Rhymes With Right

February 13, 2008

A Little Racism And Anti-Semitism -- Brought To You By The Democrats

Somehow the national media has avoided this story about blatant bigotry at work in the Democrat Party in Tennessee. I wonder why the only major media source covering this is a blog for the Washington Post?

Yeah, that's right -- the Klan with a Tan is back at work. Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN9) is too white and too Jewish to be allowed to represent a district in Memphis that is predominantly black and Christian -- and securely Democrat.

If you thought race was an uncomfortable issue in the Democratic presidential primary, wait 'til you get a load of what's going on in the Democratic primary in the Memphis area's 9th District of Tennessee, where a shockingly worded flier paints Jewish Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) as a Jesus hater.
"Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus," blares the flier, which Cohen himself received in the mail -- inducing gasps -- last week.
Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn't even in Cohen's district, the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to "see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election."

Congressman Cohen's (black) opponent, Nikki Tinker, cannot even stir herself to condemn this vile garbage. She is clearly unfit for ANY office -- and any black minister in the vicinity who does not loudly condemn this sort of garbage is unfit for his or her pulpit.

Oh, wait -- the black ministers of the area already started a race-baiting pogrom against Cohen several months ago. I guess that you don't have to be a Christian to pastor a black church in Memphis -- for in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, or any other racial distinction.

But if this is the game the game that these folks want to play in 2008, maybe Hillary Clinton can adopt the the following slogan for her future campaign ads:

Barack Obama: Too Black For America

Somehow I think that we would not see anything approaching the level of silence that we have gotten in the case of these race and religion based attacks on Cohen.

Speaking for myself, I condemn the attack on Cohen, the ministers making it, and the Democrat Party for not speaking out against it.

I further invite anyone offended by such racism to join the party of inclusion and equality -- the Republican Party.

And to quote the always spot-on Ed Morrissey:

We've listened to insults from Democrats for years for far less than this.

After all, this is real bigotry, not the ersatz kind the Democrats accuse the Republican Party of supporting.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 5 kb.

February 12, 2008

The Hillary Problem

Gee, Maureen, we on the Right have only been saying this for the last few YEARS!

As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you canÂ’t take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.
Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says sheÂ’s learned from her mistakes, but thatÂ’s not a compelling pitch.

Hillary Clinton is, arguably, an impressive woman. She is, arguably, intelligent and competent. But the reality is that we cannot separate her from Bill Clinton in the popular mind. She not only made it to the top by marrying well and promoting her husband's career until it gave her a springboard into the national limelight, she did so in a way that excused his every flaw and put personality above principle. Indeed, much of her campaign is based upon her husband's presidency, not any compelling aspect of her own life, experience, or qualifications.

The day is coming -- and will hopefully come soon -- when we elect a woman to the White House. But when that day comes, we need to be electing her -- or rejecting her, for that matter -- on her own merits. That will never happen with Hillary, which is part of why we are seeing such weakness in her candidacy. I just wish the feet of clay had not been exposed until after she had secured the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

McCain & Obama Sweep Chesapeake

John McCain now needs only about 300 delegates to win the GOP nomination outright. Barack Obama has surged into the lead in the Democrat delegate count. And all this with just three primaries on a single day.

Senator Barack Obama rolled to victory by large margins in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia on Tuesday, extending his winning streak over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to eight Democratic nominating contests.
The outcome provided him his first chance to assert that the Democratic race, which had seemed to be heading into a protracted standoff, is beginning to break in his direction. And it left Mrs. Clinton facing weeks in which she has few opportunities for the kind of victory that would alter the race in her favor after a string of defeats notable not just for their number but also their magnitude.

* * *
In TuesdayÂ’s contests, Mr. Obama showed impressive strength among not only the groups that have backed him in earlier contests Â— blacks, younger voters, the affluent and self-described independents Â— but also among older voters, women and lower-income people, the core of Mrs. ClintonÂ’s support up to now, according to exit polls. Mr. Obama also won majorities of white men and Hispanic voters in Virginia, though not in Maryland.
With almost all precincts reporting, Mr. Obama won 75 percent of the vote in the District of Columbia and 64 percent in Virginia. He had 60 percent of the vote in Maryland with results from 67 percent of the precincts.
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain won in Virginia over Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, virtually eliminating any threat that Mr. Huckabee might have posed to Mr. McCainÂ’s status as his partyÂ’s all but certain nominee.
Mr. Huckabee got a boost from conservative and evangelical Christian voters in the state, but not enough to overcome support among moderates and nonevangelical Christians for Mr. McCain, who won 50 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain also prevailed in the District of Columbia, with 68 percent of the vote, and in Maryland, where he had 55 percent of the vote with 67 percent of the precincts reporting.

My fellow Republicans, it is time to accept the reality that this race is over on our side. Barring a miracle -- like winning every remaining state with 75% of the vote -- Mike Huckabee is effectively out of the race for the nomination EXCEPT as a way of expressing your discontent with McCain, something I feel is better done by casting your vote for the candidate of your choice (in my case Mitt Romney) than for the last challenger standing. But regardless of this race, remember it is still important for you to vote in the primary because of all the down-ballot races, whether we are talking about Congress, the state legislature, or local races.

On the Democrat side, I see a stark choice. The Democrats have to decide between a moderately qualified candidate with high negatives and an ill-defined novice whose appeal is more charismatic than anything else. A vote either way sows dissension, due to the skill with which each side has played interest group politics and divided the voting blocs within their party. Ultimately, I urge Democrats to remember that the important thing is not which first comes first, but rather which candidate will be a more effective president. I don't pretend to offer advice as to which one that is, simply ask that you pick wisely for the good of the nation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

Election Problems In Fort Bend County?

So it would appear, according to Fort Bend Now.

Fort Bend County Elections Administrator J.R. Perez is concerned that the county wonÂ’t be able to handle an anticipated high voter turnout at the March 4 primary elections, and heÂ’s taking that concern to county Commissioners Court today.
Florida experienced a 45% voter turnout Â– three times the normal turnout Â– and California also saw numbers approaching triple its normal voter turnout, Perez said.
Â“If we have even two times the normal turnout, it would be 35% to 40%Â” of the voters turning out in Fort Bend County, Perez said Tuesday morning. Â“We donÂ’t have the equipment to handle a 40% turnout. No matter what I do, I donÂ’t have enough equipment.Â”

Excuse me? You donÂ’t have the machines to handle a 40% turnout? What were you planning to do in November, during the general election?

And then there is this asinine statement.

Perez said he has been calculating the anticipated amount of time it will take people in various Fort Bend County precincts to vote in the March election, giving the anticipated high turnout, and the number of available election workers and voting machines.
In numerous cases, he found it would require 14 hours or more in order for everyone to cast their ballots.
Unfortunately, poll locations are only open for 12 hours.

Not exactly true.

While polling places in Texas are open from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Election Day, state law requires that every voter in line at 7:00 PM be permitted to vote before the polls are closed. And while this might cause the precinct conventions to start late in many precincts, that inconvenience is a small price to pay to ensure that every voter does get to vote.

But if Fort Bend County Elections Administrator J.R. Perez doesnÂ’t realize that the polls must remain open Â– after not ensuring that the county had sufficient voting machines Â– then perhaps he needs to be replaced.

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

End WomenÂ’s Suffrage?

After reading this article, IÂ’m not sure that the Nineteenth Amendment was such a great idea.

You can see it in their flushed-face smiles and hear it in their screams. They say the phenomenon is difficult to describe, but once they experience it they tell their friends, sisters, mothers and daughters, and they come back for more if they can.
"He's very charismatic. It was a 'you-had-to-be-there' kind of experience," said Lolita Breckenridge, 37, after hearing Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama address a packed rally at the University of Maryland on Monday.
A dedicated supporter, she brought two of her friends to hear the Illinois senator deliver one of his much-talked-about speeches.
"Not too much of the speech was new to me," she admitted. "But hearing him live..." she trailed off, shaking her head and grinning.
When Obama addressed the crowd of 16 000 on the eve of primaries which he is tipped to win in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC, he carried himself with his habitual worldly confidence, interspersed talk of foreign policy with recollections of his childhood and even poked political fun at his Republican adversaries.
He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female's cry of "I love you Obama!" with a reassuring: "I love you back."

