely than not" is Pawlenty. He does, however, caution me that the campaign does not actually want to leak tonight lest the Obama camp get too much of a chance to play the victim card with a sympathetic media.

Below the fold, I've compiled data on Pawlenty that you might find useful.

I've said it repeatedly in recent weeks -- Tim Pawlenty is not a bad choice in my book. And I have one friend who will be absolutely floating on air if this is true -- his family and the Pawlenty family have been friends going back as far as he can remember.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Just a little reminder about what McCain has sacrificed on behalf of his country.

On the other hand, what has Barry Hussein sacrificed on behalf of America?

* * *

On the other hand, Obama did get his home and an extra chunk of land in a corrupt deal involving a campaign contributor and political insider later convicted of political corruption.

Why, then, does Barack Obama begrudge John McCain the right to live the American Dream?

H/T Hot Air

UPDATE: A different perspective -- including an ugly possible motivation behind the ad -- from The Next Right.

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the neat things at this year's state convention was our choice of three articulate under-30 delegates/alternates from CD22 to represent us at the convention. One of those, Trey Stinnett, will be blogging the convention for us.

But he's seeking some financial assistance to defray the convention costs, estimated to be some $5000 for him and his parents (traveling as his guests).

If you can, consider dropping a few bucks in the kitty to help out this fine young man, who I believe to be one of the rising stars in the GOP in our area and the state of Texas as a whole.

Here's the letter he sent out to local GOP activists.

Friends,

The time is here. The 2008 Republican National Convention is upon us. As I make final arrangements to head out to Minnesota, I find myself more excited than I have ever been about any singular event. These next days will mark some of the most significant in my life. I am proud to go to Minneapolis representing Congressional District 22 from the great state of Texas, the Houston Young Republicans, the youth of our nation, and most importantly, representing Christ.

As I promised at the RPT Convention, I have put up a blog that I will post to frequently during the events of next week: in detail, with images. You can keep up with all that is going on in the twin cities from my perspective by going to the link provided below. IÂ’m also raising money to help defray some of the expense of the trip there as well. In addition, you may also receive updates in your email (sans some content and images.) Just follow the links below

All in all, I know this will be a great event as we gather to nominate Sen. John McCain, the next president of these United States. Thousands of like-minded, principled men and women coming together to celebrate what it means to be a Republican, and what it means to be an American.

Check out his bio here -- you'll be quite impressed at what this 23-year-old has accomplished in his life and his record of involvement.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

If that's the case, every Texan has a compelling reason to oppose his candidacy for any office -- and to send him packing to some other state where his liberal views would make him more comfortable.

After all, my fellow Texans, this is what Slick Rick the Kos Diarist has to say about our state when he travels out of cash seeking the funds Texans won't give him.

Being a Texan today, Mr. Noriega said, means always having to say you're sorry.

"I immediately feel compelled to just apologize to all of you," Mr. Noriega told high-rollers who flocked to the elegant Brown Palace Hotel to hear pleas for donations from about a dozen Democratic senatorial hopefuls.

In other words, he is ready and willing to trash our state in order to get cash from out-of-state liberal donors who don't believe in the same things Texans do. Why would we want a Senator who does not love this state as much as we do? This comment is one more compelling reason for Texans to back John Cornyn.

Oh, and about that event he attended -- one of the attendees was John Edwards' bagman, Frank Baron (who is, I'm sorry to say, a Texan), the guy who is under investigation for paying hush money to Edwards' baby-mama, Rielle Hunter. Oh, and where cops assaulted and arrested an ABC reporter trying to document the trail of sleazy cash flowing into the coffers of the DSCC and DNC.

H/T Urban Grounds, JohnCornyn.com

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

Does the choice of Dayton, Ohio, for the first appearance provide any clue to the pick?

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has settled on a running mate, and the pair will appear together on Friday at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, according to Republican sources outside the campaign.

McCain will notify his choice on Thursday, one source said. The decision is closely held among just a handful of the senator's top advisers.

