US Elections Archives
Annals of the Obama Trainwreck, Waiting to Happen
Filed under: US Elections
Well, let's see now.
The New York Times reports that Barack Obama has -- get this -- 300 (yes, that's THREE HUNDRED) different foreign policy cooks to spoil his international broth. America doesn't have 300 significant international relationships, yet he needs 300 advisers. Is he going to hold his foreign policy meetings in a football stadium if he becomes president? Is it any wonder that he ends up being ridiculed for the "audacity of vanity" over his laughable decision to attempt a speech at the Brandenburg Gate?
And then the Washington Post reports that Obama is incapable of following his own legislation:IT WASN'T so long ago -- last September, to be specific -- that a senator with a particular interest in campaign finance reform introduced a bill to provide important transparency in presidential campaigns. The measure, S. 2030, would require presidential campaigns to report the names of fundraisers who bring in "bundles" of individual contributions totaling $50,000 or more. The campaigns would have to report the occupations of the bundlers and the specific amounts they are credited with raising. This was a terrific idea. It's too bad that the bill's sponsor, Barack Obama, is failing to follow the rules he set out.
This was, of course, only the latest in a long litany of such betrayals of his own ethos that Obama has committed in the last few weeks alone.
This man is not qualified. He must not be elected. His candidacy is a charade, and his presidency could set back the cause of black civil rights by decades. Racists are just waiting for a chance to wash their hands of the whole issue, to say "well, we elected one president, that's it!" and to follow it up with "look what a disaster THAT turned out to be."
This man is Jimmy Carter light. He. Must. Be. Stopped.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
redditJaw-Dropping Lefitst Hypocrisy on the Enviornment
Filed under: US Elections
So-called "green" leftists like Michael Moore are hogging and squandering huge amounts of precious fuel flying around the globe on private jets for no reason other than personal luxury.
Al Gore, the most egregiously shameless offender, arrives for "green" events in a fleet of limousines and SUVs which are kept at idle with the a/c on full blast so as to be nice and comfy when his minions are ready to depart, even as the entry tickets demand ordinary folks arrive by public transportation or bike.
This is the kind of "leadership" that the left offers us as gasoline prices spike through the roof and they seek to block our opportunity to exploit American energy assets. It's Jimmy Carter "leadership," the kind that leads to "national malaise."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBarack Obama: Natural Born Liar
Filed under: US Elections
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer had a devastating piece last week exposing the torrent of lies issuing recently from the mouth of Barack Obama:
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Devil and Mr. Obama: A Tragicomedy in Three Parts
Filed under: US Elections
PART I - Mr. Obama Goes Back to Church
So, Barack Obama makes his first visit to a church over the weekend after throwing his old church (of two decades) under the bus when it became politically inconvenient. One must wonder, of course, what else he'll be prepared to throw under the bus when it suits him -- our country, for instance? Does he, in fact, actually believe anything at all, other than that (just like Bill Clinton) he really wants to be president?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThey Want to Destroy us, so They Love Obama
Filed under: US Elections
This chart shows the results of a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.
On page 26 of the report, it states that of the nearly two dozen countries surveyed only Russia, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordon, Egypt, China and Pakistan had a larger group of respondents say the U.S. was an enemy rather than a partner. Of those, in only Turkey and Pakistan was the larger group a majority.
70% of the people in Turkey see the U.S. as an enemy. In the chart, they prefer Obama to become president by a margin of 4-1. 60% of Pakistanis say the U.S. is an enemy, and they prefer Obama nearly 2-1. 39% of Egyptians view America as a foe, and they preferred Obama by a 3-2 margin. 34% of Russians and Chinese respondents said the U.S. was an enemy, and Russians preferred Obama 39-22 while Chinese liked him slightly less well, 36-31. Obama has also been endorsed by the America-loathing terrorists of Hamas and the U.S.-despising Fidel Castro of Cuba.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWatch Out! Everyone's an American, Now
Filed under: US Elections
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its decision in the Boumediene case. With a 5-4 vote, just one unelected Supreme Court judge, the moderate Anthony Kennedy (shown above, he wrote the decision), who sided with the court's four left-wing liberals, suddenly discovered, after more than 200 years of the U.S. Constitution's existence, that it applies to people who are neither (a) American citizens nor (b) even located on American soil. The court's four conservative judges harshly rejected the decision.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Dumbocrats vs. the Filibuster: Let the Battle Begin!
Filed under: US Elections
If you want to understand national governmental power in the United States, one word is far more important to know than any other. That word is "filibuster."
The president of the U.S. can do nothing unless a law is passed authorizing him to take executive action.
A law cannot be passed by Congress unless both of its constituent bodies, the House and the Senate, agree.
And the Senate cannot agree unless it can vote. As long as there are 41 votes against voting, the Senate can be stopped from voting (and hence agreeing) even if there are 59 votes in favor of the substantive topic, because any individual senator is permitted to speak on any topic as long as he likes -- meaning he can decide to speak forever and stop all business unless a specific proposal is rejected. That's called a filibuster.
What this means is simple. No matter what happens in the presidential election this fall, no aspect of any Democratic Party agenda will be enacted unless the Democrats can muster 60 votes in the Senate. If the Republicans can muster 41 votes, then they can use the "filibuster" to block any legislative action and bring the legislative process to a halt.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBarack Obama: Failure from the World "Go"
Filed under: US Elections
Even judged by his own insanely low standards, presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama, who admits that he has no executive experience of any kind, and hence lacks a fundamental qualification to be president, is a total failure from the word "go."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditMoonbats, Unhinged
Filed under: US Elections
You know how those on the left scoff at religion, as if anyone who believes it isn't a fully evolved human? Suddenly, it seems, they're changing their minds, and deciding that Barack Obama is a "lightworker." He became so studying racism at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, I guess.
Here are a few choice bits of their analysis:
JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side.
Umm, OK. But didn't JFK launch the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam war.
I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy.
Err, maybe. But when conservatives said that about Reagan, liberals called him the "Teflon president" who was elevating form over substance, and they said they despised that. Moreover, apparently, none of these people were in California, Texas or New York, the nation's three largest electoral powerhouses. Obama lost them all.
Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.
That's for sure. The integrity of Obama's racism runs deep indeed. And, um, just for the record, when Bill Clinton "won" the presidency in 1992, 57% of the country voted against him. And, unlike Obama, Clinton won California, Texas and New York -- then went on to "win" the presidency with just 43% of the popular vote, one of the narrowest shares in U.S. electoral history, and then got impeached.
Liberals say the country is headed for a massive recession, yet they are rejoicing about the idea of being in power when it happens. They say they favor "democracy" and yet they are rejoicing about the end of the Republican Party.
Kinda scary, isn't it?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWant to Know why you Pay so Much at the Pump?
Filed under: US Elections
The always brilliant George Will will tell you. The money quote: "America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy."
We must open ANWR and our offshore resources before China and Cuba pump them dry. I mean, what's wrong with us, anyway?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditMcCain's Better Half?
Filed under: US Elections
It seems like John McCain would have to be quite insane not to pick a female running mate. Real Clear Politics reports:
A new Pew Research Center poll points to a surging tide of fury, especially among white women. As recently as April, this group preferred Obama over the presumptive Republican John McCain by three percentage points. By May, McCain enjoyed an eight-point lead among white women.
Female voters have every right to be outraged by the way in which Hillary Clinton -- the far better qualified alternative -- has been treated during the Democratic primary season. If they're smart, they'll send a clear message in November that they constitute a majority in this country and their vote is not to be trifled with by means such as the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan. If they do, this will be the last time the male-dominated power structure takes their concerns so lightly.
And yet, not a single female name appears on McCain's short list. In fact, among the names he's now floating only Bobby Jindal of Louisiana represents the kind of scintillating choice McCain needs to make in order to shore up his Republican base and show he's not just a cantankerous old man but an agent of change. McCain needs to understand that the foolhardy nomination of Obama means this election is his to lose. That means not getting complacent or arrogant and not losing focus. Only by taking his eye off the ball, like the fabled hare against the plodding tortoise, and getting self-indulgent can McCain fail to win the White House against such a polarizing, unqualified candidate as Barack Obama.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBarack Obama, Slithering
Filed under: US Elections
My colleague "Incognito" (a Hollywood actress who keeps her identity secret to avoid being blacklisted as a conservative) has a devastating expose of Barack Obama's duplicity on Israel over at Instablogs. It's required reading for anyone thinking of voting in this year's general election in the United States. This man is a slithering snake and he must be stopped.
It's simply amazing to me that Democrats, consumed with righteous indignation over their allegation that George Bush "lied us into Iraq," would anoint as their candidate a man whose own dishonesty knows no bounds, who'll do and say anything, betray anyone, to gain the oval office, only then to reveal his true intentions. One is reminded of FDR and his secret socialism, of JFK and the Bay of Pigs.
Over the weekend, Obama resigned his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Given his aura, one would have expected him to accompany this statement with a heartfelt mea culpa and condemnation of the Church, given that yet another of its religious leaders has been exposed as a strident racist.
But what Obama actually said was this: "We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church. We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."
What you mean "we," Kimosabe? It's YOU, Mr. Obama, not you and a whole bunch of other people. YOU'RE the one who wants to be president of the country your church hates with blinding psychopathic passion. The sheer unmitigated gall of this man, to drag his wife into this issue while demanding nobody criticize her on other issues (or any issue) is revolting beyond words.
And get this: He's not resigning because the church is wrong, he's resigning because he's afraid its being wrong will be successfully used as a weapon against him. And he's as much concerned for the Church's wellbeing as he is his own, and ours. In other words, he's resignation is not made out of morality but out of political expediency.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in KY and OR: Sexist Media?
Filed under: US Elections
I might be the very last person on the face of the Earth who would wish to see Hillary Clinton become the president of the United States. I don't even want her to get the nomination of her party, because I see her as being a more dangerous, mainstream candidate than Barack Obama. But that doesn't make me any less disgusted by the manner in which she is being treated by the American media.
Last night, she obliterated Obama in the Democrat primary in the state of Kentucky in the same manner she had done in West Virgina last week, crushing the frontrunner 65-30. Yet, not only does the front page of the New York Times website this morning not report that fact, it carries a huge photograph of Barack Obama under a gigantic headline stating: "Obama Declares Bid Within Reach." You have to dig around in the paper's coverage to find out how badly Clinton whipped him in the bluegrass state. The fact that Obama could lose two states in a row this badly shows that his support is fundamentally hollow and fraudulent.