Oh.

Come.

On.

And if anything, the stories in this article get even more saccharine sweet. But what the article fails to deal with, but Hillary Clinton points out in this article, is that Obama is lacking in any specifics.

But then again if all you are into is sex appeal and vague promises of Â“changeÂ” by a candidate who you want to Â“Barack My WorldÂ” I guess that substantive policy proposals arenÂ’t all that important.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

February 11, 2008

Will Texas And Ohio Save Or Doom Hillary?

She's likely going to get dumped on today in the Chesapeake Primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC. That means she needs some big wins -- and Ohio and Texas seem to fit the bill.

Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.
They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.
Â“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or sheÂ’s out,Â” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. Â“The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.Â” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

This means, of course, that we folks here in Texas should expect the former First Lady to be in the state a great deal over the next three weeks. That also means that we will see a lot of her husband in town as well. Quick! Lock up the women!

But seriously, folks, this is a race that was supposed to be all locked up by now, according to the conventional wisdom. That it isn't is a sign of big trouble for the Clinton campaign, which is taking body blow after body blow with defeats in the primaries. And with polling numbers favoring Obama in the general election, there is a serious question about who the Democrats will nominate.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama/Guevara 2008?

Look what showed up in the Houston headquarters of the Barack Obama campaign!

Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama already has an issue with wearing American Flag lapel pins, and even with putting his hand over his heart when the American National Anthem is playing. It will be interesting to see how he'll react (if at all) to the flag hanging in one of his new campaign offices in Houston, Texas.

Yep, that's right -- that is the national flag of Cuba hanging on the wall with none other than Che Guevara superimposed on it.

I somehow doubt that will go over well here in Houston. I hope our Cuban-American County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez makes a big issue out of this one. After all, is a candidate promoting communism -- and a murderous beast like Che -- out of his campaign office really fit to be President of the United States?

UPDATE: Captain Ed has some pointed comments on this situation -- and is involved in a war of words with John Cole of Balloon Juice over it. Cole wants to paint it as a protest against America's Cuba policy -- but is that really what this is?

Besides, Cole and his commenters, as well as the DUmmies (according to Flopping Aces, who waded into the feever swamp), are arguing that it isn't a big deal since the office is currently staffed only with volunteers -- that it would only be significant if there were actual paid staff working there. I'm curious -- would they take the same position if there were Swastika flag with the face of Hitler in a John McCain office? How about something more innocuous -- a Confederate flag with a portrait of Robert E. Lee? Am I alone in believing that there would be a sh!t storm over either of those displays, and that the Left would insist that it didn't matter if the workers were volunteers or not?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady's World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, the so called me, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, A Newt One, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 4 kb.

More Assassination Talk

Who cares what a dumb boxer with a history of racist talk has to say about Barack Obama?

World champion boxer Bernard Hopkins, who will fight the undefeated Briton Joe Calzaghe in April, believes black Democratic contender Barak Obama would be assassinated "within months" if he became US president in November.
Hopkins, the world light-heavyweight boxing champion, told The Independent on Sunday: "I don't think America is ready for an African-American in the White House. If he gets the nomination they won't let him become president, but if they do, it will be for a short time, maybe less than a month or two. His life would be in jeopardy.
"People may say it is time for change but when it comes down to it, I don't think America is ready for that type of heat."
Hopkins, 43, arguably the most politically controversial figure in US sport since Muhammad Ali, has been accused of being racially motivated for saying he would "never lose to a white boy". He refused to retract the comment when he came face to face this week with Calzaghe, the undefeated world super-middleweight champion, in London.

IÂ’ll put my money on the Brit, Calzaghe.

Not because he is white, but because Hopkins is a racist who believes that his political views are particularly significant. The reality is that Obama is popular among most Americans, and even those of us on the GOP side respect him and generally like him. But I do not see the level of racial animosity Â– other than that stoked by the Clintons for their own political ambitions Â– that Hopkins is claiming exists here.

IÂ’m wondering Â– will Hillary denounce this supporter and his hateful words?

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 AM | Comments (158) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Tom Lantos Â– RIP

I donÂ’t have to agree with you to respect you.

We donÂ’t have to come from the same political party.

You just have to be a decent person.

The US House of Representatives lost one of those today.

Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, has died. He was 80.
Spokeswoman Lynne Weil said Lantos died early Monday at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in suburban Maryland. He was surrounded by his wife, Annette, two daughters, and many of his 18 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
Annette Lantos said in a statement that her husband's life was "defined by courage, optimism, and unwavering dedication to his principles and to his family."
Lantos, a Democrat who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee, disclosed last month that he had been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus. He said at the time that he would serve out his 14th term but would not seek re-election in his Northern California district, which takes in the southwest portion of San Francisco and suburbs to the south including Lantos' home of San Mateo.
White House press secretary Dana Perino announced the news of Lantos' death to reporters at a morning briefing.

And I never doubted that this amazing man truly loved this country Â– or that he was an example of just how great this country is.

Lantos, who referred to himself as "an American by choice," was born to Jewish parents in Budapest, Hungary, and was 16 when Adolf Hitler occupied Hungary in 1944. He survived by escaping twice from a forced labor camp and coming under the protection of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who used his official status and visa-issuing powers to save thousands of Hungarian Jews.
Lantos' mother and much of his family perished in the Holocaust.
* * *
"It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a member of Congress," Lantos said upon announcing his retirement last month. "I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country."

Â“An American by choice.Â” What a marvelous phrase. Indeed, what a tribute to the country he loved. And what a beautiful tribute to this country, where he truly lived out the American dream.

But that was not the only turn of phrase that will stick in my mind. When confronting internet executives who had turned over information about dissidents to the Red Chinese dictators, Lantos was forthright.

"Morally, you are pygmies," he berated top executives of Yahoo Inc. at a hearing he called in November 2007 as they defended their company's involvement in the jailing of a Chinese journalist.

I wish I had said that, for it expresses my sentiments better than I did at the time.

And then there is this profoundly moving happening in his life, something I had not known but which is in many ways proof of the old saying that love overcomes time and place and events.

In 1950 he married Annette, his childhood sweetheart, with whom he'd managed to reunite after the war.

How do you manage to find the ones you love after a profoundly evil happening like the Holocaust? That they managed to do so is a tribute to the love they had for each other Â– a love that endured for some six decades. My deepest condolences to Annette Lantos and her family.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

February 10, 2008

Krugman Demands "Quit Picking On Hillary!"

If you can't stand the heat, have your shills in the media demand that your opponents turn down the oven.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the partyÂ’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I wonÂ’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. IÂ’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. WeÂ’ve already had that from the Bush administration Â— remember Operation Flight Suit? We really donÂ’t want to go there again.

Of course, the problem is that the "Clinton rules" were developed during a time when we had an administration in office that was dishonest to its root. If the Clinton's claimed it was raining, you still needed to look outside just to make sure. The ease with which the Clintons lied and attempted to reinvent themselves was striking -- and the damage that they did to this country was horrific.

I don't want to see Barack Obama elected president. i think he is wrong for America. But I do believe that he has a moral compass -- something that is sorely lacking on both sides of the Clinton marriage. And if noting that fact makes either me or th supporters of Barack Obama "unfair" to Hillary Clinton, then the problem is with the media lap dogs who view the Clintons as American royalty to whom there should be incredible deference.

After all, Mr. Krugman, the Clintons earnd the contempt in which they are held by much of the American public.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

Al-Qaeda Calls Surge A Success For US, Pelosi Calls It A Failure

I guess it all comes down to how you view the goals.

If it was defeating the enemies of the US, it is a success.

On the other hands, it is an unmitigated disaster if the goal is providing the Democrats with an issue to beat the Republicans with.

