Posted by: Jane at Sun Jan 18 05:35:09 2009 (bqTlE)

Either that, or he just played the race card.

"If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the "white", excuse me, the Republican Party."

Given the history of racism and hate-mongering that has been a part of the Democrat Party since its very inception, I don't think the demented doctor really wants to go there. After all, his is the party of slavery, treason, Jim Crow, and massive resistance. His party is the one that has historically tried to block every true advance in civil rights.

But if Howard Dean really wants to label the GOP the party of white people, so be it -- I'm sure that John McCain would be pleased to accept the same proportion of the white vote that Barack Obama will get of the black vote. But then again, since we Republicans follow the philosophy of one of the greats of our party in judging our fellow Americans not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, I can assure you that we won't be making the sort of appeals that are the stock-in-trade of the Dean Democrats.

UPDATE: Maybe these three guys are the the sort of support sought by Barack Obama and the Howard Dean Democrats.

UPDATE & BUMP: Gee -- someone in the media finally got around to covering this one -- though not nearly as much as this story deserves. Imagine the uproar if a McCain surrogate had called the GOP the "white party" -- or the Democrats the "black party".

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

How dare they ask him for a state-issued photo ID!

Vice President Dick Cheney got carded. Not for drinking but for voting.

It happened at the Teton County clerk's office Thursday in Wyoming, when the vice president, accompanied by his wife and a Secret Service detail, dropped in unexpectedly to cast an absentee ballot in next Tuesday's primary election.

An election worker, Mike Farady, asked the vice president for his driver's license.

"The reason is we are supposed to confirm identity with a photo ID and it also helps confirm residency and that was the easiest way to do it," Farady told the Jackson Hole News & Guide. "I know he is the vice president and I know he can vote, but I wanted to make sure he can vote here and now."

Will there be the same complaints from Democrats one would get if the person asked were a retired nun, an African-American ex-con, or an illegal immigrant from Latin America?

Probably not -- after all, he wasn't going to vote for their candidate. And since he is a heterosexual white male US citizen, he's not a member of any of the groups whose interests the Democrats claim to be interested in protecting.

We Republicans, of course, are simply grateful that they take ballot security seriously in some parts of the country.

Posted by: Greg at 08:35 AM | Comments (512) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, we've known for three decades that John Murtha is a dirty politician. Why should we be surprised by this?

Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat known for delivering federal money to defense contractors in his district, is now going to bat for a constituent's company that was convicted last year of illegally exporting components of military equipment.

Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, wrote State Department officials in late June urging them to meet with the president of Electro-Glass Products, a 50-employee company that was convicted in April 2007 of illegally exporting components of night-vision goggles to a company in India. The Mammoth, Pa., firm has been sanctioned by the State Department, and Murtha argues that the action threatens to put the firm out of business.

So remember -- when it comes to national security issues, John Murtha will take the side of alaw-breaking company rather than the United States. It is time for a change n Pennsylvania. Vote for Lt. Col. Bill Russell -- for the sake of America.

H/T Hot Air, Michelle Malikn

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 2 kb.

Yep -- that's your Harris County Democrats. While we in the GOP selected the highly qualified Georgia Akers to run for the bench left vacant by the death of Judge Russell Austin, Democrats looked only at previous vote totals in making their choice.

Former Democratic judge Kathy Stone will face Republican associate judge Georgia Akers in the Nov. 4 Harris County election to fill the vacancy created by the death of Probate Judge Russell Austin in June.

Democratic precinct chairmen selected Stone over two other contenders for the nomination Thursday night. Similarly, Akers got the GOP nomination last month by winning a precinct chairmen's vote.

Although Stone lost elections for civil court benches in 1998 and 2004, she swayed some precinct chairmen Thursday by pointing out that she was one of the party's top vote getters in those years as Republicans swept county elections.

Her two competitors emphasized their probate experience -- she emphasized her one electoral victory (and two electoral losses) for a civil court bench.

Oh, yeah -- and this significant factor.

Stone, recalling that her judicial portrait hangs in a downtown county courthouse, told the Democratic meeting, "I would like to join my portrait, please."

Too bad the Democrats couldn't be bothered to select a serious candidate with significant qualifications for the court she seeks.

And in the mean time, someone pack and ship Stone her portrait, so that she doesn't need to go to the courthouse to feel complete.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

When Republicans take a vacation during a crisis, it is a sign that they are not serious or competent, according to mouth-frothing liberals. On the other hand, sno-cones and body surfing during a crisis don't seem to bother liberals -- so long as it is Democrat Barack Obama engaging in such frivolous activities.