As shown in the graphic above from CNN, Obama was once again rejected by white voters in Kentucky by an overwhelming margin, polarizing the races rather than unifying them as he claims in his mission statement, the same thing that happened in North Carolina. Except it's getting worse.
In a ridiculous bit of propaganda, Obama pointed out that he now has a majority of the available regular pledged delegates. He doesn't remember to tell you how many of them he won in caucuses that won't be repeated in the general election, nor does he manage to tell you how utterly he's being repudiated by mainstream white voters in the aftermath of the Wright scandal. He omits the fact that he lost eight of the ten most significant electoral states and ignores his bonecrushing recent losses despite his clear frontrunner status. He trumpets his win in the other primary last night, Oregon, but he doesn't mention how he was humiliated there by being caught red-handed totally unfamiliar with the state's chief environmental issue, nor does he remember to tell you how he'd been similarly nabbed claiming America has 57 states (he must have been thinking of his beloved Organization of the Islamic Conference). Nor does Obama note that counting all the votes in both primaries last night, Clinton defeated him by a massive net margin of 150,000 votes.
It's well within Clinton's doable reach to deny Obama a majority of the available delegates, which includes a large portion of superdelegates, and thus force a brokered convention where anything could happen, including neither one of them getting the nomination (did somebody say "Al Gore to the rescue"?). Yet, the apparently sexist media insists the contest is over and the first female contender should just shut up and go away.
Outrageous. Once again we see how truly misleading the word "democratic" is when applied to this party. One supposes that it's predictable that since black men got the vote before women of any color, they will have a presidential candidate before women do -- but the blatant sexism being practiced here is truly revolting. Thankfully, Hillary is having none of it. You go, girl.
Michelle Malkin has a simply devastating inventory of Obama's ridiculous misstatements over the past few months. If you can read it and still support him, you're a candidate for the nut house.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditMemo to John McCain
Filed under: US Elections
DON'T DO IT!!!
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocrats, Betraying Their Ideals
Filed under: US Elections
Ellen R. Malcolm, the founder and president of Emily's List (which promotes female candidates for government office), has a wonderful column in the Washington Post explaining how, by trying to drive Hillary Clinton out of the primary race, the Democrats are betraying their supposed core beliefs regarding diversity and social justice -- to say nothing of ignoring the fact that Barack Obama is far from sewing up the nomination and that most of his success has been due to dumb luck. For political expediency, the liberal MSM is trying to drive Hillary out of the race prematurely, and in so doing they show their true colors.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditPop Quiz
Filed under: US Elections
This organization has 20 members.
It's obviously sexist, because only seven of its members are women, nearly twice as many are male -- even though women are a majority in the population of the nation where this organization operates.
It's also obviously racist. Only 1 member is black, 19 are white -- even though dark-skinned people make up more than 15% of the population in the nation where this organization operates. So minorities are under-represented by a factor of three, even more oppressed within its confines than women. Zero Hispanics. Zero Asians.
What organization is it? Answer after the jump.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditHe's Mr. Lucky
Filed under: US Elections
When the history of the 2008 Democrat presidential primary is written, if Barack Obama is the nominee then two key facts will been seen to explain his victory.
First, the North Carolina primary. A red state that went for George Bush in a massive landslide in 2004 (56-43) was allowed to play the pivotal role of destroying Hillary Clinton's hopes for the White House, history will say, and in determining who the Democrats would use to challenge the Republicans in the general election. Obama's victory came because although he was crushed by Clinton among white voters 50% of the state's registered Democrat voters are black, they turned out in droves on election day, and over 90% voted for Obama, a disturbingly Soviet-like majority, to say the least. North Carolina got this position of authority, of course, by sheer happenstance, luck of the draw.
Second, the Florida and Michigan primaries that weren't. Clinton has totally dominated Obama in all the top-ten electoral states except Georgia and Obama's home state of Illinois, sweeping him in all the top three states. There's no reason whatsoever to think that domination wouldn't have continued in both Florida and Michigan, but these two top-ten states chose to violate their party's rules and hold their primaries out of sequence, nullifying their votes. Had they not done so, Clinton might already have sewn up the nomination. Again, sheer random fortune controlled the outcome.
It doesn't quite add up, does it? The candidate who claims to be a racial unifier divides to conquer, articulating his campaign in stark black-and-white terms. Republicans choose for Democrats and Democrats, who screamed to high heaven in 2000 about counting every vote, totally ignore 20% of the ten most significant states in the land, treating places like Detroit and Miami as if they didn't even exist.
Is this how Obama proposes to govern our nation for four years? Dumb luck, mixed with racial polarization? Hmmm . . .
Now think about how every single one of the recent Democrat presidencies have crashed and burned. Clinton, impeached. Carter, one term. LBJ, not even nominated for second term. JFK, blown away, what else do I hafta say?
Does anyone else see a pattern here?
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in North Carolina: Annals of Obama the Race Baiter
Filed under: US Elections
It seems that the risk of Democrat voters coming to their senses has passed. As shown above via CNN, in last night's North Carolina Democratic primary, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton by more than 13 to 1 among black voters, and Clinton beat Obama by nearly 2 to 1 among white voters. In other words, instead of unifying the races in North Carolina, Obama is polarizing and alienating them, and trading on that division to win the nomination. Black turnout surged and carried Obama to victory by a wide margin. In North Carolina's Forsyth County, for instance, ten times more absentee ballots were received than in a normal election and more than half of them were from black voters. The Winston-Salem Journal reports: "Nearly 500,000 people statewide voted early or cast an absentee ballot before the primary -- more than half the overall number who voted during the 2004 primary."
Six primaries are yet to be contested, with 217 delegates available. Then there are roughly 750 "super delegates" who are two-thirds decided and split evenly between the two candidates, with one-third undecided. So that means about 475 votes are in play. Obama must win 226 of those to clinch the nomination, or just under half. If Clinton can win about 55% of the remaining votes in play, she'll deny Obama the nomination and they'll proceed to a brokered convention.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditRushbo and Billary Under the Sheets
Filed under: US Elections
Things are getting interesting in the U.S. presidential election cycle this year. Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton are in bed together, just for starters.
People are attacking the pair for the same reason, they don't want to support their parties' frontrunners. Rushbo says John McCain isn't conservative enough, and Billary says Barack Obama is to liberal -- indeed, maybe to just-plain-crazy. People are telling them to just step aside and let McCain and Obama do battle. They warn that if they don't, the result could be their worst nightmare, the election of their rivals to power.
These critics are, of course, totally un-American and seemingly traitors to their own causes. Is Barack Obama really such a weak candidate that a primary challenge from Hillary can deny him the nomination? If so, what kind of president would he be?
Can John McCain really be laid low in a general election against freakish agents of disaster like Hillary or Obama just because a radio talk show host won't support him? If so, McCain has far bigger problems than good old Rushbo to worry about.
It's amazing how some Americans believe in democracy only insofar as it doesn't deny their own personal choices. The whole point of democracy is to validate the choices of others, both because others might be right and because others have "natural rights" you can't take away even if they are wrong.
And it's highly ironic here that by far the worst offenders are the so-called "Democrats" on this issue. Many of them, placing partisan politics over the values of democracy, are trying to drive an actual candidate out an ongoing race. Rush Limbaugh, of course, isn't running for anything, so attempts to censor him are hardly comparable. Hillary has won all three of the largest states in terms of electoral votes, and cruised to an double-digit victory in the most recent contest. That makes recent screeds like Tim Noah's in Slate travesties of democratic values. Hillary is closer to catching Obama than he is to winning the nomination. She's far more electable, and she has millions of ardent supporters. Support for the two candidates in Congress is evenly divided. To argue that the race is already over is an outrage and those who suggest it are pure partisan hacks, betraying America and her core values.
Perhaps we need truth in advertising laws for political parties? Or, at least, for their names?
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditOur Truth is Marching On!
Filed under: US Elections
These should be be best of times for the leftists, and yet they are the worst of times.
Recently it was announced that George Bush has a higher unfavorable rating than any other president in American history (though his favorability number remains higher than both Truman and Nixon at their lowest ebbs). American leftists would love to celebrate, but they can't.
They are mired in a pathetic primary collapse, unable to select a nominee and faced with a brutal brokered convention followed by wholesale defections in the general election.
Worse, their key talking point ("it's the economy, stupid") is taking on water fast. The most recent data shows the jobless rate is down and the dollar and stock markets are both up. GDP growth is measurable, no recession -- and all despite the radical upswing in gas prices, a breathtaking testament to the power and resiliency of the American economy.
And then came Britain.
In local council and London mayoral elections, British conservatives scored a massive victory, ousting the reviled communist mayor of London Ken Livingstone and grabbing the lion's share of the council contests. In other words, the right showed itself to be every bit as resilient as the American economy.
And that's to say nothing of the recent onslaught of sex scandals involving high Democrat office holders, which has most recently laid low the Attorney General of Ohio.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObama in the Headlights
Filed under: US Elections
It seems that Real Clear Politics has nailed Barack Obama dead to rights on Jeremiah Wright. Though I despise Obama, I can't say I'm pleased about this. It could well bring calls for Obama to back out of the race, putting the more-dangerous Clinton candidacy back in play. He's bottomed out just a few weeks too soon, damn him (though perhaps leftist MSM coverage won't play broad enough and make the connection clearly enough during the primary cycle to finish him off that early)! Then again, this guy is such a dangerous freak that maybe it's better for the nation to take zero chance he will win office.
RCP points out that Wright told the New York Times in March 2007 that he had been "dis-invited" from Obama's announcement of candidacy the month before, and that Obama had told him: "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."
So it's clear that Obama was fully aware of the outrageous, racist nature of Wright's sermons before he even announced his candidacy, and excluded Wright from the announcement proceedings for precisely that reason, in a coldly calculating manner. Boiling mad since then, Wright has now blown the whistle on the betrayal. Even if Obama denies making this statement to Wright, the fact that he was dis-invited does not change. Obviously, his lifelong pastor was not dis-invited (or simply not present) by accident, but because of a political calculation based on Wright's risk factor. And Obama never denied the New York Times quote, which should lay the whole issue to rest.