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman, said the documents released Sunday offered proof that al-Qaida in Iraq had been severely disrupted by the so-called awakening movement and changing U.S. tactics, but he stressed the terror network was by no means defeated.
The military said the two documents were discovered last year by American troops in November as the Sunni movement that began in Anbar province was spreading to Baghdad and surrounding areas.
One was a 39-page memo written by a mid- to high-level al-Qaida official with knowledge of the group's operations in Iraq's western Anbar province; the other a 16-page diary written by another group leader north of Baghdad.
The documents tell "narrow but compelling stories of the challenges al-Qaida in Iraq is facing," Smith told reporters in Baghdad. "This does not signal the end of al-Qaida in Iraq, but it is a contemporary account of the challenges posed to terrorists from the people of Iraq."
He said the documents are believed to be authentic because they contain details that only al-Qaida in Iraq leaders could know about battlefield movements and tactics. The U.S. military gave reporters partially redacted copies of the full diary but only four pages of the Anbar document, citing security reasons.
In the Anbar document, the author acknowledges a growing weariness among Sunni citizens of militants' presence and the U.S.-led crackdowns against them. He also expresses frustration with foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight.
"The Islamic State of Iraq is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar," the author wrote, referring to an umbrella group of insurgents led by al-Qaida.
Smith also quoted the document as lamenting the loss of "cities and afterward, villages," adding "we find ourselves in a wasteland desert."
It said U.S.-led forces had learned from their mistakes and improved security had made it harder to transport weapons and suicide belts and forced foreign fighters to go underground because of their distinctive dialects.
The military said the memo was believed to have been written last summer and was intended for the author's superiors.
The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" Â— a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said.

So with such words coming from al-Qaeda leaders, you would think that leading Democrats would admit that the Surge accomplished major goals, especially since there is progress on every single one of the political goals as well, even if that concession were good for the Republicans. After all, US military success is good for America, and patriots put America first.

Which is why Nancy Pelosi desperately tried to present the Surge as a failure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq Â“is a failure,Â” adding that President BushÂ’s troop surge has Â“not produced the desired effect.Â”
Â“The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,Â” Pelosi said on CNNÂ’s Â“Late Edition.Â” Â“They have not done that.Â”
The speaker hastened to add: Â“The troops have succeeded, God bless them.Â”
PelosiÂ’s harsh verdict is a reminder of the dilemma for Democrats as they head into this fallÂ’s presidential and congressional elections:
They need to make the case that the country needs to depart from the direction set by Bush. Yet they donÂ’t want to look like naysayers at a time when Iraq has become more stable, albeit still violent.

And those who argue that it is the GOP unfairly trying to paint the Democrats as defeatists, please consider that we are not providing Pelosi and other Democrats with their talking point.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

Obama-Rama Weekend!

Barack Obama goes four for four this weekend in the Democrat nominating contests.

Senator Barack Obama defeated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Maine caucuses on Sunday, giving him his fourth victory this weekend as he headed into three more state contests on Tuesday.
With 90 percent of MaineÂ’s precincts reporting, Mr. Obama received 58.7 percent of the vote, compared with 40.7 percent for Mrs. Clinton.
Voter turnout in parts of Maine was reported to be strong on Sunday afternoon, despite a snowstorm. The Portland Press Herald reported on its Web site that there were long lines at the caucus in Portland, while a large crowd in Cape Elizabeth delayed the start of the caucus there by more than an hour.
Mr. ObamaÂ’s victory in Maine follows those in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday. Combined with his advantage in fund-raising, these victories should give him momentum going the primaries on Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

And this should be an interesting race, filled as it is with establishment Democrats AND a major city which is overwhelmingly African-American. The Clinton campaign had expected to be done with the nomination fight by now, but that is not anywhere close -- or anywhere near certain to happen at all.

So what is the solution? A Clinton campaign shake-up!

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton replaced campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams on Sunday, a staff shake-up coming just hours after presidential rival Barack ObamaÂ’s Saturday sweep of three contests.
Campaign aides said Solis Doyle made the decision to leave on her own and was not urged to do so by the former first lady or any other senior member of the team. But it comes as Clinton struggles to catch Obama in fundraising and momentum and faces the prospect of losing every voting contest yet to come in February. On Sunday, Obama also won the caucus count in Maine.
Solis Doyle announced the shift in an e-mail to the staff on Sunday.

And how many of us believe that Solis Doyle REALTY made the decision to quite without being pushed by Hillary and her other close advisers? Not many, I'm sure. But will this change really help the campaign at all? And will dumping a Hispanic woman for a black woman really be of any benefit for a campaign that is strong among Hispanics and weak among African-Americans? Frankly, there is an air of desperation hanging about the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 10:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Disunited Dems

When you play the race card for political advantage, it is only appropriate that it come back to bite you in the ass.

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. ThatÂ’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasnÂ’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. ClintonÂ’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didnÂ’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote Â“is not going to count for anything.Â”
Last month, two eminent African-American historians who have served in government, Mary Frances Berry (in the Carter and Clinton years) and Roger Wilkins (in the Johnson administration), wrote Howard Dean, the DemocratsÂ’ chairman, to warn him of the perils of that credentials fight. Last week, Mr. Dean became sufficiently alarmed to propose brokering an Â“arrangementÂ” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasnÂ’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?
A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

But let's face it -- the Democrats have lived by sowing racial division for the entire life of their party. They have made a fine art of it in the last few decades, convincing groups with diametrically opposed interests that they are all on the same side. Now the ethnic chickens come home to roost -- and may bring about a major realignment of American political life before our eyes at this year's Democrat convention.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

MSNBC Double Standard Alert

My buddy Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey notes this double-standard from MSNBC.

As Mike Matthews reported when it happened (as did many other places, but I like to highlight the local blogs that nail it quickly!), MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended indefinitely for saying that Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out in some weird sort of way" regarding her supposed contacting of "super delegates" on behalf of her mom's campaign. There's news that he actually was close to being fired on the spot for the comment. I think Shuster's comments probably were inappropriate, but that even a suspension is just plain ridiculous. The term "pimped" doesn't exclusively mean what it used to.

But consider: If Shuster can get suspended for that comment, and possibly even fired, what about Keith Olbermann? Olbermann has also apologized for Shuster, by the way ("David has been suspended and remains only for me to apologize without limit to President Clinton and to Ms. Clinton on behalf of MSNBC. We are literally, dreadfully sorry." "Literally, dreadfully sorry"?? Please, someone clean up my vomit! -- Hube); however, he used the very same term regarding President Bush and General David Petraeus back on Sept. 20!

Don't hold your breath. But like Shuster, I don't think Olbermann should even be suspended for his comments, but it surely demonstrates the clear double-standard: Against Republicans and conservatives, feel free to use whatever language you want.

Now we can debate about the issue of whether or not the use of the word "pimping" is appropriate in either case -- but I'm hard pressed to see how it is acceptable to use the term about a career military officer providing truthful information to Congress about a successful military policy while unacceptable to use it about a child acting as surrogate for a candidate, especially when that candidate for years has insisted that the child is not a part of their political life and is off-limits for any comments, much less criticism. After all, remember the outrage over this little SNL gem.

And even after Chelsea became an adult, the Clintons demanded that she be treated as apolitical. Now that Mrs. Clinton is making use of this "apolitical asset, is it not legitimate fodder for comment?

But when you suspend one "professional journalist" over the use of the term while promoting another as your network's biggest draw when he has used the same word (and worse) is rank hypocrisy.

But then again, this incident also illustrates Hillary Clinton's unfitness for office. Her little snit over David Shuster's words tells me that she is going to demand to control press coverage of her and her administration, and punish journalists who speak of her and her administration in ways she dislikes. Heck, that is a bigger threat to a free press than anything done by the Bush Administration, which didn't even prosecute journalist who violated federal law by disclosing classified national security information during time of war!

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 5 kb.

February 09, 2008

Mitt Romney -- The Future Of The Conservative Movement

I'm glad to see this move by leading conservatives.

Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.
Participants said the group was not organizing against the presidential bid of Sen. John McCain, the party"s presumptive nominee, but only seeking to revive core values such as lower taxes, limited government and free speech.
"The purpose of the meeting was for him to announce his willingness to fight shoulder to shoulder with true conservatives from here on out," said political strategist Paul Erickson, who worked for Mr. Romney"s campaign. "He did just that."

In 1964, Ronald Reagan became the face and voice of the conservative movement in America with "the speech". His years as governor and work for conservative values eventually led him to the White House and immortality as one of America's greatest presidents.

Mitt Romney has the potential to take up the leadership mantle laid down by the Gipper as he faded into the twilight of Alzheimer's Disease. If he accepts this challenge, I predict that he will be our president one day -- perhaps in as few as four years.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Eurotrash Liberal Predicts Obama Assassination

"They" will assassinate him if he is elected.

If Barack Obama becomes the next US president he will surely be assassinated, British Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing predicted in a newspaper interview published here on Saturday.
Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.

No words on who the mysterious "they" would be.

However "they" will do it and quickly -- but would be mollified if Hillary Clinton were to become president instead.

Clearly the senile dementia has set in.

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

February 08, 2008

The Problem Of Double Standards In Political Speech/Contribution Limitation Laws

I recently got into a bit of a debate with a Democrat over the issue of political participation limitation legislation like McCain-Feingold. Having been accused of Â“confusing money with speechÂ” and Â“supporting the buying of electionsÂ”, I noted one of the fundamental inequities of the current law Â– namely that while cash and Â“in kindÂ” donations are strictly limited on the assumption that a successful candidate will Â“owe somethingÂ” to a campaign contributor who Â“expects somethingÂ” once the recipient is in office.

However, letÂ’s think about that for a minute. Setting aside the fact that support for such legislation betrays the low ethical standards of the proponents of such legislation, who recognize that their own willingness to be bought and sold for a few dollars cash. LetÂ’s instead consider that such legislation does not take into account that volunteering for a campaign also constitutes the contribution of a thing of value (namely, the volunteerÂ’s time and labor). After all, if the expertise of such an individual may be quite valuable Â– for example, a CPA who serves as an unpaid campaign treasurer. Why shouldnÂ’t such an individualÂ’s participation be capped at the number of hours that would bring their contribution to the contribution limit when valued at their standard hourly rate? After all, havenÂ’t they effectively given the maximum contribution Â– and more Â– via their donated time and work? CanÂ’t it be equally presumed that they Â“expect somethingÂ” from a candidate who now Â“owes themÂ” for this contributed time, work, and expertise? And what of paid campaign staffers, such as those from the Clinton campaign, who decide to forgo salaries in the interest of preserving campaign cash for their candidates. Aren't those contributions, in some cases exceeding the $2300 limit when combined wih cash contributions tehy may already have made?

What about speeches, endorsements, or commercial appearances by celebrities?
DonÂ’t they have a high value, every bit as insidiously corrupting as a check? For example, how much does a speech by Oprah Winfrey cost? I donÂ’t know, but IÂ’d imagine that it would easily exceed $25,000 Â– if it doesnÂ’t exceed $50,000? ShouldnÂ’t Barack Obama and his campaign be required to count her appearances and speeches at events as in-kind contributions, given that OprahÂ’s product is Oprah? Moreover, if counted as such, wouldnÂ’t that violate federal contribution limits in presidential races? What does Obama Â“oweÂ” Oprah, and what is the something that she expects from him in return for her services, which are easily valued at well over ten times the legal contribution limit?

One would object, quite rightly, that subjecting Obama and Oprah to criminal or civil penalties for her political activity on his behalf would be fundamentally contrary to the First Amendment, as it would severely curtail her ability to exercise her rights under the First Amendment, despite the high cash value of this Â“in-kindÂ” contribution. After all, her contribution is quintessentially American in nature.

But the reality is that the value being protected by the First Amendment goes beyond freedom of speech, press, and association -- it is the free and unfettered ability of individuals to participate in the political process, including by banding together to engage in speech on behalf of candidates. For some of us the most effective way is to give our time. For others it is the donation of needed materials. For still others it is their words. No form of contribution should be either privileged or limited, though reasonable requirements on disclosure and reporting are arguably acceptable. LetÂ’s make all Americans and their respective forms of contribution equal again by removing all artificial government imposed limits on such all-American activity.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, A Newt One- BIG THURSDAY GUEST!, , Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Wake Up America, Stageleft, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, A Newt One- Shared News!, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 8 kb.

Mitt Romney Â– Patriot

I didn't get a chance to read over Mitt Romney's speech yesterday. Now that I have, I'd argue that this is the real money passage, the one that reveals the principles that led Romney to withdraw from the race for the nomination.

If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me.
I entered this race Â— I entered this race because I love America. And because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.
I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I'll fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of the things we believe in is that we cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism.
It is the common task of each generation and the burden of liberty to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit, so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.
To this task, accepting this burden, we're all dedicated. And I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope.
America must always remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth.

A presidential race should never be about what the electorate can do for the candidate Â– it should be, to paraphrase a president from Massachusetts, about what that candidate can do for the country as president. Mitt Romney recognized that and stood aside for that reason. He has not abandoned the principles upon which he campaigned, but he instead recognizes that the best way to see them carried to fruition is to allow an opponent to carry the banner of the GOP. That is a true rejection of the "Politics of I" in favor of the "Politics of We".

I respected Mitt Romney when I endorsed him a year ago. I supported him over the last year, even when other candidates appealed to me more on some issues, because I believed Mitt Romney to be the candidate most suited to implement a vision parallel to mine and that of my party for the good of the country. And I admire Mitt Romney even more today, having seen him withdraw from the race rather than fight to the bitter end and harm the prospect of seeing victory abroad and constitutionally limited government at home.

And for the record, I will be voting for Mitt Romney in the Texas GOP Primary on March 4 -- because it is important to make clear that while I will support McCain in the general election, he is not my choice as the nominee.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 AM | Comments (256) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

February 07, 2008

John McCain Makes His Case

In his CPAC speech, John McCain laid out the reasons why conservative principles are better served by supporting him than by allowing either of the Democrat contenders.

For those who argue he is not conservative enough, the stark differences McCain laid out and the pledges he made should be sufficient to lead you to support his candidacy if you love this country.

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.
I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.
I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.
They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.
I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.
They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.
I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.
I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.
They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.
I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.
I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

Now it is up to McCain to continue to reach out to the conservative base and to make it clear that we are valued and will be heard in his administration, even if our position does not always prevail.

And let's be clear about something. I have my issues with John McCain. If he is elected president, I'll fight him when he's wrong, just as I did President Bush. But it is clear that John McCain is substantially less wrong than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and so I must be prepared to cast my vote that direction in November.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 988 words, total size 6 kb.

Mitt Out -- Senate Run In Future?

And my heart gets officially broken in 2008.

The presidential race Mitt Romney planned for years crashed to a halt Thursday, stopped in its tracks by the surprisingly durable John McCain campaign and by Romney's failure to quell concerns about his shifts on key issues, his political persona and his Mormon religion.
Making the dramatic announcement at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference at a Washington hotel, Romney clearly hoped to preserve the goodwill of his party for another possible bid in 2012. He intends to run again in four years, according to a senior member of his inner circle.
"He should be president. 2012," the confidant e-mailed after talking to Romney.
Asked if Romney will run again, another close adviser said, "HeÂ’ll consider it. He's keeping his options open."

Romney never quite got the traction that many of us on the conservative side of things expected, especially as John McCain surged and a segment of the religious conservatives rejected him based upon faith alone. And yes, there were those who objected to his changed positions on a number of issues, despite the fact that even Ronald Reagan evolved over the years into the essence of what it means to be a conservative.

One possibility was suggested by a columnist from Boston -- challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat this fall.