For the last several days, Senator Barack Obama has seemed to fade from the scene while on his secluded vacation here, as his opponent, Senator John McCain, has seized nearly every opportunity to display his foreign policy credentials on the dominant issue of the week: the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

Only once, at the beginning of the week, did Mr. Obama discuss the fighting in public, when he emerged from his beachfront rental home to condemn RussiaÂ’s escalation, in a way that seemed timed for the evening television news. He took no questions whose answers might demonstrate command of the issue.

Mr. McCain and his surrogates, however, have discussed the situation nearly every day on the campaign trail, often taking a hard line against Russia to the point of his declaring the other day, “We are all Georgians.”

Well, it really is quite simple to explain -- McCain knows the region and the players, and has a wealth of foreign policy knowledge to draw upon. Obama has speeches and press coverage -- so while war rages between Russia and Georgia, we know what his focus is.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama bodysurfed today at Sandy Beach today, a place he frequented as a teen-ager growing up in Honolulu.

Barack Obama may be just fine when it comes to photo-op speeches before foreign audiences advocating non-specific hope and change. On the other hand, he is way over his head in the case of a serious foreign policy crisis.

Is this Barry Hussein's "Dukakis in a tank" moment?

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

It sure does seem that way, as the connection between Edwards, campaign finance chair Fred Baron, and the lawyers for Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young become public.

Remember last year, when Hunter and Young independently claimed that Young was the father of Hunter's child after Edwards claimed there was no affair? Well, the mainstream media (in their haste to prop up the Democrat contender) missed something that competent professional journalists should have caught.

Seemingly issued independently of Mr. Edwards, the statements appeared to deflate the anonymously sourced reports of an Edwards tryst. But what went unnoticed was that the two lawyers shared an important connection to Mr. Edwards that suggests they were part of an orchestrated effort to protect him, one that is continuing even after he admitted last week that he had an affair with Ms. Hunter but denied that he fathered her child.

The lawyers are linked through Fred Baron, a wealthy Dallas lawyer and former finance chairman for the Edwards campaign who was a key player in the campaignÂ’s response to the scandal. Mr. Gordon has worked with Mr. Baron on class-action personal injury cases, and Ms. Marple helped defend a lawsuit brought against both men and their law firms by an asbestos manufacturer.

This is information that should have been quite easy to find -- if journalists bothered to look. But rather than actually check out the story, the press took it all at face value, and therefore let the story stand precisely as the Edwards spin machine wanted it to. It saved Edwards' candidacy and image for some months, and allowed him to be near the top of the VP/Cabinet list for eventual nominee Barack Obama (until he got caught with his hand in the nookie jar last month).

Now why does this matter?

Two reasons.

1. The affair and cover-up occurred during Edwards' candidacy for the Democrat nomination.
   
2. The cover-up and media complicity likely impacted the result of the entire Democrat nominating process in favor of Barack Obama.
   
3. It appears that there may be misuse of campaign funds or foundation funds to aid in the cover-up.

While some corrupt Democrats may want to argue that this affair is not the business of the public, I think the circumstances surrounding the case make it clear that this is a matter of serious public concern.

More at Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like there is more evidence that John Edwards is continuing to lie about his affair with Rielle Hunter and their love child.

Let's consider the new revelations.

1. Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!
   
2. Edwards secretly visited Rielle and their love child three separate times at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles this year
   
3. Hunter's sister said yesterday that the mistress' 6-month-old love child unmistakably "looks like John Edwards. She's got his eyes and jaw line and lips."

Seems to me that Edwards, who is undeniably a public figure despite the efforts of some corrupt Democrats to claim otherwise, is still lying to the American public -- and his dying wife. And given the financial issues involved -- especially as these issues could relate to illegal use of funds from his campaign or his non-profit foundation -- it would appear that a full-scale CRIMINAL investigation of the matter is imperative.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 2 kb.

This sums it up rather nicely.

“In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: between one candidate, John McCain, who’s had experience, been tested in war and tried in peace, another candidate who has not,’’ [Senator Joe] Lieberman said. “Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not. Between one candidate who’s a talker, and the other candidate who’s the leader America needs as our next president.”

Let's face it -- we are given a choice between a man of substance and one who is light on experience. We get to choose between one known for his bipartisanship, and one who won't even back his nation's president and troops when they have been successful because doing so would undercut his ideology. For those who truly put their country first, there should be no question of the better candidate.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

As much as the media tried to cover up John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter, the National Enquirer and the internet wouldn't let them do so. And pushed to the wall, Edwards has finally admitted what we already knew -- he and Hunter had an affair.