Hence, when Obama said that he didn't know the content of Wright's sermons, he simply lied. He attended them for twenty years. He's a well-educated, intelligent person. Of course he knew their content. And he traded on it for political gain. For all we know he believed it, applauded it, and still does. And then, he lied about his knowledge of it, and then he threw Wright under the bus when it became convenient to do so.
New kind of leadership? Audacity of hope?
I think not. This is a nasty enough situation that it may merit some spontaneous discussion, so I am opening the comments on this post for those who can responsibly do so and are so inclined.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObamageddon
Filed under: US Elections
"Obamageddon" is when black New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes: "A candidate who stands haplessly by as his former spiritual guide roams the country dropping one divisive bomb after another is in very little danger of being seen by most voters as the next J.F.K. or L.B.J. The apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf. Mr. Obama seems more and more like someone buffeted by events, rather than in charge of them."
In other words, the Obama candidacy is not only terrifying because of the racism or stupidity that clearly lies in his past, but because of the craven weakness that clearly lies before us now. I've warned before that it's the worst thing in the world for America's black polity to put forth their first major candidate without demanding he have real credentials and a real vetting in the early primaries. Now, Obama is setting the cause of black politics back many years.
Obama's response to Wright's recent torrent of hatred? Quoth the Obama: "I may not know him as well as I thought." Can you imagine hearing that from him a few years after he inks a deal with North Korea, Russia or Iran, telling us to "trust him" as he exposes our national security? Gulp.
And let's be clear: The only reason we are hearing Obama back away from Wright now is that he's seeing political consequences from his allegiance. For twenty years he ignored this torrent of hatred -- indeed, he profited from it. It's quite possible that is more outrageous than actually agreeing with Wright's unconscionable racism.
I wrote in these pages just days ago that we would soon see Jeremiah Wright attacking anyone who criticizes him as a racist, and, lo and behold, now he is doing just that. Months ago, when other conservatives were saying Hillary Clinton was the most beatable candidate, I told you that in fact Obama was the prize target. I told you that when the Daily Kos embraces a national candidate, as it did with Howard Dean, it's a sure sign of doom for that candidate. We can only hope it isn't too late for Clinton to scratch and claw her way back into the nomination. Obama has bottomed out even earlier than I dared to imagine.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAnd Now an Obama Burst, and Now a Dumbocrat World
Filed under: US Elections
BFFs
"How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?"
That's the question Charles Krauthammer is asking presidential contender Barack Obama (shown above with his BFF Al Sharpton) in his latest column in the Washington Post.
The answer from Obama: "Real change has never been easy. The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November."
So, anyone who dares to ask that question, or any other question not approved in advance by His Holiness the Obamacle, is "distracting" us from the truth. How long before such people are deemed racists? How long before "they really should be in prison"? How long before they are?
The nutroots are launching a frenzied attack on ABC for daring to ask Obama these questions during the most recent debate. Naturally, they want to sweep Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright and the Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers under the table, not only because of their toxic electoral effect but because Obama botched his responses to the questions so pathetically, bursting his bubble in a millisecond.
Krauthammer: "Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers's home. Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, 'I feel we didn't do enough.'" Obama was also fully of age when he refused to put his hand on his heart during a patriotic salute and refused to wear and American flag on his lapel.
Perhaps has important to Obama's sordid role in all these scandalous affairs was his total inability to face the questions honestly. Though he claims to be about "change," he handled the questions in the same dissembling, evasive manner as all those ordinary politicians he loves to attack, and ended the debate with egg on his face.
People like Barack Obama are the reason the American system of limited government was devised. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, they seek to insinuate themselves into office rather than to be genuinely elected on their core beliefs, and only unveil their actual plans once they have power. They know that their core beliefs would be repudiated by the voters if exposed, but they believe their core beliefs are the only way to save the people for their own good from their own inadequacies. In this way, all the dictators of the past have been born, and America has been spared them because even when they -- like LBJ and FDR -- come to power, they find that the power they've obtained is so limited that they can't effectively wreck the nation.
They say you know you are over the target when you start taking flak. So, listen to the Daily Kos wail and scream about Krauthammer, and you'll know with what precision he's lasered in on Obama.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in Pennsylvania
Filed under: US Elections
The top ten states according to population (in order California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina) control 246 electoral votes for president or 91% of the 270 needed to win the Oval Office. Nine of these states have run their primary election contests so far this year, and Democrat Barack Obama has won only two of them -- Illinois and Georgia -- while Clinton has won all of the top three.
Despite spending truly obscene gobs of cash in Pennsylvania and leading in the overall delegate count, therefore having the wind at his back, Obama was dealt another devastating loss in a major state last night, losing Pennsylvania in woeful, double-digit fashion. Now Democrats are asking: Why can't he close the deal? What's wrong with him? And they are noticing that he isn't winning their core constituencies. If they don't win in Pennsylvania in the general election, they lose. It's as simple as that. Obama crazily referred to the people of central Pennsylvania as bitter hillbillies, and lost their counties by whopping 70% margins across the state.
Obama needs 320 more delegates to reach the nomination, but Clinton needs less than half that number to catch him in the delegate race. Clinton is much closer to catching Obama, in other words, than he is to reaching the nomination. Since the votes of Michigan and Florida aren't being counted but likely favor Clinton just like the other major states, Clinton supporters will reasonably claim they are being cheated if they are denied the nomination. Combined with Obama's wild-eyed and corrupt past, this dissatisfaction spells total disaster in the general election. The contrast between Obama's terrorist, America-hating cohorts and John McCain, a legitimate war hero, will be stark indeed.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditNice Job, Mr. Gore! (Happy "Earth Day" Everybody!)
Filed under: US Elections
Though Al Gore was recently awarded a Nobel Prize, as the Gallup Poll data shown above clearly indicates, American attitudes on the need for action to address global warming are almost exactly the same now as they were thirteen years ago. In other words, Mr. Gore's hysterics have accomplished exactly nothing. In fact, support for dramatic action is actually slightly down from 1995. Some of his key "green" ideas, like "food to fuel," have actually been proven quite harmful to all concerned.
Al Gore stands in a long line of Dumbocrats who have been given their party's nomination for president since World War II without ever holding the office. Others include Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and John Kerry. How many Republicans have been in that position? Just two: Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole. That just about says it all, doesn't it?
Oh by the way: Happy "Earth Day," everyone!
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Blind Leading the Blind
Filed under: US Elections
So, let me ask you a question. Suppose you were quite sick, and went to see a doctor. Suppose you were sitting in his waiting room, and you overheard a conversation between the doctor and his secretary. The doctor said: "Last night I had 43 messages, all of them five minutes in length. That would be 215 minutes worth of material -- over three hours." You gathered that the doctor was blind, and each of his nurses would call a special telephone number at the end of each day to give him reports on all the things he needed to know for the following day. The doctor then said: "I stayed up that night from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. listening to the recordings. But that was only enough time to get through half of them."
Would you consent to be treated?
If not, then you'd probably have considerable stress living in New York State today, because that's a real conversation between New York State's new governor David Paterson and a reporter for the New York Times. That's right: He admitted freely, just as he did his extramarital affairs, that he can't fully prepare for a day's work because he's legally blind. He doesn't even read Braille. All he does is listen to taped messages, and try to remember what he can of those he can manage to get to before nodding off at beddy bye time.
It was never for one single second part of the most recent campaign for governor that the state might have a blind governor -- and one reason it wasn't was that the MSM, most especially the New York Times, didn't make it so. They betrayed New York's voters just as surely as the Democrats themselves, who nominated a lying, cheating scoundrel named Elliot Spitzer as their candidate, only to see him resign in disgrace. Thanks to the failure of MSM institutions like the Times, which utterly failed to challenge and question his candidacy, Spitzer won a Soviet-like 70% of the vote and the public remained totally oblivious.
Thanks a lot, Dumbocrats! Your role in leading one of the nation's most significant states really fills us with confidence as to your ability to do the job on a national scale.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Dumbocrats, Imploding
Filed under: US Elections
Ouch!
These are not good times to be a Democrat, though they should be if George Bush is unpopular as people say.
Let's leave aside the amazing spectacle being generated as the Dumbocrats prove unable to select a nominee and hurtle towards a bloody brokered convention. Let's pass over Hillary kicking Obamabooty all over last night's debate, and the nutroots going pathetically, predictably ape. Understandable, of course. If Barack Obama can't even beat Hillary Clinton, what will happen to him in a general election -- much less a conflict with a rival of the United States?
Let's just focus instead on this:
First the Dumbocrats lose the governor of New York State to a massive corruption scandal.
Then, the the Mayor of Detroit is on his way out as well.
And now, it's the former Mayor of Newark's turn.
How many other corrupt Dumbocrat whales are yet to be discovered? Only time will tell.
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditGetting to Know the Real Barack Obama
Filed under: US Elections
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- U.S. Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, campaigning in Indiana
The man who says he wants to be the president of "all Americans" actually hates many of them, with seething, arrogant, elitist passion bordering on frenzy.
So let me see if I understand, Mr. Obama.
If I live in a small town in Pennsylvania and own a gun, it's because I'm "bitter." There's no legitimate reason for me to have a gun, only bitterness -- presumably, bitterness towards George Bush and every other president who hasn't been you. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was a typo.
If I go to church regularly on Sunday, the same. God is nothing but a mirage of bitterness. It's OK, though, if my church expresses that bitterness, if the preacher says things like "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" from the pulpit. In that event I'd have your approval -- but not really your respect, because to get that I'd also have to be pretending to believe in God in order to advance my political prospects, the way you are for instance. First Amendment? Again, typo.
And if I want America to admit only persons with legal permission to enter the country across its borders, and deport those who lack such permission, the same. Citizenship? It's just a state of mind.
OK, I think I follow you, sir. But there is one thing I still don't understand, that part about "antipathy to people who aren't like them." I can't say as I see how that is explained by small-town bitterness, because after all, you yourself talked about "typical white people" on that Philadelphia radio station, and you're not small town guy.
Oh wait a minute, I know. I forgot you are a Marxist. So, basically, anyone who disagrees with YOU, Barack Obama, does so out of ignorance that would disappear if only they were properly reeducated.
When a tidal wave of outrage swept over him, Obama confirmed that he meant what he said:
Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up, because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through. So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That's a natural response. And now, I didn't say it as well as I should have, because you know the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important.