Speculation has centered on several candidates, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Here's hoping it isn't Lieberman. I might be able to live with dark-horse Tom Ridge, but I think that would be a bad choice as well. But does the choice of Dayton make it more likely that we will see an Ohioan like Rob Portman? I'm not sure -- though I would be happy with Romney, Pawlenty, Alaska's Sarah Palin or Virginia's Eric Cantor. And as I said yesterday, I don't think that Kay Bailey Hutchison would be a bad pick -- though I find it highly unlikely.

Closing question -- can the choice be kept secret until the announcement on Friday, or will it leak earlier? And will such a leack come before or after Barack Mugabe Obama's Nuremburg rally at Invesco Field?

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Now that Barack Mugabe Obama has gotten the Democrat nomination, he and his campaign are continuing an effort to silence anyone who dares criticize the newly-minted candidate -- especially over his oh-so-cozy relationship with an unrepentant terrorist.

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is organizing its supporters tonight to confront Tribune-owned WGN radio in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

"Lies, distortions, and manipulations"? Most folks would call them facts -- but not the neo-Stalinists in the Obama camp.

What does Kurtz have to say?

1. Obama has a long, close association with Bill Ayers.
   
2. Bill Ayers engaged in terrorism against the US and remains unrepentant.
   
3. Strenuous efforts have been and are being made to hide documents about that relationship and suppress efforts to bring it into the public eye.
   

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Heck, it really hasn't been news for a couple of months now.

Barack Hussein Obama, a freshman senator who defeated the first family of Democratic Party politics with a call for a fundamentally new course in politics, was nominated by his party on Wednesday to be the 44th president of the United States.

The unanimous vote made Mr. Obama the first African-American to become a major party nominee for president. It brought to an end an often-bitter two-year political struggle for the nomination with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who, standing on a packed convention floor electric with anticipation, moved to halt the roll call in progress so that the convention could nominate Mr. Obama by acclamation. That it did with a succession of loud roars, followed by a swirl of dancing, embracing, high-fiving and chants of “Yes, we can.”

But let's be honest here -- despite the claim of unanimity, anyone who has been observing the process must acknowledge that his nomination was anything but. That is why there were such strenuous efforts to keep an actual vote on the nomination from being broadcast in prime time.

At best, Obama got 40% of the delegate votes, based upon estimates I've seen. Hillary's little "party unity" parliamentary maneuver can't obscure that fact -- though Obama's toadies in the media will try.

Oh, and one question -- is the New York Times hatemongering by calling the newly-minted candidate "Barack Hussein Obama"?

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Not only will running ads critical of the Democrat candidate get you persecuted in Barack Mugabe Obama's America, so will attempting to report inconvenient stories.

Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

* * *

During the arrest, one of the officers can be heard saying to Eslocker, "You're lucky I didn't knock the f..k out of you."

Sounds rather like Beijing, doesn't it? Let's not forget -- Barack Mugabe Obama has said he wants the US to become more like Red China.

I wonder if this is the same event that resulted in this story that is sure to have embarrassed Obama and the Democrats.

Former Senator John Edwards has stayed away from the Democratic convention in Denver, but the close friend who helped hide his one-time mistress is receiving VIP treatment here.

Fred Baron, a wealthy Texas trial lawyer and former finance chairman for Edwards' presidential campaign, was seen Tuesday at a private luncheon for top party donors and key senators.

Baron, a longtime major contributor to Democratic candidates, would not answer questions from ABC News and walked away when he saw cameras.

You know, it certainly seems like there might be a connection -- after all, it highlights one more example of how dirty the Dems are.

And as for the Denver Police, these fascist tactics against a reporter seem quite at odds at how they dealt with a situation in which an assault was committed and repeated death threats were made against at conservative member of the press by liberal protesters.

Taking photos of Democrat fat cats? Arrest and threats of violence from the police.

Assault and threats of murder by liberal thugs? Nothing to see here, just move along.

UPDATE: Anyone hear me talking about this with Hugh Hewitt this evening?

UPDATE 2: Here's some of the video -- including the one cop's attempt to further suppress the press by ordering the cameras turned off. Seems to me that Denver cops do not know crap about the First Amendment.

Also, this report from Howard Kurtz.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 4 kb.

Set aside the religious question raised by certain Democrat politicians who claim to be good Catholics (and I do wish that their respective bishops would excommunicate Biden and Pelosi after their recent statements, just to clarify the matter), let's consider it from a strictly scientific perspective.