HereÂ’s a not-wholly whimsical idea for a battered Mitt Romney: Bow out of the presidential race and gear up for a run against John Kerry for the Senate this fall.
That would give Romney an honorable exit, help the national Republican Party unify behind John McCain earlier and allow the state GOP to field an A-list candidate who could keep Kerry pinned down in Massachusetts. And if Romney got really lucky he could even win the seat.
The filing date for the Senate is May 6. ThatÂ’s plenty of time for Romney to switch and mount a campaign that could keep him alive for a second shot at the presidency in the future, instead of remaining a punching bag in the current race.

Yeah, I know this column was something of a jab at Mitt, but the key detail is this.

A stunning 56 percent of voters statewide said it was time Â“to give someone else a chanceÂ” in the Senate, with only 37 percent saying Kerry should run again, in a Suffolk University poll last April. That included independents who, by 62 percent to 31 percent, said it was time for Kerry to go.

In other words, John Kerry can be beat. And by 2012, mitt Romney could have established a conservative record that proves he is the conservative he has claimed to be this year. It really sounds like a great idea to me.

Posted by: Greg at 03:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

February 06, 2008

Best Ad Spoof Ever!

Because, of course, Ron Paul and his followers certainly seem bat-sh!t crazy.

Chupacabra -- I love it!

Ron Paul -- Unfit For Any Office

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Momentum Favors Obama?

Well, let's set aside the delegate totals, where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck and neck. There really is more to make folks question whether the winds of change are really blowing.

First, there is the money issue.

Our colleague Patrick Healy tells us that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, facing big primaries against her rival Senator Barack Obama in places like Ohio and Texas, is weighing whether to lend her campaign money.
And in a quick update, her campaign has just confirmed that sheÂ’d already lent her coffers $5 million of her own money in late January.

Compare this to the success being had by Obama in the money department.

Barack ObamaÂ’s campaign is on track to raise another $30 million in February, sources close to the Illinois senator say, while Hillary Rodham ClintonÂ’s spokesman revealed Wednesday that she had loaned her campaign $5 million.
Insiders in both campaigns say the growing financial disparity virtually ensures that Obama will be able to significantly outspend Clinton in the critical primaries to come.

Money means something -- and for all the arguments that it signals corruption, what it usually signals is popular support, especially when it is coming from so many donors new to political giving.

How significant is the difference? Hillary's staff is giving up their paychecks. That is never a good sign from where I sit -- it means that money has become tight enough that the message is in danger of not getting out at all -- and that the campaign cannot be sustained long term.

So what this means is that going into a number of states where Barack Obama may have an advantage, Hillary Clinton is lacking the cash to effectively spread her message and turn some of the swing voters her way. And with Obama surging everywhere and showing great momentum by virtually every indicator, Hillary needs to score some quick victories in the next week to avoid becoming the underdog for the first time in a campaign that could run all the way to the convention, despite the best efforts of Howard Dean to avoid that possibility.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 3 kb.

Seven Reasons To Back Any GOP Presidential Nominee

Hugh Hewitt says it all right here.

There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.

Surrender to terror and an imperial liberal judiciary. Neither is acceptable. A Republican in the White House Â– any Republican Â– makes those twin evils less likely than any Democrat there.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Ahead?

If this bears out, we have an even bigger muddle on the Democrat site of the aisle than any of us expected.

In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.
The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the nightÂ’s big winner, but ObamaÂ’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts Â— the delegates who will choose the partyÂ’s nominee at this summerÂ’s Democratic convention.
With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterdayÂ’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 Â— Â“give or take a few,Â” Tim Russert, the networkÂ’s Washington bureau chief, said on the Â“TodayÂ” show.

So who won Super Tuesday for the Democrats? And why did the media present the outcome as a Clinton victory?

And most importantly, with a gap of only a couple of dozen delegates after prior victories and superdelegate commitments, are we really any closer to a nominee for the Democrats?

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

February 05, 2008

Oh Come On!

Stupidity really does know no bounds -- and this election day mess in Illinois leaves me speechless.

Election officials reported few problems with primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday despite a snafu involving invisible ink.
An election judge gave voters styluses used for touch screen voting instead of ink pens in one precinct, said Jim Allen, a spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.
Voters complained that they were unable to make a mark after the judge told them that the pens used invisible ink.
About 20 voters got the Â“invisible inkÂ” pens that didnÂ’t cast any votes. Officials contacted five of the 20 people and were waiting to hear back from the others, Allen said.

I am an election judge. And while the only pens we need down here in my county are for signing the registration books and recording the voters, I hope that my clerks and I would be smart enough not to give out "invisible ink pens" to voters.

What were these people thinking!

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Big Night For McCain -- Long Road Ahead For Hillary And Obama

Super Tuesday has come and gone.

Looks like on the GOP side there is likely to be a McCain in my future, whether I want one or not.

Sen. John McCain surged closer toward the Republican nomination yesterday by capturing the biggest Super Tuesday states, including California, but failed to knock out his rivals, who deprived him of victories across GOP strongholds in the South and West.
As millions of Republicans went to the polls in 21 states, the senator from Arizona racked up hundreds of delegates on the strength of winner-take-all primaries in the Northeast and elsewhere. But his inability to win in more than half of the states voting yesterday complicated his hopes of rallying the party behind his candidacy.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee scored a surprising sweep of his native South, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney picked up a number of states in the West but fell short in critical battlegrounds that would have established him as McCain's primary challenger. Huckabee and Romney vowed last night to stay in the race as it moves to Virginia, Maryland and the District on Tuesday.

What is interesting is the regional division of votes -- McCain generally taking the two coasts, Huckabee the South, and Romney much of the heartland. But given the winner-take-all nature of some of the primaries, McCain has surged ahead to the point that he is approaching 50% of the delegates needed to win the nomination outright. Romney and Huckabee are splitting the rest of the vote, with Religious conservatives favoring the Arkansas governor and the rest favoring the former Massachusetts governor. The irreconcilable diistance between those two candidates means that neither is likely to defer to the other, pretty much assuring a McCain nomination at some point down the road -- though likely not until after the Texas primary in four weeks.

And while the McCain victories clarified much, the results on the Democrat side simply muddy the waters.

Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama carved up the nation in the 22-state nominating contest on Tuesday, leaving the Democratic presidential nomination more elusive than ever. Mrs. Clinton won California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and her home state, New York, while Mr. Obama took Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and his base in Illinois.

It may come down to how uncommitted delegates and super-delegates break, and may involve some horse-trading to get one of these candidates over the top. And given the way that many Washington insiders are breaking for Obama, that could swing the nomination his way -- though many state party leaders are supporting Hillary.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Streisand Supports Dirty Government

Because, of course, having Democrats in office is much more important than having lawmakers who arenÂ’t lawbreakers.

For lawmakers faced with mounting legal bills, itÂ’s good to have friends in high places with deep pockets.
Members of the leadership on both sides of the aisle cut checks to legally embattled House colleagues, and even Barbra Streisand contributed $1,000 to Rep. Jim McDermottÂ’s (D-Wash.) legal expense fund.

* * *
So far, McDermott is the only member enlisting real star power. McDermott reported his $1,000 donation from Streisand to his legal defense fund during the last quarter of 2007, when he amassed a total of $65,304. Rep. John LarsonÂ’s (D-Conn.) leadership PAC donated $2,500, while the lionÂ’s share of his contributions came from constituents.
McDermott ramped up his funding after a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia made it more likely that he would have to pay a $60,000 fine and $880,000 in attorneysÂ’ fees in a nearly decade-long battle with Boehner. At issue is an illegally taped phone call between Boehner and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) that McDermott leaked to the media. During the same time period, McDermott had $89,920 in expenses for a variety of fundraising costs as well as $64,169 in legal fees to the Jones Day law firm.

McDermott engaged in behavior that would be illegal if your or I did it. The courts agree that his conduct was illegal. And yet he still sits in Congress, and is still raking in donations from celebrities and fellow members of Congress. Disgusting.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

February 04, 2008

Tsunamai Tuesday

The wave will be crashing down tonight as the votes come in. Who will be washed away, and who will be the survivors?

The New York Times has some great observations (they do, from time to time, engage in some good analysis when they aren't trying to disguise it as objective news). I think this bit is dead on.