So, in fact, it appears that church-going and gun-owning and border-enforcing were mistakes arising from the bitterness of our founding fathers and passed on down the generations to us. Barack Obama is going to save us from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson! Hooray!
NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDaily Kos: Still Bogus After all these Years!
Filed under: US Elections
I get quite a tickle every time I pop in on the chimps and scurrying cockroaches who put out the Daily Kos. Day or night, rain or shine, I know I'll find clear and conclusive proof of leftist self-destruction.
Take today's post by Der Kos himself, attacking John McCain for allegedly anemic fundraising.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Hamas Terrorists Love Barack Obama
Filed under: Middle East ~ US Elections
Sing along, won't you? "If Nescobama can please the whole wide world of psychopathic Hamas terrorists, he can sure please you Mr. & Mrs. America!"
By the way, Billary still has a clear path to the nomination, it's explained quite well here.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBarack Obama: Lower than Low, How Low can you Go?
Filed under: US Elections
You may think it's inappropriate for Barack Obama to say on his website that "endorsements from religious leaders are extended in their personal capacity, and not on behalf of any house of worship, organization or denomination" and then to show not one, not two, not three, not four but five different priests wearing their religious garb. After all, it almost makes it look like he knows what he's doing is wrong, but doing it anyway.
But that is nothing.
Because, as Michelle Malkin points out, one of those five puts the rest to shame:
Pastor Pfleger, you probably will not be surprised but may be outraged to learn, is the "white Jerimiah Wright." You might be even more appalled to find out that, though Obama has tried to distance himself from Wright in recent days, Pfleger hosted Wright at his Roman-Catholic church last Friday.
But that is nothing.
Because it turned out this wasn't any autocratic excess imposed by Pfleger on the helpless victims of his congregation. When introduced, Wright received a "raucous standing ovation" from those assembled. He then sang "Happy Birthday" to Maya Angelou.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditSee, Told you So!
Filed under: US Elections
As shown above, Gallup reports that one-third more Hillary voters will support McCain in the general election if their gal does not get the nod compared to Obama voters who will do likewise if they're out in the cold.
I told you long before it was fashionable to say so that it would be far better for the Republicans to face Obama than Clinton, and this seems to be the final nail in that coffin.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditIt's Raining McCain!
Filed under: US Elections
Click here if you are having trouble seeing the YouTube image. May take a while to load.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Democrats and their Old Nemesis, Democracy
Filed under: US Elections
You may recall, if you are an ardent political junkie, a furor that arose in the American loopy left just as the primary election cycle was getting serious involving the apportionment of electoral votes in California. They decried as a "dirty tricks campaign" a Republican initiative to apportion the nation's most-populous state's presidential electoral votes proportional to the popular vote -- in other words, it wouldn't be winner-take-all. Each candidate would get the same share of the state's electoral votes (it has the most of any state) as he or she had won of the state's popular vote. This would guarantee Republicans a chunk of the state's electoral votes even if they lost, and could have created a major obstacle to the Democrats winning the presidency. Naturally, the Democrats wailed to high heaven that it was unfair.
And yet, as Democrat (and Hillary Clinton backer) Evan Bayh (Senator of Indiana) points out, the Democrats conduct their own primary nominating process in exactly this manner. Moreover, if they did in their primaries what they demanded Republicans do in the general election in California, and awarded primary electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, then Hillary Clinton would now have a significant lead over Barack Obama even without considering Michigan and Florida. Other than those, the states Clinton has won carry 219 electoral votes, while the states in Obama's column have only 202. You need 268 electoral votes to win the Oval Office. The only reason Obama is leading in the actual primary is because it isn't winner-take-all, and he's been able to scoop up considerable support in states he has lost (including almost every "major" state in the country -- Texas, New York and California, for instance).
It probably will not surprise you to learn that the Daily Kos called the California proposal "steal this election" and opposed it vehemently. If you know Kos, then neither will it surprise you that it didn't mention a single word about that position when it also vehemently attacked Bayh for noticing Clinton's electoral position (since the Kos is feverishly and predictably supporting the wacko extremist Obama -- when a splinter group dared to support Hillary, they were savaged and driven into exile). Their old standby scatology makes its appearance in this attack, so you know that Bayh truly got under their scaly skin.
This, dear reader, in a nutrootshell, is why the Democrats haven't reelected an elected president with a majority of the popular vote since World War II, while since then the Republicans have done so four different times. The fact is that, though named after "democracy," this is the last thing Democrats actually support. See, the people of the country simply don't support the left-wing initiative, which means that by definition to enact it Democrats must be prepared (as dictators of the left always have been) to ram it down the public's throat "for its own good." This is how FDR handled the "new deal" and how LBJ handled the "great society." It's how Lenin and Mau operated, and it seems it will be so until the end of time.
NOTE: Three devastating critiques of the Obamillusion, one by William Kristol in the NYT, one by Christopher Hitchens in Slate, and one -- the most crippling -- by Lionel Chetwynd in Pajamas Media. Chetwynd references "that . . . teaching opportunity I hoped you would evoke: not explaining Wright's outrage to me, but explaining his outrageousness to him."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditOhmyfreakinbamaGOD! What next?
Filed under: US Elections
This is a real Soviet-style campaign poster for Barack Obama (with the addition of a satirical animated button supplied by a clever Michelle Malkin reader). Scary, isn't it? That is nothing. He's been endorsed by the Black Panther Party. That is nothing. He's bragging about it. That is nothing. He is scheduled to appear on Larry King tonight to discuss . . . his crazy ideas about . . . the war in Iraq. First a speech, then Olberman, then King. Really hard-hitting challenges you're ready to face there, Mr. Obama. Very impressive indeed. Michelle Malkin says what when Obama mentions "change," he means . . change the subject. Stalin was also a big change from Lenin, you know.
Oh . . . my . . . freakin' . . . God.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditContrabamadictions
Filed under: US Elections
So let's see now.
Barack Obama was able to instantly find out that Geraldine Ferraro, while working for Hillary Clinton, had made anti-black racist comments in an obscure local newspaper in California, and he immediately confronted them.
Yet, he had no way of knowing that his own church pastor was a pro-black racist lunatic because he just happened to miss every single one of the sermons that pastor delivered that were offensive and never heard anyone talking about them (he doesn't know anything about YouTube, but still he's a man of the new century, a vibrant and dynamic new kind of leader), and he had no way of knowing that Newsmax had reported months ago on his being present at one such sermon even though its reporter had repeatedly tried to contact him, and only learned about that recently too.
Uh, OK.
And even though Obama skipped so many sermons, we still have to accept that he's a very religious Christian, certainly not Muslim or anything, a Christian who attends church regularly and diligently.
Errmmm . . . got it.
And even though he had no idea of what his own pastor of more than two decades was doing, a person he'd made a ranking figure in his campaign apparatus and cited on his campaign website, we still have to accept that he's a brilliant, well-informed man capable of making a new kind of foreign policy for America.
Grrrrggle . . . mmmmmhhmmmm.
Thanks, MSM. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post:
Obama has learned to rely on a sycophantic media that hears any criticism of him as either (1) racist, (2) vaguely racist or (3) doing the bidding of Hillary and Bill Clinton. You only have to turn your attention to the interview Obama granted MSNBC's fawning Keith Olbermann for an example. Obama was asked whether he had known that Wright had suggested substituting the phrase "God damn America" for "God bless America.""You know, frankly, I didn't," Obama said. "I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made."
But had you heard about them? Did your crack campaign staff alert you? And what about Wright's honoring Farrakhan? Had you heard about that? Did you feel any obligation to denounce those remarks -- not Farrakhan's, as you had done, but those of Wright himself? Don't you consider yourself a public figure whom others look to for leadership? Do you think you failed them here?
Olbermann asked none of those questions.
All nice and clear now?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObamagate, Part III: Barack Obama, Boldfaced Liar
Filed under: US Elections
Barack Obama is now furiously scrambling to cut his ties with his racist pastor and deny prior knowledge of his racism and hatred of the country Obama wants to lead. But Newsmax reported on August 9, 2007, that its reporter Jim Davis attended services with Barack Obama and his secret service security contingent on July 22, 2007, at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago. Davis was first blocked from entering the church by its phalanx of brawny bouncers, apparently because of his skin color; inside, there were virtually no whites in attendance.
At that service, Obama heard Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. say that "white arrogance" was responsible for U.S. foreign policy, and referred to our country as the "United States of White America." Giving an example, Wright said that American involvement in Iraq was due to "Bush administration bullshit." What kind of pastor uses that kind of language in the pulpit? What kind of American sits and listens rather than walking out? Clearly, Wright knew that Obama was in attendance, since the members of his security contingent and the reporter were just about the only white faces in the congregation of over 2,500. Clearly, Obama did not do a thing to oppose what he had heard, much less walk out as he should have done, and only addresses the issue now because he's been forced to do so by the media. The Democrats are directly responsible for this outrage, because they gave Obama a free pass for so long during their primaries.
So let's be crystal clear: When Obama says he never heard this kind of rhetoric from Wright, he's simply lying, and when he claims he's a candidate who stands for "change" he couldn't be more disingenuous. If he really did attend Wright's church for 20 years without ever becoming aware of Wright's racism, that would be worse than knowing about it, since it would clearly mean he's far too stupid and oblivious to be president. Who knows how many other such services he attended when reporters didn't happen to be around. If Obama can lie so brazenly, and so freely spurn the pastor he's spent his whole adult life adoring, then how can we believe he'll stick to any promise he may make now about governing the whole country and rejecting Wright's venomous ideology when president?
Davis also notes that Wright has told the New York Times that in a general election he expected Obama to distance himself from the church for reasons of political expediency: "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said 'yeah, that might have to happen.'" Conspiracy? I'm not a big believer in them, but is sure sounds like one to me.
UPDATE: A reader points out that the Daily Kos is disputing this account based solely on the date. Could be Davis got that wrong. We're seeing a new low in Clintoniansm here: Obama doesn't say "I never heard Wright say that," he just says "I wasn't there on that date." If this is change, give me the same old, same old. William Kristol writes about the incident in today's New York Times. Kristol notes Obama's response to the 9/11 and "God damn America" remarks: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity." How Clintonian can you get?