And fortunately, the scientific evidence is pretty clear on the matter.

In his new book, "Embryo," [Professor Robert] George and co-author Christopher Tollefsen, associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, left religion behind and set out to establish the embryo's personhood by reviewing all the major scientific works on human embryogenesis and early intrauterine development.

Included was American medicine's most prominent human embryology text, "The Developing Human," whose authors are not imprecise on the matter of life: "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell -- a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one in the 21st century should pretend not to know when human life begins.

Let's take deconstruct that for those at lower pay grades.

1. Sperm meet egg.
   
2. Zygote of species is created.
   
3. Said zygote is alive, and human, ergo constitutes human life.
   
4. There is no stage after that point at which the zygote/embryo/fetus can be legitimately argued to not be human until the cessation of biological functioning.
   

But then again, Barack Obama's actions while in the Illinois Senate demonstrate that he takes the latter view -- and even extends it to include newborn infants who survive an assault in the womb at the hands of the abortionist. Sadly, he lacks the integrity to admit that this is his position, even though the record is unambiguous in that regard.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

1

Thank you so much for this.  A few years ago, having been pro-choice for many years, I remembered something that happened in my ninth grade biology class.  A girl in that class, Jan, was known to be quite religious, but not freaky about it (this was the time of "Jesus freaks"), took part in a discussion about abortion.  This was pre-Roe, so I have no idea how we got on this subject and I'm surprised the teacher let it go on, but Jan said, "The cells respire, they take in nutrition, and they excrete waste.  This means they are alive." 

What Jan said came back to me five or so years ago and I realized that all the wishing in the world could not make what she said untrue.  After that, there was no way to dodge that a zygote containing human DNA is a human life.  And so I am pro-life.

Until abortion advocates admit that they are in favor of taking human life, it is not possible to have a meaningful conversation with them.  If they would simply admit they are in favor of killing, I could at least respect them for being honest.  As it is, they engage in endless sophistry to avoid the main point and gain for themselves no respect at all.

Posted by: Carol at Thu Sep 4 13:43:30 2008 (ejr0y)

2

Imagine one day you are at the local clinic. The fire alarm is going off, and it seems like everyone has already gotten out. You see a large locked cooler that says human embryos on it. You think to yourself, “There could be thousands of embryos inside. This refrigerator could hold the hopes and dreams of hundreds of infertile couples. I could take this out with me.” You find a cart and are about to move it when you hear something. You look around and see a lady in a wheelchair. The room is now quickly filling with smoke and you are on the second floor. Now the lady in the wheelchair is calling to you, “Help me, I can’t get down the steps. Please help me.” The fire has started to engulf the room and you need to get out of the burning building NOW. You can not save the lady and the embryos, only one, after all you’re only human. So what would you do?

I think that even though an embryo is a valuable life like being, it is still not as important, as sacred, as a living breathing human life.

I think that not doing stem cell research is much the same as leaving a person in a burning building to die while saving embryos. Only God knows how many people have been left to die because our government has done very little embryonic stem cell research.

Posted by: Holly at Sat Oct 11 16:22:05 2008 (3nVTO)

3 comment1, whole life insurance
, 393651, short skirt gallery
, 2522, Very Short Skirts Yeah
, mugkgr, Transparent Bikini Here
, >:OOO, gas powered scooters
, > DD,

Posted by: djwjoij at Wed Feb 11 21:25:03 2009 (vWqnN)

4 hYjtwFJ8KE5n codeine acetaminophen what is in relation to codeine

Posted by: codeineNwPM3Z at Mon Mar 2 03:35:27 2009 (y3i0c)

5 K8n4AZybS497Ys doxycycline doxcycline 100mg

Posted by: doxycyclineykW09oAnjo7D at Mon Mar 2 23:31:50 2009 (i163c)

6 937OgYGMkxa4 amoxicillin amoxicillin 500mg and orange juice can it cause allergic reaction

Posted by: amoxicillin5ND0iRoZXXA at Tue Mar 3 08:56:14 2009 (jQjBb)

7 ephedrine ephedrine 40mgs

Posted by: ephedrinehJjHnGR2n at Tue Mar 3 10:03:59 2009 (HP62q)