John Edwards admitted to ABC News in an interview with Bob Woodruff Friday that he repeatedly lied about an extramarital affair with a 42-year old campaign employee, but strenuously denied being involved in paying the woman hush money or fathering her newborn child. The former Democratic U.S. senator from North Carolina said he would be willing to take a paternity test and divulge the results publicly.

"Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006, I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time."

All well and good -- but he denied the affair this past October when confronted about it by the Enquirer and other media outlets. So not only did he cheat, but he lied about it, too.

Here's where it gets interesting -- he claims the affair happened in 2006, and that there is no way he is the father of the Hunter's child, born this past February. Hunter and a (married) former Edwards staffer CLAIM the baby is theirs -- but the former staffer (Andrew Young -- no relationship to the former UN ambassador and Atlanta mayor) is not on the birth certificate. Furthermore, Hunter lived in the home of Young, his wife and children during her pregnancy -- not the sort of thing a wronged woman usually does in such situations.

But that isn't the biggest question, in my book. To my way of thinking it is this -- why did he hire his (allegedly) former mistress to work for his campaign after the affair was over? Why put himself in that situation, in which he would have regular contact with his (allegedly) former floozie after his dying wife was informed about the affair? Set aside the insensitivity of the choice -- why bring her back into intimate contact when there could easily be other folks who could have filled her spot on the campaign?

And then there are other questions. Why visit the (allegedly) ex-mistress in a hotel in the middle of the night? Why doe he have no recollection of the baby being in the room (or of holding the kid)? And why did one of his close aides start funneling large amounts of cash to both the unemployed Hunter and unemployed Young once both were out of the campaign -- and are we really to believe that the money wasn't in some way authorized by John Edwards, either form his campaign or foundation funds? None of this passes the smell test.

And here's the kicker -- Edwards says he wants a paternity test. But lo and behold, Hunter says absolutely not -- she will never consent to allowing her (allegedly) ex-lover to clear his name, even if doing so would perhaps permit him to be considered for vice president or an early cabinet position in a future Obama administration. It seems strikingly convenient that the one thing that could mitigate most of the damage OR totally destroy him is being denied him -- all due to circumstances (allegedly) beyond his control. This enables him to eventually return to public life while claiming that there is no proof that he fathered the child.

Obvious answer -- John Edwards was doing the horizontal mambo with Rielle Hunter right up until the day that Elizabeth Edwards got her new cancer diagnosis. The baby is John Edwards illegitimate daughter -- and he is misappropriating funds to pay off both his baby-mama and the faux baby-daddy. After all -- John Edwards has already proven that he is more than willing to cheat on his sick wife and lie to cover his own well-coiffed ass. He's even prepared to send his dying wife out to attack columnists who dare write critically about him -- apparently while he is still shagging his mistress behind her back.

That makes John Edwards scum by any stretch of the imagination -- cheating, lying, stealing scum.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 738 words, total size 4 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if a former Republican candidate made such a call?

"Find out where he lives. Find out where his office is. If you've got some chutzpah - which is a word that you don't hear often - if you've really got it, find out where he lives, find out where his kids go to school, find out where his office is; picket him all the time. Call him a racist in signs if you see him. Call him an injustice. Call him whatever you want to call him, but in his face all the time. They can't take the heat; deliver it to them. We have to stop laying down to these injustices."

And since we know that Islam is a universally peaceful religion (remember 9/11, Senator), we know that no harm would come to the prosecutor's children or any other child at the targeted school.

The prosecutor's offense? Insisting that terrorist professor Sami al-Arian comply with a grand jury subpoena by providing information about the terrorists with whom he was associated. His refusal to do so has led to contempt charges at the request of the prosecutor.

I wonder what would happen if I suggested that Gravel be targeted in such a manner for his support for terrorism in this call for the harassment of a US prosecutor? What would happen if I suggested that his home and office, those of his children, and the schools of his grandchildren all be targeted -- all with signs calling Gravel a terrorist supporter? Want to bet I'd be receiving a visit from the FBI, and possibly facing criminal charges?

I'm curious -- how will the Democrats respond to this?

Will Obama denounce Gravel, who was one of the contenders with him for this year's Democrat nomination for President? Or is this acceptable to him?

Closing question -- will Gravel have a public role at Barry Hussein's coronation in Denver?