UPDATE #2: The LA Times reports that Newsmax stands by its story. Newsmax states that their reporter attended several services in December and is 100% sure he witnessed Obama attending the "United States of White America" sermon. The date might be wrong, of course, or a commenter suggests that Obama could have heard the sermon and then traveled to Miami the same day, especially if he left after one hour: "Trinity services start at 7:30am. If Obama stayed an hour (normal service) and left at 8:30 am. 1/2 hour to Midway Airport and in the air by 9:15 Arrive in Miami by 12 noon (allowing 2 hour and 45 minutes flight and landing, would be 1 pm Eastern time & half hour to drive to the event. I think it is a very real possibility he attended the service and spoke in Miami." Sooner or later, Obama will get nailed with conclusive documentary proof and won't be able to deny he was present. Then he'll pull another Clinton and start talking about what he remembers hearing and how he may not have been paying attention because he was thinking about saving sick children. One can only heave a sigh of disgust.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObamagate: Part II
Filed under: US Elections
No sooner does the world learn about the racist, thug-like comments from the pulpit of the pastor Barack Obama and his wife have been listening to for two decades, with Obama claiming he never heard them, than the other jackboot drops.
Now, the Chicago Tribune is reporting that corrupt businessman Tony Rezko (show above), currently facing a multi-count indictment for fraud, contributed not 2% (or $2,000) to Obama's first major political campaign (in 1995 for the Illinois Senate) as Obama said when news of Rezko's corruption first broke but 15% (or $15,000). And the contributions skyrocketed after that, again contrary to Obama's first claims, and reached a whopping $250,000 after three campaigns. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of Obama's corruption, since he was also involved in a questionable land deal with Rezko in order to buy his million-dollar house. Who knows what else has yet to be discovered?
Just like with his pastor, Obama claims he never knew anything was wrong. The Trib states: "After news reports of Rezko's questionable political dealings first emerged in 2005, Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. 'My instinct was to believe him,' he said."
Instead of investigating the charges himself, Obama chose to take the accused's word for it and keep the money. That's the best case scenario, if you believe Obama is an idiot, rather than a liar scurrying to cover his tracks. If he becomes president, is this how Obama will handle the leaders of countries like Iran and Russia, he'll blindly trust them, take their word for things like a simpleton? Can you imagine the things the left would be saying about George Bush if this type of conduct had been exposed on his part.
Last night, the nutroots attempted to respond to the horrifying news about Obama's pastor by shifting attention away from Obama's ludicrous and flatly incredible claims that he never knew about the pastor's attitudes despite sitting in his pews for two decades by attempting to attack John McCain. They tried to equate some anti-gay remarks of McCain's spiritual adviser, a hard-line conservative, with blaming America for 9/11 and condemning it to hell. The fact that the Democrats think Americans might view these two incidents as being remotely similar is a pretty succinct explanation of why they haven't reelected an elected president once since World War II while the Republicans have done it four times. The fact that they think Jimmy Carter's stupidity excuses that of George Bush is just plain pathetic.
Hey, hey -- ho, ho. Barack Obama has got to go.
UPDATE: The Hillary-Obama battle has split the Daily Kos and resulted in a walkout of the pro-Hillary camp. Not only has the main page of the blog ignored the split in the manner of the USSR, it has simultaneously with the diarist post that announced it posted another vicious attack on Hillary, accusing her of being stupider than a child and, ironically, accusing the pro-Hillary forces of being like the USSR. Seems like everyone at the Daily Kos can pretty much agree that they are all a bunch of totalitarian maniacs.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditGod Damn Barack Obama!
Filed under: US Elections
I thought I had seen some shocking things in my years observing the annals of American politics, but this one is in a class all by itself.
The pastor of Barack Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, who is an official member of his campaign on religious issues (the two are shown above embracing), has been found to have declared in 2003 during a sermon to his flock, speaking on behalf of his Church and, presumably, with the authority of the Lord:
The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing "God Bless America." No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.
That's right: He's saying he wants millions of innocent American children to burn in hellfire because he doesn't care for America's politics. Not "God damn the racists." God damn America.
ABC News, reporting the story, states: "An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans."
Obama's response? The pastor is not fired from the campaign. He is not condemned by Obama. Instead, Obama responds: "There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe." Then he accuses ABC of "cherry picking" from the pastor's remarks and rationalized: "This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements."
In other words what? He's senile? Then why is he a ranking member of the Obama campaign? Why is Obama attending his services?
Well, God damn you, Mr. Obama.
After 9/11, the pastor said: "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Obama's response? He said: "It sounds like he was trying to be provocative." No condemnation, no sanction. But of course, Obama doesn't agree with his sentiments. Ward Churchill was fired from his university job for saying exactly that. Yet, Obama still embraces his pastor, whom he's been sitting in brainwash sessions with for many, many years, apparently without ever saying a public word against his message of anti-Americanism.
Seen in this light, isn't Obama's refusal to wear the American flag and to put his hand over his heart when saying the Pledge of Allegiance rather more stunningly outrageous than ever?
Do you dare to imagine how Obama would react if John McCain's lifelong pastor, and a ranking member of the campaign, said: "God damn those blacks!" Would Obama be satisfied with rationalizations then?
This man may be the most dangerous serious contender for the presidency we have ever seen. The danger is so shocking that I no longer would like to see him get the nomination, even though I believe Hillary Clinton would be tougher for my man John McCain to beat. Even the smallest chance of this freak of nature becoming president is far too great a risk to run.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditGlen Mamet, Glen Conservative
Filed under: US Elections
Playright David Mamet comes over to our side, in the Village Voice of all places. Liberalism on the upswing? I think not. Michael Weiss has commentary on Jewcy.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit"If we didn't have police, we wouldn't have crime"
Filed under: US Elections
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditSolving the Spitzer Equation
Filed under: US Elections
Pajamas Media has a fascinating post (over 40 comments already) written by a madam who solves the Spitzer Equation:
Part I: The Customer
One high-powered New York attorney explained it to me like this: "Of course I love my wife. Escorts have nothing to do with that. She comes to my hotel room and I don't have to know her name, because they all use fake names like Amber and Kimberly. I don't have to worry about how she feels or what she wants. It's a simple exchange: I give her a thousand bucks, we have a good time for a couple of hours, she goes away and we never have to see each other again."
See, he "doesn't have to worry about what his lover needs or wants" yet he feels it's appropriate to say "we have a good time for a couple of hours." Not "I have a good time," but "we." He's able to convince himself she's having fun.
Part II: The Sales Girl
Then they got addicted to the money and the lifestyle. And then one day, usually between the ages of 25 and 28, once they'd developed that knowing, experienced look that clients instinctively disliked, they found that themselves in a classic bind: they were addicted to high living but could no longer pay for it; they had no marketable skills; and years of late nights and lazy days had left them with no self-discipline. What to do? The really smart ones pulled themselves together and, with the help of a sympathetic client, started some kind of a business. Others married rich, cynical, older men in a sort of paid-wife arrangement. Those were the most common stories. I did not inquire into the fate of the girls who sort of faded away. I did not want to hear about their loneliness and poverty.
She doesn't have any fun in the room, but she thinks its worthwhile anyway because of the money. Just like people think smoking is worthwhile, right up until they're diagnosed. Then suddenly a light comes on.
So there you have it, mutual delusion ending in destruction for both sides. Cue Lyin' Eyes. The equation has been neatly solved by an expert. Fade to black.
UPDATE: Nicholas Kristof reminds us why prostitution is illegal.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditSpitzering into the Wind
Filed under: US Elections
Resigning in disgrace to face a possible litany of serious federal criminal charges, after vainly and arrogantly struggling to hold on to his position by any means possible or, at least, to extort freedom from criminal prosecution, New York's Democrat Governor Eliot Spitzer has unleashed a torrent of stupidity, exposing the underbelly of American society in a way rarely seen. It's a valuable learning experience for all that should not be missed. Hard to imagine how the news could be any worse for the Democrats.
By the way, it now turns out that the prostitute is an aspiring singer who had a MySpace page that on Thursday morning had nearly 3 million hits but by Thursday afternoon had been mysteriously closed. Choice quote on how she found her music: "It started when I moved in with a musician during my odyssey to New York. One day, I was in the shower singing 'respect.' He and his lead guitarist burst in, had me repeat it and it started. We wrote, rehearsed and toured. After recording a bit with them, I decided to move to Manhattan to pursue my music career."
America reacts.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in Mississippi: Stormclouds on the Democrats' Horizon
Filed under: US Elections
Via data from CNN, the Daily Kos posts the two charts above, which show the results of a Mississippi exit poll (Barack Obama cruised to easy victory there last night). DK crows about how only 4% of those who would be unsatisfied with an Obama nomination would be Obama voters, while nearly four times more of those unsatisfied with a Clinton win would be Clinton voters. They believe this shows Clinton's support is hollower than that of their man.
Yet, amazingly, DK ignores the other point the poll data is making. The result shows that a whopping 32% of Democrats will be unsatisfied if Obama wins, and even more (39%) will be unsatisfied if Clinton wins. That means that nearly one-third of all Democrat voters will be unsatisfied no matter who wins -- and the Republicans have nominated the perfect candidate, John "Moderate/Independent Magnate" McCain, to grab all those unsatisfied folks. Think conservatives disaffected by McCain will vote for the Dems? Think again. Just 66% of Democrat voters will be satisfied if Obama wins the nomination, their best-case scenario (60% in Clinton's case).
That's hardly an indication that Democrats can unify around the ultimate winner, now is it? And just imagine if, as seems quite possible, a divisive brokered convention is the way that winner is chosen, something that hasn't even happened yet -- nor has either candidate been subjected to a roasting from the Republicans. The fact that before the real campaign even begins and despite George Bush's lack of popularity Democrats can still have such a high level of dissatisfaction speaks volumes about the quality of their candidates.
It's simply jaw-dropping that the DK can play such blatant propaganda games with data like this. It reminds me of the USSR. No wonder the Democrats haven't reelected an elected president with a majority of the popular vote since World War II.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObama vs. Edwards: What's the Difference?
Filed under: US Elections
If you think about it, it's hard to explain why Barack Obama dominated John Edwards at the polls. They're almost identical in background: leftist wealthy lawyers who've served a bit of time in the Senate. In fact, it can easily be argued that Edwards has more experience, given that he's previously been a vice-presidential candidate and has a longer period of service in the Senate. Try to explain how they differ significantly at the policy level, and you'll be hard-pressed. The one major difference, of course, is that Obama is black -- but that's supposed to be an obstacle for him to overcome, isn't it? If it were, what superior qualities could we point to that Obama has over Edwards that allow him to overcome it? Is he, in fact, greatly benefited by being black, giving the lie to the notion that America is a racist nation? Is he, in fact, trading on his race? Is America that advanced as a nation?