8 Kz1DB6 ephedrine fat burners with ephedrine

Posted by: ephedrine0wzaE73 at Tue Mar 3 10:25:29 2009 (2faZ6)

9 xRrMUSdw oxycontin oxycontin 20mg cr- other names

Posted by: oxycontine1Tz at Tue Mar 3 13:53:52 2009 (VvoxM)

10 k08mw vicodin vicodin half-life

Posted by: vicodinDrgMfT5Hez at Wed Mar 4 05:21:19 2009 (IqDiZ)

11 butalbital purchase butalbital online

Posted by: butalbitalczs2g at Thu Mar 5 02:26:18 2009 (fdiXH)

12 ambien ambien md5628d

Posted by: ambienTls7v432 at Thu Mar 5 06:59:57 2009 (3UDKe)

13 zithromax what is the most pathogenic mycoplasma zithromax

Posted by: zithromaxCXVdFqNyu5 at Thu Mar 5 15:04:10 2009 (XGxaC)

14 butalbital longterm use of butalbital with codiene

Posted by: butalbital3Rwtp4ENbSG at Thu Mar 5 18:19:48 2009 (12spo)

15 fioricet fiorcet 120 tablets

Posted by: fioricetEjsJAu4 at Fri Mar 6 05:01:22 2009 (iqcPK)

16 yApeSWjAekvPQ prevacid allergic reaction to prevacid

Posted by: prevacid2s2TwiIKtC5l at Fri Mar 6 13:53:15 2009 (H/G5D)

17 a03iHAB4 acyclovir acyclovir manufacturer

Posted by: acyclovirlMApy at Fri Mar 6 23:15:33 2009 (zm940)

18 diazepam euromedics diazapam online

Posted by: diazepamCUFI8 at Sat Mar 7 02:14:13 2009 (aAyVT)

19 concealment, kbhhpokh, lwxfap, liyzxejj, >:[[[, fhtkgvhe, =-DD,

Posted by: Mqxhvaaa at Wed Oct 7 12:17:59 2009 (gtfoK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This one from former Dem Congressman Charlie Wilson of Texas -- the one who was recently lionized in the movie Charlie Wilson's War.

"We should be led by Osama bin Laden," he said, then quickly corrected himself. "I mean Obama and Biden."

What is it with Democrats that they can't tell the difference between Barry Hussein and the world's foremost terrorist? Is it the connection to Bill Ayers? The fact that both Osama and Obama want US defeat in Iraq? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

He still claimed his acts of terrorism were right even as he helped elect Barack Obama to the Senate in 2004.

Ayers was unrepentant about the group’s planting of bombs in the Capitol, the Pentagon, and other sites. “I think I was on the side of justice and ultimately it will be seen that way,” Ayers said. “I don’t think our move was so much towards violence.

Now that is a statement made in 2004, and was a part of an attempt to parse a difference between his group's attack on America and the attacks of Osama bin laden against this country. What Ayers fails to recognize is that Osama thinks he is on the side of justice, too -- terrorists always do.

No wonder Obama and his campaign want to jail critics who publicize his connection to Ayers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

How desperate are the Democrats to ignore the current polling numbers?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told convention-goers Tuesday morning that polls are underestimating the strength of Barack Obama, contending he will defeat John McCain with the support of new or intermittent voters, who are not generally polled.

“I’m very comfortable with those polls,” Pelosi said at a rooftop breakfast panel near the Democratic National Convention. “I think he is trouncing him. I want more of a spread, of course — I want it all.”

In other words, just ignore the numbers -- she's sure that they are wrong and that Obama is going to win by a landslide, regardless of what the polls are actually showing.

Call it faith-based interpretation of the polls. No matter what the data shows, just believe that Obama is winning.

I'm curious -- if that does happen, will Democrats complain that the disparity between polling data and election results is a sign that someone tampered with the electronic voting machines? You know, like they did in 2004.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed, the Gallup Tracking Poll covering the first three days after the Biden announcement shows John McCain ahead in the race -- though within the margin of error.