The States
For Republicans, two states could end up determining whether the race goes on from here: California and Massachusetts, and this has nothing to do with delegates. Mitt Romney headed out to California on a last-minute trip on Monday, drawn by polls suggesting the race was narrowing, despite Mr. McCainÂ’s collection of high-profile endorsements like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. If Mr. Romney pulls out a win in the nationÂ’s largest state, no matter what happens anyplace else, he is unlikely to leave the stage soon.
By contrast, Mr. McCain Â— in a poke-in-the-eye moment Â— campaigned in Massachusetts, Mr. RomneyÂ’s home state. Should Mr. McCain win in Massachusetts and hold on to California, that would probably be the lights-out moment at the Romney headquarters. No wonder that Mr. McCain sneaked a last-minute trip to California onto his schedule for Tuesday morning.
For Democrats, watch California, Massachusetts, New York, Missouri, Arizona and New Mexico. If Mr. Obama wins California, that is a real momentum blocker for Mrs. Clinton: There are few states in the country that are more identified with the Clinton presidency than this one. But Mr. Obama has suffered one of those external political problems that often madden campaigns: a last-minute California poll that showed him closing in on Mrs. Clinton Â— in the process, raising expectations that he will win. No wonder Mr. ObamaÂ’s advisers are suddenly talking about the big surge of early voting in California before Mr. Obama began to break through there.
If Mr. Obama wins Massachusetts, that will be testimony to the power of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and a real sting for Mrs. Clinton, who once thought she had a comfortable lead there. If Mr. Obama comes close in New York, or in neighboring New Jersey, watch for a tough round of questions about Mrs. ClintonÂ’s electability.
Finally, think of Missouri, Arizona and New Mexico as the swing states in this contest: Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are pretty evenly matched there. Missouri is a swing state in the general election, and might be one in this one as well.

I'll take it a step further -- for the GOP candidates, it all comes down to California. McCain and Romney are going to split the rest of the states, and McCain is even likely to come out of them with more delegates. but a victory in California, where McCain was so strong as recently as a week ago, will say something loud and clear about the ability of John McCain to unite the party and of the depth of opposition to him among the base. I don;t know that a California victory will be a harbinger of Romney's nomination, though -- I think it might signal the likelihood of a brokered convention this summer, with some other candidate emerging as the consensus figure around which Republicans can unite. But if McCain takes California, both Romney and Huckabee can fold up their campaigns and wait for a call from John McCain about the vice presidential nomination -- a call that I don't believe either will get, either due to personal animus (Romney) or unfitness for the post (Huckabee). And a decisive victory may allow John McCain the time to reach out to the "irreconcilable" wing of the GOP and do some reconciling -- because as hard as his candidacy is for some of us to stomach, the thought of John McCain in the Oval Officeought to cause us less heartburn than the idea of either President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama.

On the Democrat side, I think that a strong showing by Obama will mean an incredibly bitter and divisive fight all the way to the convention. That is how I'm hoping to see it play out, because it can only help the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 4 kb.

February 03, 2008

An Observation That Applies To The Presidential Race

The author is talking about the situation in Detroit, where Mayor Kwame Fitzpatrick has been disclosed to have carried on a sexual affair with a subordinate that also included up to 300 sexual text messages A DAY. His wife is standing by her philandering husband, and author Geveryl Robinson is disturbed by that decision.

And you can't tell me that the observation does not also apply to one of the candidates in the presidential race.

So let me get this straight. Her husband lied to her, lied to the city, lied under oath, sent some other broad 300 love/sex text messages A DAY and she pledged her undying love for him?
I just don't get it.
Why is it that so many high-profile women stay with men who constantly cheat on them? Why do so many relatively intelligent women choose to stay with philandering losers whose idea of monogamy is having one mistress at a time? If you ask me, Mrs. Kirkpatrick needs to do two things: pimp slap her husband, and then call a divorce lawyer.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, "Vote for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President in 2008." Can you believe that? It's sad, but the reality is when ladies, especially high profile ladies, stay with their trampy husbands it sends a message that quite frankly I don't appreciate.
I don't view a woman who consistently puts up with her husband's infidelities as a "strong woman." It's quite the contrary. Only a woman with low self-esteem would subject herself to constant humiliation and disrespect by the man who vowed to "forsake all others."
I understand that we should forgive, but forgiveness does not always mean reconciliation. If someone is truly sorry for his or her behavior then the behavior will cease. However, if a person continues to repeat the behavior that he or she has apologized for, then that person is NOT REMORSEFUL.

That bumper sticker Robinson mentions really does illustrate teh point. Hillary Clinton, who spent years defending the indefensible when her husband engaged in serial infidelity and lied about it to the American people and under oath to a court, is not a strong woman. Indeed, she is a weak, pathetic soul who merits our pity, not our admiration or respect -- and certainly not our votes. Just as the infidelity of Rudy Giuliani removed him from consideration for the presidency for many of us, so too should the co-dependent enabling behavior of Mrs. Clinton be viewed as a disqualifying factor when she clearly intends to involve the philandering scumbag in her administration.

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

February 02, 2008

Cutting Off Berkeley

Bravo to Senator DeMint for seeking to eliminate all earmarks for Berkeley, California after the passage of a series of seditious acts attacking the United States Marine Corps and treasonously interfering with recruitment during time of war.

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.
DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.
"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."
"If the city canÂ’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.

What sort of savings tot he taxpayers are we talking about following the elimination of subsidies for these unAmerican al-Qaeda supporters?

DeMint said he will draft legislation to rescind any earmarks dedicated for the City of Berkeley in the recently passed appropriations bill Â— which his office tallied to value about $2.1 million. He said that any money taken back would be transferred to the Marines.
DeMint's office provided a preliminary list of items that would be subject to his proposal:
Â— $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.
Â— $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.
Â— $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.
Â— $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.
Â— $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.

Personally, I want to see something more.

I want to see legislation forbidding the expenditure of any federal funds for any purpose other than military recruitment, military training, military retirement pay and VA benefits in Berkeley. That means no welfare benefits and no social security checks, as well as no financial aid for students at UC-Berkeley. Let the city replace such funding out of its own budget.

And why do we need to cut Berkeley off completely? Because they are aiding and abetting in the disruption of a US government office and helping to interfere with military recruitment.

As the right-wing blogosphere railed and a U.S. senator vowed financial retaliation against the Berkeley City Council for its effort to boot the Marine Corps out of town, three war protesters ratcheted up pressure from the left by chaining themselves Friday to the front door of the downtown Marine recruiting office.
The demonstrators snapped their locks shut at 7 a.m. and spent the next 7 1/2 hours blocking the door, waving and chanting as hundreds of cars driving by honked in support. Finally, at 2:30 p.m., police snipped the chains and arrested them.
Two of the three were cited for blocking a business and released, and the third was booked into jail on an unrelated traffic warrant, police said.

Excuse me, but the police should have snapped those chains and hauled them away in 7 1/2 minutes, not 7 1/2 hours.

For that matter, I think we now need to bring the FBI into this mix, and see about federal charges because of this.

Heated words were exchanged whenever people tried to enter or leave the office, but the protest was peaceful.
"You guys are just cannon fodder!" the chained protesters shouted at three teenage boys who walked past the office and said they wanted to go inside. "They want to train you to kill babies!"
The teenagers turned around and left.
At one point, UC Berkeley student Kyrolos El Giheny walked up to the front door and tried to go inside to talk to Lund about a possible Marine career. He was unable to get past the chained protesters.
"They told me, 'No business as usual today,' " El Giheny said. "It's kind of nutty. It's really an infringement on my rights."

Not only that, it is a violation of federal law. We need immediate arrests and prosecutions -- not just of those who actively interfere with the operation of this recruiting office, but also of the city officials who are aiding and abetting their crime.

And while you are at it, feel free to contact Osama's allies and express your discontent. And since Berkeley is home of the 1960s Free Speech Movement, I won't even suggest that you be respectful and avoid profanity.