What do you think?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditLadies of the Democrats' Evenings
Filed under: US Elections
So let's see now.
Democrat Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer (and former Attorney General, no less) has been seeing "Emperor's Club" prostitutes who cost from $1,000 per hour for the lowest quality to $31,000 per day for the highest quality (how they are rated, exactly, nobody quite knows for sure -- maybe the good Governor fills out a score card -- excuse the pun).
When caught red handed, he responds with a 64-second statement to the press in which his description of what he'd done wrong is limited to having "acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my -- or any -- sense of right and wrong." No mention of prostitution. He refuses to take any questions either about his acts or his intention to resign (or anything else for that matter), and when asked about the latter as he fled the room at high speed, he slammed the door in reporters' faces.
He states (no kidding): "We vowed to bring real change to New York and that will continue." Indeed so, governor. It's quite a change to have our chief executive busted in a prostitution raid. Can't really recall the last time such a thing happened. The New York Times reports: "As state attorney general, he prosecuted prostitution rings with enthusiasm -- pointing out that they are often involved in human trafficking, drug trafficking and money laundering. In 2004 on Staten Island, Mr. Spitzer was vehement in his outrage over 16 people arrested in a high-end prostitution ring." It forgets to mention that it endorsed Spitzer, misleading New York voters, much less does it apologize. Spitzer now faces possible indictment for transporting a prostitute across state lines (trafficking) and laundering the funds to pay her (structuring), either one of which could lead to serious jail time. And despite that, his refusal to honestly confront the charges is an even worse offense, to say nothing of his hypocrisy and obscene cruelty in forcing his wife to stand next to him during his pseudo "press conference" which lasted barely a minute.
Responding to the news, the Daily Kos states (no kidding): "At $5500/hour, the Emperor's Club prostitutes cost Spitzer approximately the same as Rudy's security detail cost the taxpayers of NYC every time that Rudy went to the Hamptons on a tryst with Judy." So get this: It's OK if Democrat governors bag prostitutes and commit federal crimes because Republican mayors have extramarital affairs. Welcome, boys and girls, to the new liberalism.
Thanks, Democrats, for showing us how to govern the right way. Lord knows, we poor Republicans need all the advice we can get.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObamimpolsion
Filed under: US Elections
As left-wingers see things, it's perfectly OK to stereotype and demonize and monger hate, as long as you're doing it for the "right" reason. This fundamental hollowness in their core belief system is why they so routinely implode before our gaping eyes. And so we have Harvard professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Samantha Power (pictured), a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" and then promptly resigning in disgrace.
Truly, Obama does remind one of JFK. Remember how JFK barely squeaked into office without a majority of the popular vote, and then proceeded to surround himself with the "best and the brightest" lights of Harvard, etc.? And remember how those brilliant geniuses than proceeded to cause the two greatest foreign policy debacles in all of American history, the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War? Remember how they caved in to the Russians, bribing them out of Cuba by surrendering a key strategic position in Turkey? Remember how they felt it was OK to lie to the country about their president's woeful ill health and chronic drug abuse (to say nothing of his philandering and mafia ties)?
Are we quite sure that we want more of the same?
A sensible country certainly wouldn't, which is actually why I'd love to see Obama get the nomination, as I've said before. Because I still feel that, all things considered, America is quite a sensible country, and will until I'm proved wrong. Yet, after watching "Mr. Inevitable" get his butt kicked in Ohio and Texas, it seems the Democrats may unfortunately be waking up from their Kool-Aid-induced fantasies in time to choose the more dangerous (less feeble) candidate. Or maybe Obama is going to do their work for them, proving how "ordinary and checkered" he really is all by himself.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditPublius Pundit Wants to Know
Filed under: US Elections
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Devil's Advobama
Filed under: US Elections
Being that it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind, I have to say I'm starting to feel rather sanguine about the prospect of an Obama presidency, not that I still wouldn't prefer to see McCain trounce him. Here's why.
First, there was Obama's recent savaging of Vladimir Putin's Russia. I think McCain would be plenty tough on Russia, but who knows? Maybe once Obama realizes how racist Russia is, he'll be tougher still. Maybe, with McCain still in the Senate and cooperating with him on Russia, galvanizing the Republicans (or, be still my heart, as Ambassador to Russia), Obama could unify American policy even more sharply than McCain. Gives me butterflies just thinking about it.
Second, it's now being reported that Obama has plans to fill his cabinet with conservatives and govern from the center. Remember the last time Democrats got all excited about winning the White House? Their candidate's name was Bill Clinton. In short order, he'd enacted a whole litany of Republican pipe dreams, including free trade, welfare abolition and the balanced budget. Then, to round things out, he delivered the House of Representatives back into Republican hands for the first time in a half century, and he was followed by a two-term Republican president. Guarantee me that all over again, and I'm an Obama Girl this minute!
Third, some folks are predicting that the U.S. is on the brink of entering a recession, which does seem to come along every ten years or so and is therefore just about due. I'm not convinced, but if it happens then it would be quite convenient for the Democrats to shoulder the blame. Reminds me of Jimmy Carter.
And fourth, there's his race. It really would be kind of cool to throw him up in the face of all those folks who pour hatred and scorn on America (including a whole host of America-hating Americans), it really would seriously take the wind out of their sails.
Now I'll grant you, there are two pretty nasty, smelly flies in this ointment (apart from the fact that I might be overstating the foregoing merits). One is the danger that Obama's inexperience will allow him to be duped by the Medvedev facade of the Putin regime just as George Bush was made a fool by Putin himself. There's no chance that McCain can be suckered by Putin's Medvedev mask. He certainly hasn't spoken out often enough on Russia to be at all sure of his policies. The other is Obama's weird personality cult (aptly documented and satirized by the great ObamaMessiah blog -- if you read the shocking litany of public statements likening Obama to a religious savior, you can't but be deeply disturbed). All by themselves, the recent statements of praise for Obama by crazed racist lunatic Louis Farrakhan should be enough to give any thoughtful person serious qualms about voting for him.
And yet, these two things make Obama curiously vulnerable. There's simply no way that Obama could maintain a personality cult as a lever of power once he became president, and if he relies on it to become president he would set himself up for a big fall and be all the more likely to cooperate with the right. And if he lets himself get played by Russia just as Bush did, won't he suffer the same fate Bush has? Even worse, in fact, because Bush has some protection from conservative wrath because he's one of us (maybe).
In short, it's pretty clear that it would be better for the country if McCain was elected, but it wouldn't necessarily be the best thing for the Republican Party, and maybe having Obama wouldn't be all that bad. Conversely, though, Obama could be the worst thing for the Democrats since Bill Clinton -- which would mean he could be one of the great Republican presidents of all time.
What do you think?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditNo Country for Old Morons
Filed under: US Elections
Last night at the Academy Award ceremonies in Hollywood, America gave all four of its main acting awards to Europeans (a Spaniard, a Frenchwoman and two Britons -- that's the four joyous winners, pictured above). Name the last time Europe did America a favor like that.
Yet, Americans are supposedly hostile to European cultural virtues?
Oh yeah and, by the way, a billion people tuned in to watch the telecast. Name one other country in the history of the television that can has got the world as interested in what it's doing on the cultural front.
Meanwhile, it looks very much as though a black man -- and not just any black man, mind you, but one whose middle name is the same as our former arch enemy in Iraq and whose last name rhymes with the first name of our current arch enemy in Afghanistan -- will receive a nomination for president of the United States.
Yet, America is supposedly a racist nation. (Note: Sinking to yet another epic new low, the New York Times reported "hushed worry" that Barack Obama will be assassinated. There are no such threats, and to my knowledge no African-American candidate for any office in American history has been assassinated to keep him out of office. Yet the Times reported this story on the front page of its website, opposite a story about how conservatives having "lingering doubts" about John McCain. Shameful. Disgraceful. It's actually sordid. Eww. Yuck.)
We're supposedly in economic decline, yet we lead all major nations of the world in per capita GDP.
We're supposedly poorly educated, yet last year we won more Nobel Prizes than all other nations of the world put together.
Isn't it just about time the America bashers got over themselves?
PS: Speaking of Oscar, Russia was up for two awards last night, foreign- language film and animated short subject. It lost both, and as if to put the boot in Academy voters gave the animated award to a British film on a Russian subject, Peter and the Wolf, and the foreign-language award to an Austrian film about Hitler. Ouch.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWhich Obama Weakness will be Most Lethal?
Filed under: US Elections
References:
Obama is anti-gun.
Obama is pro-illegal immigrant.
Obama is religiously/racially extreme.
Obama is anti-democratic, fomenting a cult of personality. He's been called the "messiah of generation narcissism."
Obama's wife is an anti-American loose cannon.
Obama has no experience and his platform is all image, no substance.
The web is SO over Obama.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit2008: A Conspiracy Theory Odyssey
Filed under: US Elections
I've never been much of a one for conspiracy theories, I'm what you might call a lone-gunman girl. But this election cycle is making me think twice.
There are two things John McCain would like to have in order to maximize his chances in the general election: (1) A really inspirational, young conservative running mate; (2) a really vicious smear from the hardcore left. Now, he's got the second in his pocket in the form of a New York Times story alleging without the slightest shred of actual proof that he had some type of lurid relationship with a female lobbyist. Of all things, the allegation is that the story originates with the even more provocative (for conservatives) and discredited New Republic. The right is breathing fire and rallying around McCain as if he were the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
Now, maybe it's just a coincidence, but let's not forget that the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama suddenly seems positioned to take her out. The Times also endorsed McCain. Would it rather see McCain become president than Obama? Are they, as they should be, scared of what might happen if this totally untested, utterly unqualified person becomes president in a time of global tension? Sure, the Times is a left-wing institution and McCain is a Republican. Sure, in theory the editorial board that endorsed Clinton doesn't control news coverage. But what's the alternative? That the Times editors are so stupid that they'd run a story universally being condemned as unfounded whose effect would be to solidify McCain's support with his base while attacking him on the issue where he's least vulnerable? That sounds almost grassy-knollish to me. It seems there is a conspiracy, either to violate the basic precepts of journalism and use any means possible to sink McCain, or actually to get him elected via subterfuge.