It's official: Barack Obama has received no bounce in voter support out of his selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

These results are not dissimilar from Rasmussen and Zogby, so I think it is fair to say that the race is tied right now -- though I'm sure Barry Hussein leads in the 0/11 Truther/Daily Kos Poll, which is the only one that Democrats put any faith in.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

I've already noted that I'm backing her for governor in 2010 -- but I'd be glad to see kay Bailey Hutchison as our next Vice president instead.

Michael Medved makes the case for that move.

I would suggest – strongly – that the campaign reconsider the Senior Senator from Texas, the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Okay, sheÂ’s not a dynamo of fiery charisma; in fact, as IÂ’ve noted before, sheÂ’s a bland and sometimes boring speaker, and a pleasant if unprepossessing television presence. Nevertheless, she is a she--- and that fact in itself would allow McCainÂ’s choice to upstage ObamaÂ’s.

Current polls show that only half of Hillary’s voters currently back The One; a full 20% already support McCain. The remaining 30% of one-time Clinton true believers are undecided or thinking of staying home, and the idea of a first female in national office would, no doubt, appeal to some of them—perhaps even many of them.

And given her record of never winning a statewide election with less than 62% of the vote, Hutchison is a proven vote getter -- something necessary this year when the race is so tight.

Best of all, Hutchison is undeniably conservative, and shores up the conservative base even as she attracts those disaffected PUMAs. When a candidate gets ACU ratings in the high 80s and low 90s, there is no other way to categorize her -- which should make those who question McCain's recent conservative bona fides much more comfortable with the ticket.

So while I've liked the thought of Romney, Palenty, Cantor and Palin as possible Veeps, I could be really happy with my state's senior senator on the ticket this year.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Give preferential seating to Alaska and Guam, while shafting the Lone Star State.

A network television interview platform stands directly in front of some of the Texas delegates on the lower rows of the Pepsi Center.

The state banners for Guam and Alaska partially block others.

And while the view of the podium is better for the delegates seated above Row 13, there's no doubt that the Texas delegation is about as far from the center of action at the Democratic National Convention as it can be.

That makes some of the delegates from the Republican red state of Texas blue.

"I think we're being punished for being a red state," said delegate Reynaldo Trevino, of Lyttle. "The consensus is: The closer you are, the more important you are."

Keisha Smith, of Victoria, said that sitting on the bottom row of the delegation gives her the opportunity to watch famous people walk by, but not much of anything else.

"The only worse thing would be to sit outside and watch it on a big screen," she said.

Maybe smaller delegations were easier to fit onto the convention's floor than the 260-person Texas delegation, said state Rep. Joe Deshotel, of Beaumont.

"I would hope they aren't putting more emphasis on Guam and Alaska," Deshotel said.

State Rep. Aaron Peña, of Edinburg, said the delegates should be moved to the front because they work hard to promote the party despite three decades of losing presidential elections. "We're the true believers, the die-hards," he said.

I'm curious -- is it that Texas is very red? Or could it be the high number of Hillary Clinton delegates that this state sent to Denver?

Either way, the message from Obama and the Democrats is pretty clear -- Texas and its electoral votes just don't matter to them.

One more reason, my fellow Texans, to vote for John McCain.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not sure how serious the threat was, but I am glad law enforcement folks are taking it seriously.

Federal and local authorities in Colorado are questioning several suspects to determine if one of the men made a threat against Sen. Barack Obama, who will be in Denver this week to accept the Democratic presidential nomination.

After pulling over Tharin Robert Gartrell, 28, for allegedly driving erratically early Sunday morning, police discovered two rifles, one of which is reportedly stolen, a scope, a bulletproof vest, ammunition, walkie-talkies and the drug methamphetamine in the rented 2008 Dodge Ram truck, Aurora Police Detective Marcus Dudley said at a Monday evening press conference.

When authorities questioned Gartrell about the findings, he pointed to an associate of his whom he claimed made a threat against Obama, officials told ABC News.

Frankly, these guys appear to be a bunch of neo-Nazi sskinheads, according to some other reports I've seen. They don't represent the mainstream of anything, and are worthy of nothing but contempt and condemnation.

The last thing this American wants is an attempt on the life of Barack Obama -- and I can say with confidence that my view is shared by every true Republican.

By the way -- where is the coverage of the street disturbances in Denver?

UPDATE: Oops -- maybe not a threat at all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

He has appeared from on high, to speak to his people.