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

This is the book ranked #13 on Amazon.com.

This is book #1402 and falling like a rock) at Amazon.com.

So let's talk, folks, about who is really the most powerful woman in America.

Oh, and by the way -- look what is ranked at #12.

Maybe we need to reassess the conventional wisdom about this fall's presidential race.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

(Posted by Hube)

I swear no city is nuttier than San Francisco. You can feel totally free to drop your drawers in the middle of the city streets ... and engage in any sort of sexual activity (while even the police watch!!) but if you DARE to mix up those recycling goods? WATCH IT!!

Garbage collectors would inspect San Francisco residents' trash to make sure pizza crusts aren't mixed in with chip bags or wine bottles under a proposal by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

And if residents or businesses don't separate the coffee grounds from the newspapers, they would face fines of up to $1,000 and eventually could have their garbage service stopped.

The plan to require proper sorting of refuse would be the nation's first mandatory recycling and composting law. It would direct garbage collectors to inspect the trash to make sure it is put into the right blue, black or green bin, according to a draft of the legislation prepared by the city's Department of the Environment.

"If we're truly going to be the city we promote ourselves to be, a world-class, 21st century city that advances its values and principles, we're going to have to try new things," Newsom said Thursday. "People are used to doing things a certain way. And when you change that, they say it can't be done. Well, we've proved them wrong."

I wonder if Newsom thinks that 2008 Up Your Alley Fair (first link in first paragraph) "advances [San Fran's] values and principles"? Are those folks at the fair are "used to doing things a certain way"? What can you do to change that, Mr. Mayor?

Posted by: Hube at 08:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the conclusion of the latest Rasmussen Poll!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows the race for the White House is tied with Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 44% of the vote. However, when "leaners" are included, itÂ’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%.

This is the first time McCain has enjoyed even a statistically insignificant advantage of any sort since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3 (see recent daily results).

Now the lead is insignificant statistically at this point, but it is a first. if things continue to trend this way, we may see some real fun at the Democrat Convention in Denver.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Americans overwhelmingly support opening the outer continental shelf to drilling. Majorities in California and Florida now support such drilling, a radical change from recent years.

But there is one immovable object in the way of drilling -- Queen 9% of the House of Representatives.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday ruled out a vote on new offshore oil drilling even as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he might be open to a compromise that included it.

The scramble over expanded drilling off America's coasts — ammunition for a weekend of rat-a-tat-tat by the presidential campaigns — underscores the political power of $4-a-gallon gas. Though President Bush and other backers of new drilling acknowledge it wouldn't directly affect gas prices for years, they have pounded Democrats for opposing the measure, which is now supported by most Americans.

Pelosi called proposals to allow more offshore drilling a deceptive "decoy" rather than a solution and indicated she would bar a vote on any bill that included it. "I'm not giving the gavel away to a tactic Â… that supports the oil (companies), big oil at the cost and the expense of the consumer," she said on ABC's This Week.

The House started a five-week summer recess Friday despite Republican demands for a vote on lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said GOP representatives would be on the House floor today to protest the lack of action.

Commisar Pelosi (D-Sodom and Gomorrah) has decided -- no new drilling. Screw teh President. Screw the rest of the House. Screw the American people. We may as well rip up the Constitution and concede the reality that we live in the People's Republic of Nancy, where the only vote that counts is hers.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

No one can give a good definition, but I'll give it a shot.

A windfall profit is any profit that a group of politicians claims is too high in order to score political points by invoking class envy. There is no formulaic definition.

Take the latest attempt to create a tax on "windfall profits".

Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.

Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.

So as you can see, the distinction between "reasonable" vs. "windfall" profits is ambiguous and subjective. And in real terms, these Democrats are objecting to an 8.4% quarterly profit by Exxon, and similar levels of profit by other oil companies. Exxon's annual profit for 2007 was about 10%

But somehow that doesn't seem to be an across the board standard.

If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

Interestingly enough, no one seems interested in taking on any of those industries with larger profits as having reaped an illegitimate windfall. So it must not be a percentage figure that leads to that classification.

What does the most recent effort to impose a "windfall profits" tax say?

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience.

But 10% growth doesn't do it, either. After all, no one is talking about imposing a "windfall profits" tax on companies that grow 10, 20, or even 50 times as prodigiously outside the oil industry. And interestingly enough, the figure of 10% growth is set in absolute terms, not growth of profit as a percentage of total revenue. That means that even the shrinkage of profit as a percentage of revenue can constitute a "windfall profit" if total revenues rose due to a steep increase in raw materials.