Contact info:

Mayor - Tom Bates
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704
Email: mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us
TEL: (510) 981-7100
FAX: (510) 981-7199
TDD: (510) 981-6903
Office Hours: Mon-Fri 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

====================
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
====================
Linda Maio
Phone: (510) 981-7110
FAX: (510) 981-7111
Email: lmaio@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Darryl Moore
Phone: (510) 981-7120
Email: dmoore@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Maxwell Anderson
Phone: (510) 981-7130
Email: manderson@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Dona Spring
Phone: (510) 981-7140
Email: spring@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Laurie Capitelli
Phone: (510) 981-7150
Email: lcapitelli@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Betty Olds
Phone: (510) 981-7160
Email: olds@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Kriss Worthington
Phone: (510) 981-7170
Email: kworthington@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Gordon Wozniak [NOTE: Wozniak voted AGAINST the offensive resolutions]
Phone: (510) 981-7180
Email: GWozniak@ci.berkeley.ca.us

City Auditor
Ann Marie
TEL: (510) 981-6750, TDD: (510) 981-6903
Email: auditor@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Complete coverage from Michelle Malkin.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:41 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 980 words, total size 9 kb.

More On Duval County Election Fraud Indictments

Don Surber, who usually is quite critical of the press in such cases, says he thinks the AP deserves a pass on the failure of the AP to include party identification in its story about vote-fraud indictments in Duval County, Texas because the Texas Attorney General's office didn't include party identification in the press release. I suppose one could make that argument -- but does that therefore imply that the AP is nothing more than a press release re-write service rather than an actual journalistic entity? And what of the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News -- and every other news Texas organization -- failing to take the time to add the information about party identification, and you see that there is clearly something wrong with the coverage of the story.

Especially since there appear to be other shenanigans going on in Duval County involving the Democrats, and have been for years. Democrat money-man Mauricio Celis who is charged with falsely claiming to be a lawyer and impersonating a law enforcement officer (and also under investigation for money-laundering involving Mexican drug cartels), had an actual badge issued by the Duval County sheriff that he used to help perpetrate that fraud.

For that matter, Democrat election fraud in Duval County has a long tradition. One of the most celebrated incidents of election fraud in Texas history (indeed, in all of US history) involves the final 202 votes of the 1948 senatorial primary, curiously cast in alphabetical order and signed with the same pen in the same handwriting, that gave Lyndon Johnson the nomination and hence the general election victory.

I know that las example is six decades ago, but it serves to illustrate that such fraud by Democrats in that county is a long-standing and well-documented tradition. As such, the party affiliation of those facing charges of election fraud is highly relevant and should be included by Texas media outlets, if not national ones.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

February 01, 2008

Name That Party -- Texas Edition

Vote fraud indictments in Duval County.

Four Duval County residents were charged Thursday with illegally handling ballot applications and mail-in ballots that belonged to other voters during the 2006 primary election.
The four San Diego residents indicted Thursday by a Brooks County grand jury were: Lydia Molina, 70; Maria "Kena" Soriano, 71; Elva Lazo, 62; and Maria Trigo, 55.

* * *
The defendants are accused of delivering mail-in ballot applications to Duval County residents who were ineligible to vote by mail, according to the news release. Only those who are disabled, 65 or older, or expect to be out of the county during an election are eligible to vote by mail.
The news release says that once the ballots were sent to the residents and completed, the defendants allegedly retrieved them and mailed them to the registrar to be counted without identifying themselves on the carrier envelope.
Texas law requires that those who provide assistance identify themselves on carrier envelopes used to transmit mail-in ballots.

One little detail is missing, though -- the party affiliation, which is especially significant given the fact that this was fraud in a primary election.

Fortunately, the folks at NewsBusters ferreted out the answer in a two year old news story.

All who voted in Duval County are registered Democrats.

Why am I not surprised -- by the party affiliation of the fraudsters, or by the media's refusal to disclose that information.

Posted by: Greg at 02:49 PM | Comments (336) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Murdering Terrorist Bastards Hit New Low

Remote control detonation of mentally retarded women in the midst of pet markets Â– how much lower can these sub-human Islamists sink?

Two women thought to suffer from Down's syndrome may have been unwilling suicide bombers in twin blasts that killed up to 73 people at pet markets in Baghdad today.
The first bomber instantly killed 45 people at a packed pet market in Baghdad in the deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital in six months.
A separate attack shortly after killed 20 people and wounded scores at a bird market in southern Baghdad.
The death toll from the two bombings increased throughout the day to at least 73.
The chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Brigadier General Qassim al-Moussawi, claimed the female bombers apparently had Down's syndrome and the explosives were detonated by remote control, indicating the women may not have been willing attackers, according to his office.
Bolstering that claim, local police said the woman in the first attack sold cream in the morning at the market and was known to locals as "the crazy lady".

What needs to happen here is massive retaliation Â– including execution of any member of a terrorist group. No forgiveness, no mercy Â– these individuals have shown they merit none. Send the Marines to hunt them down like the dogs they are.

And perhaps we can also get the Berkeley City Council to grant Code Pink a free parking space in downtown Baghdad, and direct the city attorney to write a letter to al-Qaeda telling them that they are Â“uninvited and unwelcome intrudersÂ” Â– you know, since Berkeley and Code Pink are on the same side as al-Qaeda in the struggle against Islamist Terrorism, their words might carry more weight with the terrorists.

January 31, 2008

Raising Money -- Can He Raise Votes?

That is, of course, the question that has to be asked as Barack Obama has an incredible fundraising success.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, a whopping figure that has permitted the campaign to boost staff and extend advertising to states beyond the sweeping Feb. 5 contests, aides said Thursday.
The amount was the most raised in one month by a presidential candidate who still faced a primary challenge.
Obama is now advertising in 20 of the 22 states in play for next week's Super Tuesday and plans to begin advertising in seven more states that hold primaries or caucuses later in February. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is advertising in 12 Super Tuesday states, including her home state of New York.
With John Edwards out of the race, Clinton and Obama are in a fierce race for delegates to secure the nomination. Feb. 5 offers the biggest single opportunity for delegates, but it is impossible for either one to seal the nomination on that day.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign attracted 170,000 new donors for a total of 650,000 donors overall. The $32 million raised in one month matches the campaign's best three-month fundraising period in 2007, when the campaign raised $30 million in primary money and $2 million for the general. The money raised in January was all for the primaries.

But donations don't equal electoral success. If it did, Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee presumptive instead of a crank with a handful obnoxious supporters and a strong challenger for his congressional seat. And the polls keep showing Hillary Clinton ahead, with Edwards supporters breaking her way. Obama might be energizing new people, much as Howard Dean did, but that doesn't automatically translate into wooing the long-time party faithful.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Somebody Give Me A Baseball Bat

Mike Huckabee has no more chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2008 than I do. He needs to get out of the way so that the GOP base can decide who we want as president between the two front runners.

I am therefore ready to do whatÂ’s best for the GOP and the USA.

A defiant Mike Huckabee said Thursday that there is Â“no wayÂ” he would drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and he blasted the media for characterizing the race as a contest between Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Â“If people think that IÂ’m quitting, they need to get the message loud and clear. SomebodyÂ’s going to have to beat me,Â” said the former Arkansas governor. Â“ThereÂ’s no way IÂ’ll walk away.Â”

Do I have any volunteers to carry the stretcher after IÂ’m done with HuckaBubba?

[NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE: This is a satire.]

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

A Conclusion I Agree With

IÂ’ve made no secret I am not a fan of John McCain on many issues. IÂ’ve said often that I think there are questions he should be pushed to answer, and positions he needs to defend. And IÂ’ve certainly been clear over the last year that there are/were other candidates in the GOP race I would prefer to John McCain.

That said, I have to agree with the sentiments of Victor David Hanson, as expressed in the conclusion to his article about the difficulties raised by the Clintons creating an opportunity for GOP victory Â– and the possibility that my fellow conservatives will throw that victory away because of McCainÂ’s tendency to stray off the ranch on some issues near and dear to conservatives.