Isn't this the silliest thing you have ever sen?

Looks like a neon nightmare!

Tackiness and excess incarnate.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Call me sentimental.

I cried tonight, watching the tribute to Ted Kennedy and his speech.

As a teen, he represented something special about America to me -- until I came to understand what he stood for and realized I disagreed with his approach to America.

As an adult, I viewed him as a worthy adversary -- though one I have not always treated with respect.

And as a student of history, I recognize his significance over the last half century of American life.

And so I made a point of watching Ken Burns' tribute to the ailing Senator, and his speech to the convention.

And as I said, I wept.

Because I know that this is likely the end of an era -- and that in 2012, one face and voice that will likely be missing from the rough and tumble of the election season will be that of the man who has served as Senator from Massachusetts since before I was born. I recognize that one of our links to the past will have been severed by mortality. And that does sadden me as an American.

God bless you, Senator Kennedy -- and thank you for your service to our nation.

Would you believe Georgia?

No, not the one where they make Coca-Cola -- the one where the Russians continue to violate their agreement to withdraw.

It's not every aspiring First Lady whose comfort zone is a war zone, but such is the case for Cindy McCain, who left today on a mission to Georgia to assess the civilian casualties of the Russian invasion.

McCain is traveling with the U.N.'s World Food Programme, whose work she monitored in Southeast Asia and Africa this spring and summer. McCain plans to meet with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and to visit wounded Georgian soldiers. She would also visit representatives of the HALO Trust, which works to remove land mines and on whose board she serves.

But this shouldn't be a surprise, given her long record of humanitarian work.

Contrast that with Michelle Obama's work dumping poor people from the hospital where she works -- and steering contracts to her husband's political allies.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrats told us if George W. Bush were reelected in 2004, there would be attempts to use the Justice Department and the FCC to punish dissenting political speech.

And they were right.

Only it is the Obama campaign seeking to have the government punish political speech.

Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaireÂ’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads.

As much as I've always disliked John McCain's cavalier attitude towards political speech, this attempt to criminalize such speech by Obama is much more frightening to me.

And not only that, but Barry Hussein's surrogates are threatening to revoke the broadcast licenses of any station that carries the ad -- a potent threat from a guy who will have appointment power over that agency's commissioners.

“The Obama campaign plans to punish the stations that air the ad financially, an Obama aide said, organizing his supporters to target the stations that air it and their advertisers.” … Obama’s campaign has written a pair of letters to station managers carrying the ads. The letter calls the ad’s attempt to link Obama to terrorism “an appalling lie, a disgraceful smear of the lowest kind on the senator’s patriotism and commitment to the rule of law.” Airing the ad “is inconsistent with your station’s obligations under Federal Communications Commission regulations,” the letter continues, saying Simmons’ group lacks formal incorporation.

In other words, the President of the United States (if we win) will personally argue that your airing of the ad is a violation of the terms of the broadcast license under which you operate -- a threat which could lead to a great many stations deciding to take a hardline view of any anti-Obama ad this year.

What is worst about the ad? How about the fact that everything in it is true. Barack Obama has a long association with a confessed terrorist who openly lamented not doing more to overthrow the American government. It doesn't matter that Obama was a child when the events happened -- his willingness to have such a close association with the man is a contemporary failure of moral judgment. If McCain had a close political and personal relationship with a former Kluxer who publicly lamented not doing more to save segregation, would he so easily be forgiven that association? Of course he would not -- nor would anyone with an ounce of decency suggest he should.

And in the end, that is why Barry Hussein needs to bludgeon his opponents into silence -- the truth will not set him free, but will instead cost him the election if the American public is confronted with the reality of Barack Obama's distasteful choice of friends.

H/T Patterico, Time, Belmont Club, Ben Smith, Malkin

UPDATE: Here's what Barry Hussein is afraid the American public might see.

You gonna come after me and the rest of the conservative blogosphere next?

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

I've noticed a number of comments regarding Joe Biden's lengthy Senatorial career making him the ultimate insider. I've noted folks observing that Barack Obama was 11 when Biden first won election to that body (I was 9).