And then there's Bill Clinton. Has he really become senile? Is he really capable of putting his foot in his mouth so many times while purporting to campaign for his wife? Or is it the case that he really doesn't want her to win, to the endless frustration of the Times editorial board?
To round things out, one can ask WTF is going on with Mike Huckabee? The man is mathematically excluded from getting the nomination, he's being soundly repudiated in state after state, and yet he keeps running? What's he angling for? Is he helping McCain by keeping the "race" alive so that McCain is seen racking up win after win? Or is he undermining McCain among conservatives, giving them the chance to continue to express a "protest vote"?
We welcome your thoughts, budding mysteriologists.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBarack Obama: America's Putin?
Filed under: US Elections
Economics guru Robert Samuelson launches a truly devastating attack on Barack Obama, winner of last night's election contests in Hawaii and Wisconsin, in the Washington Post. Samuelson writes: "If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems." He accuses him of proposing "standard goody-bag politics" even as he decries such tactics. Then he guts him like a fish on economic policy:
A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem." Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.
I can't help noticing the similarities between Obama and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Both, at the time of seeking power, were totally lacking in credentials. Both have relied upon the formation of creepy personality cults. And Obama, like Putin, has not been tested in the crucible of real criticism, as his fellow Democratic candidates have cravenly refused to engage him for fear of alienating the party's African-American voter base (though at least Obama did stand on the stage for debates while Putin didn't even have the courage to mount it a single time, and Obama faced TV spots which at least mentioned him in some way critically, while Putin never saw one such attack).
In all his rhetoric about telling America what it doesn't want to hear and doing what's "best" for the country, we hear the classic left-wing manifesto, which basically ends up meaning "if you want to save the people, you've got to kill them." In words, Obama is going to do what's "right" for us whether we want it or not, and if anybody gets in his way, well then . . . he'll handle them the way FDR handled the Supreme Court and the Japanese. After all, it's for our own good.
Obama's wife recently said that she hasn't been proud of America for one single second in her whole life, not until it started supporting her husband for president. So she was ashamed all through the Carter presidency, and through the Clinton years ("America's first black president"). She can't be proud of America, in other words, unless she gets what she wants.
That sounds eerily Putinian to me too.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Church of Latter-day Obama
Filed under: US Elections
Did you know that your soul was broken?
Did you know that it was going to be repaired by a rich corporate lawyer and his rich corporate lawyer wife (in her $900 shoes), who were going to fix your soul by curing America's condition of desperate poverty (in ways that, trust him, you don't need to know about before the election)?
It's not clear yet what part Minister Farrakhan will play in this great act of national healing, but it will undoubtedly be significant.
Yikes.
Can anyone tell me why, when Republicans do this stuff, Democrats say they are red-necked hillbilly morons and/or fascists who can't be trusted with power, but when Democrats do it they get asked on Oprah?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditTwo "Democrats" Betray Democracy
Filed under: US Elections
There are three main contenders left for the presidency of the United States, two "Democrats" and a Republican. All three of them are U.S. Senators.
Yesterday, one of the most important votes in recent memory occurred in the Senate, over whether the U.S. should engage in coercive interrogation such as the infamous "waterboarding" technique. President Bush has said such techniques are necessary in the war on terror and vowed to veto the measure if it passes Congress.
Guess which way "Democrats" Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted. They voted for cowardice. In other words, they didn't show up and vote at all, becoming two of only four members of the whole Senate to fail to do so. That is a national disgrace, and ought to disqualify either one of them from serious consideration for the Oval Office.
John McCain, however, did vote. And so-called Mr. non-Conservative voted with President Bush, as did 45 other members of the Senate, sufficient to sustain a presidential veto. Given the fact that, unlike most other members of our society, Mr. McCain has actually be a prisoner of war and actually been subjected to coercive interrogation, one must think long and hard before disagreeing with his judgment. He's expressed necessary criticism of such interrogation techniques, but he's also shown he's willing to listen to conservative voices and take a stand. Here, the fundamentally insane nature of the nutroots leftist wackos is betrayed: If you see only one side of an issue, as they claim about Bush, you are evil. But if, like McCain, you acknowledge both sides and take a stand, you are also evil. The only way you're not evil is if you do exactly what they say (this from the folks who claim to stand for diversity and liberalism). And meanwhile, they choose not to notice the abject silence of their own so-called "leaders." This is, in a nutroot shell, why they haven't reelected an elected president with a majority since World War II, while Republicans have done it four different times.
In other words, McCain a great and courageous leader. And, by contrast, Clinton and Obama are cowering in the shadows like the craven cowards they are. Leadership? They don't know the meaning of the word. Ask yourself this: If he becomes president, how is Barack Obama going to protect us from terrorism? Will he crawl under a rock and hide? Or will he say to Osama bin Laden: "See, I'm black, so you don't need to hate America any more, I feel your pain"? Is that where we are headed? Maybe he'll pull a "Jimmy" and go so far as to boycott the Olympics? The prospect is too terrifying for words.
Let's be clear: What those who oppose coercive interrogation are saying is that we should sacrifice the lives of innocent American citizens if necessary in order to guarantee the civil rights of those who seek to bring America down. That's a noble ideal, and only an American would dare to assert it. But we're talking about exchanging American lives for, in some cases at least, a few seconds of discomfort, and anyone who thinks it's a simple no-brainer is a hopeless idiot, and anyone who would dare to lay claim to the presidency while ducking this issue should be . . . well, waterboarding is too good for them.
Shame on you, you two "Democrats." You have betrayed your country.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in DC, Virginia and Maryland: Liberals, Lost and Looney, Lumbering
Filed under: US Elections
The story of Gene R. Nichol, until yesterday the president of William & Mary, is a classic case study in how lost and confused the left wing of American politics has been and remains. Nichol attempted to remove a cross from a historic chapel on campus, desecrating one of America's oldest and most prestigious institutions, and then he promoted an "art" show by pornographers on campus. Oblivious to the firestorm of controversy that resulted, he persisted on his crazed course just like all the left-wing dictatorial maniacs before him (LBJ, FDR), sure in the belief that he was saving the institution from itself. Now, he's just fired.
It's an apt lesson for presidential politics. These leftists are so arrogant and insular that they really believe they're some type of superior beings entitled to dictate our lives from on high, "for our own good," and they can't spot their own total failure, just like that famous Emperor with his "new clothes."
The last time Democrats elected a president to two terms, not only did they fail (despite two tries) to win a majority of the popular vote, but their candidate -- William Jefferson Clinton -- was actually a Republican. He abolished welfare. He supported free trade and capital punishment. He balanced the budget and erected a surplus. He delivered the first right-wing majority in the House of Representatives in more than half a century. And yet, for all that, he was so personally odious that the Republicans themselves impeached him.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditChe Guevara Announces his Endorsement
Filed under: US Elections
A photograph of Barack Obama's campaign office in Houston, Texas. First footsie with Farrakhan, then coupling with Che.
Remember, he refuses to wear the American flag and won't salute during the pledge of allegiance -- then he dons Che's. He truly is the candidate of hope. Hope he doesn't have the country in flames before his first morning in office is over. The candidate of change you can believe in. We'll be communist before the first term is over, believe it.
Can you imagine what Senator McCain would do when he got his hands on this guy in a general election? This pathetic loser can't even take out Hillary Clinton, one of the most polarizing and reviled political figures of our time, and she hasn't laid a glove on him yet out of fear of alienating her base. In a general election against a war hero? I think I'm actually . . . drooling.
He's truly a candidate who will make history . . . the first America-hater elected president! What a day that would be!
UPDATE: Now, Obama's website has "responded" to the incident with obfuscation. He says that the office was set up by "volunteers" and the campaign hadn't "officially" moved in yet to campaign in Texas. He takes no position on Che (although the headline of his weirdly barren post refers to the flag as "inappropriate," he's just repeating the charge that's been made, not stating he necessarily agrees with it) nor does he say he's done anything to have the flag removed from the office. Do you dare imagine how the nutroots would respond if George Bush responded this way about a KKK poster? Little Green Footballs puts it mildly, calling it "pretty weak tea" and drawing over 500 comments.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditA Veep for Mr. McCain
Filed under: US Elections
The Weekly Standard's blog has a rundown on possible candidates for John McCain's vice presidential slot. What do you think? If your choice is not shown, feel free to write in as a comment. This is a vital decision! McCain needs an artful pick to solidify support with the conservatives, and obviously should be aware that he'll be running against a younger female or African-American candidate. Maybe Condi is ideal?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington
Filed under: US Elections
MSM is trumpeting Barack Obama's "big wins" in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington over the weekend.
Click here and you will see a pop-up image of the 2004 presidential election results map (via Penn State University). It shows the vast majority of the country's territory hued red because George Bush won there, also taking a majority of the popular vote despite his much-vaunted lack of popularity, becoming the fourth Republican president to win reelection with a mandate since World War II (not a single elected Democrat has achieved this feat on reelection in all that time).
The map indicates electoral votes for each state won, and also gives shades of coloring to indicate the strength of the winner's margin. It's not a pretty picture for the Democrats. But the main thing is that Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska account for only 25 electoral votes between them, fewer than the state of Florida all by itself, and two of them (Nebraska and Louisiana) voted solidly for George Bush in 2005 -- meaning they are hardly bellweathers for Democratic candidates.
Nobody would be better pleased than me to see Obama showing great strength (in a prior post I said I hope he gets the nomination as he seems like a softer target for McCain), but it's simply stupid to say he's doing that, and in fact all Obama really accomplished over the weekend was just to win largely insignificant Washington State, which voted Democratic in 2004. As the map clearly shows, the states that really matter to Democrats in the actual election contest against the Republicans are California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan. Clinton has prevailed in every single one of these states to have been contested so far except for Illinois -- and that's Obama's home turf. The only one left is Pennsylvania, which doesn't hold its primary until April 22.