What it comes down to, then, is that a "windfall profits" tax is in fact a "class warfare exploitation" tax, which is today directed against the politically convenient enemy du jour -- the oil companies.

But interestingly enough, nothing in this "windfall profits" tax will strike at the entity that saw a similarly steep increase in their oil-related profits -- various levels of US government, which received tax payments $64.7 billion from Exxon from 2003 to 2007. For the record, that is more than $19 billion more than Exxon's after-tax profit during the same period. But I don't hear the advocates of taxing "windfall profits" complaining about government raking in such big bucks -- they want to increase the government's take instead.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

Cindy Sheehan has turned in enough signatures to challenge Nancy Pelosi for Congress this fall.

It looks as though Independent Congressional candidate Cindy Sheehan has collected enough signatures to challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on NovemberÂ’s ballot.

Sheehan submitted 13,300 signatures to the California Department of Elections, which is about 30 percent more than the 10,198 required to qualify for the ballot and certification will just be a formality, according to campaign workers.

“We found that a lot of people are upset about Nancy Pelosi funding the war,” says Sheehan who collected many of the signatures herself. “People also want to see more Democracy, more choice and more debate.”

Also in the race for Congressional District number 8, which covers most of San Francisco, is Libertarian candidate Philip Berg and Republican Dana Walsh.

I'd like to encourage my fellow conservatives to consider the options here. We have a Libertarian who doesn't have a chance on the ballot, and a Republican whose chances aren't much better. Why don't we all drop a few bucks Sheehan's direction and give Queen 9% a run for her money?

Besides, imagine the hilarity if Sheehan actually won! That would be worth the price of admission all by itself!

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

If Obama is so popular, why is the percentage of Americans identifying as Democrats decreasing?

During July, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats fell two percentage points to 39.2%. ThatÂ’s the first time since January that the number of Democrats has fallen below 41% (see history from January 2004 to present).

While the number of Democrats declined, there was virtually no change in the number of Republicans. In July, 31.6% said they were Republicans, the fourth straight month that number has been between 31.4% and 31.6%.

The Democrats now have a 7.6 percentage point advantage over the Republicans, down from a 9.5 percentage point advantage in June and 10.1 percentage points in May.

Which means, of course, that the Democrats have lost 25% of their edge in two months, while Republicans have remained firm. At this rate, we could see the partisan advantage drop to as little as 2-3% by Election day.

I wonder -- could this have anything to do with the lack of any serious effort to address the energy issue on the part of the Jackass Party?

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogger and columnist Don Surber writes the following in response to Paris Hilton's mother's PuffHo column about the "Celebrity" ad:

I donÂ’t like the ad. But McCain should return the $4,600 that the Hiltons donated and tell them to buy panties for their daughters.

What more is there to add?

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, someone is finally pointing out the obvious -- sort of.

A dispute over whether black U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama has played the "race card" won't swing the election but could make it harder for voters to trust him, analysts said on Friday.

No African American has ever been elected to the White House and in a country where memories of racial strife and discrimination against the minority are still fresh, Obama must work harder to overcome his doubters, they said on Friday.

References to the Democratic senator's race, if they are seen as clumsy, do not help Obama make the case that he is the most reliable choice to lead the country as it struggles with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an ailing economy.

No let's begin with certain caveats here.

1. There are individuals out there whose rejection of Barack Obama is based upon his race.
   
2. There are also individuals -- especially among African-Americans -- whose support for Obama is based upon his race.
   

Those points taken together, though, do not add up to this being a campaign based upon race -- at least not on the Republican side. I've not met a Republican whose objections to Barack Obama are based upon anything other than his ideology and his inexperience. Indeed, a great many of us find Obama to be a charming, interesting man with whom we would love to sit down and toss back a couple of adult beverages of our choice. We just don't think that he is the right guy for America in 2008. Opposition to his candidacy does not equate to personal animus -- and certainly not to racial animus.

However, in recent days we have seen Obama (and his surrogates) make specific claims of racial politics against John McCain and his campaign. But as quickly as he made the accusation, he denied it.

I was in Union, Mo., which is 98 percent white — a rural, conservative [town]. and what I said was what I think everybody knows, which is that I don't look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates. But that I think that what people are really concerned about, what they're looking for is fundamental change on the economy, things that are going to help their families live out the American dream.