But there is another aspect to his Senatorial career that ought to be noted by those considering whether how out of place Biden is on the ticket of"Hope and Change" -- when Joe Biden became a US Senator, John McCain was still a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Think about it -- liberals often denigrate McCain's heroic suffering on behalf of his country because it was so long ago. If that is the case, what place does a man who has been a senator for three-and-a-half decades have being on their national ticket?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, , Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Political Byline, , The World According to Carl, , , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 3 kb.

I agree with Nancy Pelosi.

Well, sort of.

"You know what," said Pelosi "I'm going to tell you something: lighten up folks. We have a planet to save."

"If Sen. Biden thinks that his wife is gorgeous, that's a-okay with me," she added.

I'll agree with the second half of the comment -- to this day I refer to my Darling Democrat as "my lovely wife" or "my darling wife" in the course of routine conversation. I didn't even realize how often I do it until one of my students a couple of years back walked up to me and asked how my beautiful wife enjoyed an event at which we had seen him at school. It is just how I feel -- and the same thing can be said about the Biden comment. It was something that was very genuine -- after a really stupid comment about her educational attainment.

Maybe he meant it was that her degree was a problem for Michelle Obama -- not only is Jill Biden better looking, but she is living the "giving back to people" lifestyle that Michelle Obama preaches about -- and that her hospital employer somehow can't live up to itself -- which points out the hypocrisy of Michelle Obama.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

To give maximum advantage to the GOP.

Barack Obama has chosen Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, a pick designed to shore up the Illinois senator's foreign policy credentials in advance of the November election against John McCain.

Biden's selection was confirmed by a Democratic source after an evening of speculation that centered on the Delaware senator when it was reported that the other top contenders were no longer under consideration. Biden had been considered the frontrunner for the job in recent weeks -- a position confirmed by a last-minute, unscheduled trip last weekend to meet with the president of Georgia.

News of the pick was reported in advance of the Obama campaign's planned Saturday announcement to supporters via email and text message.

First, let me say that the confused, incoherent manner in which the Obama campaign handled the announcement was disturbing in and of itself. Days kept changing, and the proposed text-message idea was just absurd. Add to it the fact that the campaign had to leak the whole thing out hours in advance of the planned Saturday morning text message and you are left wondering if these folks will be able to handle a 3:00 AM overflowing toilet in the West Wing, much less a 3:00 AM phone call regarding an international crisis.

And that is part of why they picked Biden -- the ultimate insider and "non-hope and non-change" candidate. Obama recognized he needed a grown-up on the ticket, and so went for one who merely highlights all of his weaknesses even as he helps balance some of them.

And I bet a lot of folks on the left side of the spectrum are fuming. After all, here's a guy who supported the Iraq war and a surge (until he was against them for reasons of political expediency). He's got a history of insensitive remarks of a racial nature. And, of course, there is that speech he stole from Neil Kinnock -- something that didn't get Barry Hussein in trouble when he stole one from Deval Patrick earlier this year.

But most importantly of all, he isn't Hillary Clinton. He doesn't mend fences there, and he carries with him no great constituency. In the end, I don't see him as giving the campaign the sort of electoral heft it needs -- which will make a McCain victory more likely.

Oh, and how confused and mismatched are these two?

Consider Obama's introduction of Biden in Springfield.

And Biden's introduction of Barack.

Just most of them.

But one (indeed the only one I've encountered) has written a piece criticizing John McCain and arguing against his election to the presidency. He is Phillip Butler, who served this nation honorably and spent 8 years in the same hellish conditions that John McCain endured during his time as a POW. I honor that service.

He concludes as follows.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

There are two sets of arguments at work in this commentary. The first set goes back to McCain's time at the Naval Academy and as a POW.

• John was a bit of a wild child during his late teens and early 20s. Of course, you have to ignore that having been a half-century ago to consider it to be relevant, but hey -- what is intellectual honesty.
  
• John McCain wasn't the only guy who suffered -- but then again, that is only relevant if you consider some unique experience of suffering to be a requirement to be president. In addition, John McCain's experience as a POW was not unique -- but then again, no one has ever claimed that it was.
  

All three of those arguments are irrelevant -- and come frighteningly close to an effort to denigrate McCain's service and experience as a POW. I presume that is not Butler's intent -- but given a point I will make later, I think it is important that I note it.