The Democratic cat-fighters are doing their best to give away a once-sure general election, but the Republicans seem to be doing even more to ensure that they forfeit the unexpected gift theyÂ’ve been given.
If Hillary Clinton does end up winning her partyÂ’s nomination, NovemberÂ’s vote may hinge on whether moderates and liberals are nauseated enough by the ClintonsÂ’ brawling and character assassination to cross over and vote for a decorated Republican war hero Â— that is, if his own flag-waving party doesnÂ’t destroy him first.

Does this mean that I am in the tank for McCain? Hardly Â– I am still firmly behind Mitt Romney, and wish that I could have ever had a realistic hope of seeing Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter get the nomination. But McCain may very well be my partyÂ’s candidate in a few months Â– and both party loyalty and love of country lead me to conclude that I may have to break my resolution to never vote for John McCain. After all, I may be faced with a choice between a moderately conservative candidate who takes some positions I find disturbing and unacceptable and atruly liberal one who is even less acceptable Â– how can I just stand by or act affirmatively in a manner that makes the less acceptable one our next president?

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Petering Out? Maybe Not

If this report is right, Romney is all-in through Super Tuesday Â– and presumably the convention.

Mitt Romney plans to buy TV ads in California and other Super Tuesday states, contradicting earlier reports that he was avoiding a costly campaign on Feb. 5, when 21 states hold Republican primaries and caucuses.
As Romney seeks to topple John McCainÂ’s momentum coming out of his win in the Florida primary and a host of big-name endorsements, top aides said RomneyÂ’s ad buys will be high-dollar.
The campaign will determine shortly which states it will target beyond California.
RomneyÂ’s advisers had given him several options, ranging from spending $1 million for ads to $7 million. It was not immediately clear how much money Romney was willing to spend Â— or whether the multimillionaire would dip into his own bank account again. He already has poured at least $40 million into his presidential campaign.
Romney will likely be the first GOP candidate on air in the Super Tuesday states, the broadest battleground of the primary season.

And that is, of course, the big question. Where does he advertise and how much does he spend. Should he focus on proportional states, winner-take-all states, and which ones does he view as competitive. Is it a small state strategy or a large state one? Lots of variables here Â– and weÂ’ll know the results when nearly half the country votes in less than a week.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Dr. Dobson: I Will Never Vote for McCain While John McCain has risen to the top of the heap among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson remains adamant that he will not support McCainÂ’s bid for the White House. Dobson, one of the nationÂ’s most influential evangelical Christians, declared more than a year ago that he wouldn't support McCain under any circumstances, saying McCain didn't support traditional marriage values. A Dobson spokesman told the New York TimesÂ’ David Kirkpatrick Wednesday that he stood by that position, and as a matter of conscience could never vote for the Arizona Senator. According to the paper, Dobson is joined by a slew of other prominent conservatives who oppose McCain on a number of issues: Talk radio host Mark Levin urged visitors to the National ReviewÂ’s Web site to Â“rally for RomneyÂ” to ward off a McCain win, saying: Â“Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.Â” Talker Rush Limbaugh told listeners on Thursday: Â“McCain is in a lot of these places not actually the Republican candidate. He is the candidate of enough Republicans, but [also] independents and moderates and probably even some liberals.Â” Pat Toomey, president of the anti-tax organization Club for Growth, said in comments reported by the New York Times: Â“I have yet to see McCain make any attempts to reach out to free market conservatives.Â” Conservatives fault McCain for voting against President BushÂ’s tax cuts and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and for supporting embryonic stem cell research, looser immigration rules and stricter environmental regulations. Conservatives were particularly irked when McCain made a deal with Democrats to break a deadlock on judicial nominations, according to the Times. Anger over that compromise was rekindled this week when Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund wrote that McCain had privately criticized BushÂ’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito because Â“he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.Â” The McCain campaign denied that report. Following McCain successes in early primary states, however, other conservatives are beginning to warm up to his campaign: Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who previously opposed a McCain nomination, said: Â“He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes.Â” Former McCain foe Tony Perkins, a prominent Christian conservative, told the Times: Â“I have no residual issue with John McCain,Â” adding the candidate needed to Â“better communicateÂ” his stand on social issues. Richard Land, an official with the South Baptist Convention, agreed, noting that McCain Â“is strongly pro-life.Â” He said: Â“When I hear Rush Limbaugh say that a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican Party, what I want to say to Rush is, Â‘You need to get out of the studio more and talk to real people.Â’Â” Â© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. This is a bad mistake

Posted by: afisher at Sat Feb 2 08:20:07 2008 (GYlmh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 30, 2008

Is The GOP Race Petering Out?

If it is, many of us didn't see it coming.

In a major boost for John McCain, Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney signaled Wednesday he's not ready to finance a costly campaign in the states holding primaries and caucuses next week.

* * *Several officials said that on the heels of a defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary, Romney's campaign was not attempting to purchase television advertising time in any of the 21 states on the calendar for Feb. 5.
Instead, the former Massachusetts governor's current plans call for campaigning in California and other primary states, said the officials, who had knowledge of the internal discussions. There would be organizational efforts primarily for caucus states.

I'd expected Romney to run hard to a possible brokered convention. But if this is the strategy, it appears he is preparing to concede the race after Super Tuesday -- a rather surprising development. Does the polling data show that the primary voters are going to break that sharply for McCain that the extra effort many of us (especially those of us supporting Mitt from the beginning) had expected would be superfluous? Will Tsunami Tuesday be the last hurrrah for the GOP nomination process?

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

A Change Is Coming -- But Do Voters Like The Choices

That would be the big question -- and one that the Democrats need to deal with to win.

And they might have a hard time of it in states they need to win, like Arkansas and Tennessee.

Not that the GOP candidates have much positive to recommend them in the eyes of the swing voters.

Beyond Super Tuesday, there may be trouble for the Democrats. Swing voters perceive both front-runners as too liberal, though Mrs. Clinton has support in Arkansas because her husband remains popular. But here in Maury County, which has voted Democratic and Republican in the last three decades, none expressed enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton.
Similar unease was voiced in Yell County, Ark., another place that has swung back and forth, where some were quick to say that Mr. ObamaÂ’s race was not prohibitive for them personally but could well be for others.
Only John Edwards, a fellow Southerner but now considered an also-ran, met with broad approval from independents who were interviewed in the Tennessee county; in Arkansas, Mrs. ClintonÂ’s most ardent supporters in the undulating Â“Free State of YellÂ” Â— so called because of a history of electoral eccentricity Â— conceded that they knew plenty who were just as sharply opposed to her candidacy.
Former Bush voters disillusioned with the president said flatly they would not vote for Mr. Obama, while others expressed disappointment with the available choices. Meanwhile, Republicans, even those critical of Mr. Bush, said that the too-liberal Democratic choices left them more solidly than ever with their party, though none voiced great enthusiasm for the field.

Frankly, I hear stuff like that a lot this year from folks in Texas. There isn't great enthusiasm for any of the GOP candidates, but there is discomfort with and opposition to the remaining Democrats. That party has moved to the Left of the voters (something I hear from Republicans and Democrats), but the GOP candidates are all flawed and rather uninspiring.

Frankly, I think that this year we could see "None of the Above" win if that option were on the ballot -- because voters would like a different choice.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

456kb generated in CPU 3.177, elapsed 4.0272 seconds.
76 queries taking 3.5091 seconds, 1059 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

February 13, 2008

February 12, 2008

February 11, 2008

February 10, 2008

February 09, 2008

February 08, 2008

February 07, 2008

February 06, 2008

February 05, 2008

February 04, 2008

February 03, 2008

February 02, 2008

February 01, 2008

January 31, 2008

January 30, 2008

Search Thingy

Categories

GOP Bloggers Blogroll

Live Liberty And Property Blogroll

101st Fighting Keyboardists

Texas Connection BlogRoll

Republican Attack Squad

Web Links

Counters and Stuff

Archives

Recent Comments

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

Administrative Stuff

About Me

Support This Site

Advertising Disclosure

Munuvians