There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this. What this has become I think is a typical pattern from the McCain campaign, whether it's Paris Hilton or Britney or this phony allegation that I wouldn't visit troops. They seem to be focused on a negative campaign, [when] what I think our campaign wants to do is focus on the issues that matter to American families.

Oh, so it was all about negative campaigning, Senator?

Then explain this.

But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, acknowledged on "Good Morning America" Friday that the candidate was referring, at least in part, to his ethnic background.

When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told "GMA" it meant, "He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American."

Excuse me -- those two comments just don't square up. Either it was an accusation that the McCain campaign is making race-based appeals, or it wasn't. it can't be both -- and you can't find a wishy-washy middle ground between these two statements.

Which is just the latest reason that Americans are going to have a trust issue involving Obama.

"I don't think he (Obama) did himself any good with these comments. What he did ... is inject back into this context the idea about (voters') ... comfort level," said [political commentator Terry] Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania.

"What he said is not exactly rap talk, black speak, but that is something that Obama has to be very careful about. He just can't let people believe that they can't trust him."

And that is what conflicting messages on this issue creates -- an indication that Barack Obama can't be trusted. But then again, given his flip-flops on virtually every issue, can we really trust the man anyway?

Hot Air offers a particularly interesting analysis of the Obama campaign on this point -- and the slavish devotion of the True Believers at the New York Times. They also point out the more independent coverage at the Washington Post.

UPDATE: Looks like Barry Hussein can't stick to the same story from one interview to the next.

“I don’t think it’s accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race,” Obama said.

I guess that would be change he' hopes the American people will not notice -- or will buy into despite it contradicting his earlier denial.

H/T Sister Toldjah, LGF

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 6 kb.

Great new video from the McCain Campaign!

Damn funny video -- damn serious question.

Is Obama ready to lead, with the experience necessary to occupy the Oval Office?

Well, let's take this expert on Barack Obama and see what he has to say.

I don't think I have a place in history yet. I got elected to the U.S. Senate. I haven't done anything yet.

Those are Obama's words about himself, less than two months after he took office as a US Senator. On the same interview in which he made that damning assessment of his lack of accomplishments and experience, he also said he would not run for president in 2008. He announced his candidacy less than two years later -- despite having no significant accomplishments during that short time in the US Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Queen 9% was not amused when Republicans tried to block adjournment and refused to leave the House floor after the Democrats irresponsibly voted for a 5-week paid vacation for themselves but not for an energy bill that would help the American people.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one was witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

* * *

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

"You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.

Update: The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore.

Eventually the Republicans were able to continue their protest against the repressive tactics of Commisar Nancy Pelosi (D-Sodom and Gomorrah), ending at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, having made their point that the Democrats have refused to do the people's business and attempted to silence the people's representatives and muzzle the press. Personally, I wish they had camped out on the House floor.

Bravo for the good men and women who participated in these actions -- I can't wait to see the video begin appearing in Democrat districts around the country.

More Coverage from Michelle Malkin (blogging extensively), Don Surber, STACLU, Ace, RedState, Gateway Pundit, Patterico, PowerLine, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 5 kb.

Greetings, Rhyme With Righters! Robert fromJoshuaPundit here.

Thanks to Greg's courtesy and his impending vacation, I'll be attempting to fill his shoes somewhat over the next two weeks...a tall order, but I'll do my best.

Now to biz:

President Bush suffered what could end up being a major defeat in the courts yesterday, as a federal judge, John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that ex-White House Aides Harriet Mires and Joshua Bolton are not covered by executive privilege,are required to comply with the subpoena issued to them by the House Judiciary Committee and must testify under oath in front of Congress and cooperate in the overblown saga of the fired US attorneys, one that has already claimed the scalp of Alberto Gonzales

John Conyers, Democrat head of committee almost literally went berserk with joy.

The Democrats have been in a take-no-prisoners attitude towards George W. Bush since they regained the House and Senate majorities in 2006,and the current Congress has a unique smell to it....a stench or pursuing private perks and vendettas rather than the people's business.

The White House will likely appeal this decision,which means this matter will spill over into the next administration. We will likely be treated to a spectacle unique in our history, the hounding and perhaps even the prosecution of a president after he's left office.

As I write this, the House is holding a "special hearing on 'the Constitutional limits of executive power'..or as one congressman put it 'impeachment lite'.

The politics of the possible...and you better not get between a dog and his meat, suckah!

If President Bush had plans of riding off into the sunset and enjoying a quiet retirement, he'd better think again.

Posted by: RobertM at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.