But Butler's other arguments are not irrelevant -- age, temper, and ideology. Let's look at them.

1. Age -- yes, many of the POWs are dying off, some at a younger age than their contemporaries, due to their treatment in Vietnam. But any number of them are still in great health -- and McCain is clearly one of them. Besides, there is nothing to say that 47-year-old Barack Obama won't drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow -- just like a 49-year-old former colleague of mine did the other day while attending an in-service session in the district where he worked.
   
2. Temper -- yeah, McCain has a temper. He's a passionate man. But there is nothing in his character that shows his temper is not restrained by intellect and morality. He may yell, and raise his voice -- even curse -- but he has time and again demonstrated that he acts in a rational fashion.
   
3. Ideology -- for all some of us on the right might find McCain to be a bit less conservative than we like, it is clear that the Left finds him much more conservative than Barack Obama. So you have a choice -- a strong liberal or a moderate conservative. Take your pick.
   

Of course, one might consider Butler's biography beyond his time as a POW.. His biography includes his work as a "peace and justice" activist -- and member of "Veterans for Peace". yeah -- that Veteran's for Peace. You know, a group that objects to military recruiting and the Blue Angels. In other words, a group of extreme Leftists who regularly attack and insult our troops. I'm not hanging that tag on Phillip Butler -- he hung it on himself. So if you read his opinion piece and think it sounds like it belongs on Kos or DU, please recognize that its author would be welcome and comfortable on either of those two sites.

UPDATE: Looks like Obama surrogates are now using Butler against McCain. Can you say "Swiftboat"?

Here are my questions:

1. Will Obama try to get these ads pulled?
   
2. Will he seek to get those behind the ad jailed, as he has those running the Bill Ayers ad?
   
3. Will he threaten to use the FCC to punish stations that air this ad?
   
4. Given that no one on his side heeded his call to lay off Bristol Palin, is the statement by its sponsors that they will not pull the ad even if Obama asks them to simply more evidence that Obama is not even taken seriously by his supporters, much less America's enemies abroad?

On the other hand, significantly more of McCain's brothers in arms support him. Proof once more that Butler is what pollsters call an "outlier"..

H/T Hot Air, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 790 words, total size 5 kb.

A reasonably fair article, too.

Now for those of you who have forgotten about the fundraising campaign, I'd like to direct you back to the original piece I wrote on it, lending my support (after I contributed to the effort, putting my money where my mouth is on the issue).

Unfortunately, fundraising has been slow, as information about the effort has not gotten much coverage.

She rushed to fill the financial void, forming a California nonprofit to funnel money to the African school. With a flair for drama, she named it "Save Senator Obama Kogelo School" and held a mini fund-raiser. She's raised $3,500, so she's a long way from the $750,000 she wants to raise within two years.

This isn't just politics. It is also an opportunity to work wonders in the lives of impoverished people who need your help. Several years ago, friends from church started a ministry that has done wonders for Kenyan orphans. The effort to save this one school in one village has a similar potential to improve the lives of the people of one village. I'd like to encourage you to consider a donation to this effort to fulfill the promise made and broken by Barack Obama.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

And it is about damn time that his campaign released the original of the document certifying his birth in a Hawaii hospital into the hands of an objective party.

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

The piece cited above makes pretty clear what I asserted earlier -- the image of the document released earlier was a true image of a real document. And for what it is worth, it contains more information than the document the my wife used a couple of weeks ago to get back in the US after our trip to Canada -- a document I know with 100% certainty was issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because I ordered it myself on her behalf.

I still think he ought to issue a copy of the original birth record filled out by the staff at the hospital where he was born, but I have always taken the earlier release to be legitimate. I do, however, still wonder if there might be some embarrassing information that keeps a true copy of the original document from being released.

H/T RedState, LGF, Right Angles, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

In a sane world populated by people with even a rudimentary morality, support for allowing a premature newborn to die because its mother didn't want it would be inconceivable.

That is not the view of Barack Obama, as the very words of his own mouth demonstrate.

TRANSLATION: She paid for a dead baby, so she's entitled to a dead baby by any means necessary, damn it!

How can anyone with a scrap of moral decency vote for Barry Hussein now?

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.