In other words, if Obama does somehow manage to become the nominee, the Democrats may well turn out to have pulled a Dukakis (Mondale, McGovern) once again. They'll be sending the candidate who lost in their primaries all the states they must win in the general election, and the one utterly without a resume, to do battle against the party that has dominated presidential election contests since World War II and a candidate who is a legitimate national hero.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAnti-American Doings over at the Daily Kos
Filed under: US Elections
My mind is open to persuasion, but right now I disagree with the large majority of Publius Pundit readers who think it would be better for John McCain to face Hillary Clinton in the fall for the presidency. I believe McCain can whip Hillary, but I'd rather see him face Obama. And my reason is really quite simple.
The lunatics at the Daily Kos like him.
To me, that says he can't be elected, not any more than Howard Dean (who once also seemed like a formidable grass-roots candidate) could be. It says he's an extremist, and I trust the American people to see that. His weird connections through his church to the maniac Louis Farrakhan is the simplest expression of this extremism, and his creepy personality cult perhaps an even better one. Echoes of Vladimir Putin. On top of that, he's an admitted drug user with a murky past (he called himself "Barry" in school and dabbled not only with reefer but with cocaine; a close friend from school has spent seven years in prison). Hillary, for all her faults, is a mainstream candidate, and women are a far more potent voting force than African Americans.
Obama is a man totally devoid of even the illusion of qualifying accomplishments or experience, who speaks in empty, vacuous platitudes that will ring false in light of America's serious problems. Compared to a man of deep experience and substance like McCain, a great patriot and war hero, he'll simply come up short.
Have a look at the fanaticism over at the Daily Kos, and then tell me you think a person they like can be elected dog catcher by a great nation.
(1) They're terrified of John McCain. So much so that, if you can believe it, they are attacking him because, they claim, he's not a conservative. They believe conservatism is bad for America, so they're taking steps to increase the chances it will take power by attacking Republicans for picking a candidate who, they say, isn't one. If that doesn't seem rational to you, it's not. Not that they're overly rational in any case, but right now they just can't bring themselves to think, you see, about how he'll crush any of their candidates with the independents and crossover Democrats he will draw. They're so desperate that they are resorting to outright lies, such as their claim that Laura Ingraham is attacking McCain, when in fact she's on record saying she'll vote for him.
(2) When the Republicans were fighting over a nominee, they said it proved they were losers since they couldn't settle on a candidate. Now that they've done so ahead of the Democrats, who are on the verge of waging all-out war all the way to the convention and exhausting their finances and reputations in the process (see #3), this doesn't concern them one bit.
(3) When Republicans flood a campaign with money, out-raising Democrats, it's a sign of their corruption. When Obama does it to Hillary, it's a sign of how much he's loved.
(4) They gleefully say that Hillary Clinton is running out of money and her staffers are going without their paychecks and that notwithstanding having won both New York and California and Massachusetts despite the Kennedy endorsement, Obama "clearly won" Super Tuesday. Apparently, they think this means Clinton's about to withdraw from the race. You may remember what happened the last time Kos tried his hand at predictions. Let's just say it wasn't pretty. And of course, you will recall what happened to their darling Golden Boy Howard Dean.
The next time you wonder why the Democratic party hasn't reelected an elected president with a majority of the popular vote since Franklin Roosevelt (while Republicans have done it over and over -- Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II), just reflect on the Daily Kos. All things will become clear.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditNice Job, You Big, Fat, Drunken, Murdering Idiot
Filed under: US Elections
According to our poll, Publius Pundit readers feel that Hillary Clinton is a much softer target for John McCain than Barack Obama, so they should be delighted with last night's "Super Tuesday" primary election returns.
Most of all, they should thank that big, fat, murdering slob Teddy Kennedy, whose endorsement of Obama delivered his home state of Massachusetts to Clinton in a big way. Clinton didn't merely win in the People's Republic, she crushed Kennedy's darling 56-41. Attaboy, Tedster!
Nine other major states were in play last night, and Clinton also won the giants of New York and California by decisive margins, as well as picking up New Jersey and Tennessee. Obama's only significant prize was his home state of Illinois, though he also won Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota and Missouri. Remember that Minnesota was the only state in the union to vote against Ronald Reagan in 1984 and later elected professional wrestler Jesse "the Body" Ventura to be its governor, and you'll have some idea of the significance of this accomplishment.
On the Republican side, John McCain cruised to an overwhelming victory, winning New York, California, and Illinois -- leaving his rivals with table scraps and taking more than twice as many delegates as Mitt Romney (who Minnesota also liked). Huckabee did show strength in the South, giving McCain a necessary reminder that he needs to find a youthful, conservative running mate, preferably from the South, to maximize his general election clout. Any suggestions, readers?
Hillary Clinton may very well be the worst possible candidate that the Dumbocrats could run against McCain (think Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern -- they've got a knack for finding them). He's got the experience, she lacks it. He can cut into her support, she will drive conservatives to him no matter how much dislike they may have for him, because they hate her far more. I couldn't be more delighted or hopeful for changes in America's Russia policy, having been on McCain's bandwagon when there wasn't one.
Go, McCain, go!
Russia must be feeling a bit queasy right about now. It looks more and more like a McCain-Clinton race. That means either a candidate who looked into Putin's eyes and saw only three letters, K-G-B, or a candidate who looked into his eyes and saw that he had no soul. The Moscow Times quoted McCain: "I was in a conference in Germany over the weekend, and President Putin of Germany gave one of the old Cold War-style speeches. [W]e in the West must pursue cooperation with Moscow where we can. But too many believe that we can define an agenda of cooperation that is divorced from the nature of the Russian regime and its actions against its own citizens." It quoted Clinton: "[Putin] has suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics."
Ouch. Your time is coming, Mr. Putin, and it's coming fast.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThanks, Mr. Bush . . . Uh-oh, Russia
Filed under: US Elections
The above chart from the Washington Post via the IMF shows that America's ranking on the world list of nations organized by per capita GDP has increased during the Bush years, from #10 in 1992 to #8 today. The U.S. is now #1 among all the major nations of the world, surpassing both Japan and Germany which formerly exceeded it, with only a few tiny exceptional countries ahead of it, countries that don't face any of the major socio-political challenges that confront the world's only superpower. Our per capita GDP has nearly doubled over the past decade and a half, equating to an astounding amount of new wealth given our already large economic base and huge population. And America has achieved this despite the obstacles of radical Islam and rising world oil prices; just imagine what we would have done without them! The chart also points out how the fortunes of the once awe-inspiring Japanese, who some claimed would dethrone the U.S. with their industriousness, have fallen.
Actually, it appears that the Post may have messed up the 2007 list a bit,since based on the figures it quotes Switzerland should be below Denmark and Sweden should be above the U.S., putting it in 9th place as per the IMF estimate for 2007, which is given on Wikipedia. But the point is that while the powerhouses Germany and Japan have stumbled, the U.S. has made progress to the point that it now stands alone atop the heap of large countries. "Mighty" Russia, by contrast, does not even make the top 50 world nations on that list, coming in at a lowly #54, well behind both Poland and Hungary, neither of which have the blessing of accidental oil revenues to boost their stats. Think the mythology of "purchasing power parity" changes something in Russia's favor? Think again. Russia is even lower on that list, coming in at #59 -- while the U.S. rises still higher, to #4 (as shown on the Wiki page, a University of Pennsylvania study, using different methodology than the IMF, puts us at a breathtaking #2, and Russia also slightly higher, at #52). How can anyone look at the following table and still believe Russia deserves a place at the G-8 table?
Purchasing Power Parity Per Capita GDP
(IMF's most recent data)
USA -- #4
Canada -- #12
UK -- #13
Japan -- #20
France -- #21
Germany -- #23
Italy -- #24
Russia -- #59
Economic attainment not only places Russia at a woefully inferior standard of living, but prevents it from matching the other G-8 nations in military expenditures as well. Russia's level of democracy is also, of course, abysmally lower than that of the other G-8 nations, as repeatedly confirmed by international ratings agencies, and it has a hostile relationship with NATO, of which all other members but Japan are members. In fact, these days it's no longer possible to discuss Russia as being merely "undemocratic" but instead words like "barbaric" and "savage" begin to seem imperative. As the Moscow Times reports:
Human Rights Watch has called President Vladimir Putin a "repressive" and "brutal" leader on par with the leaders of Zimbabwe and Pakistan. In its annual report on the state of human rights across the globe released last week, the rights watchdog said Putin had "crippled democracy" and succeeded in "silencing the media, shutting down civil society" and stifling political opposition. The report, released late last week, compared Putin to the leaders to Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, among others, for "manipulating elections" to "legitimize his reign."
Instead of responding like a civilized, sophisticated nation and seeking to reform, Russia's response is childish, neo-Soviet denial. The MT reports: "Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday laughed off the comparisons of Putin to the leaders of third-world countries. 'We take this with a grain of salt because it proves that the report's authors don't know the reality and don't want to know it,' Peskov said."
Simply put, Russia is laughably unqualified for G-8 status and should be ejected, as presidential contender John McCain has properly demanded. Moreover, in light of the economic facts, Russia's policy of confrontation with the clearly dominant U.S. is quite obviously insane.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWho's More of a Sitting Duck for the McCain Juggernaut?
Filed under: US Elections
Barack Obama has just been announced to have been the most liberal senator in 2007. And indeed, that comes as little surprise given his church's ties to Louis Farrakhan.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports about Billary's alleged corrupt deal with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev to funnel his country's uranium to Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra in exchange for Clinton's blessing Nazarbayev's bid to enter civilized Western society, thereby netting Clinton $30 million from Giustra by way of kickback for his charitable foundation. The Times must feel somewhat snakebit, having just endorsed Billary to retake the White House (apparently the Times are a bunch of closet Republicans, since the last time Billary was in office it accomplished far more Republican initiatives than Democrat, including most of all delivering the Congress on a silver platter).
On the Republican side, California governor "The Terminator" has endorsed John McCain, who's on an incredible roll towards the nomination after Mitt Romney embarrassed himself in the latest debate, totally failing to capitalize on conservative worries about McCain (that are, as they should, already starting to dissipate as McCain collects neo-con endorsements) and faced with two candidates who seem ideally suited for him to take out in November. And that's not all the good news. Democrat hearts should be all a twitter as it seems that there may be not one but two third party candidates, Mike Bloomberg and Ralph Nader. And they are. Such candidates will only divide the anti-Bush "alternative" vote and further empower McCain, who can himself tap deeply into the independent undercurrent.
Indeed, McCain looks across the aisle, he must be hard-pressed to decide which opponent would be more of sitting duck for him to blast out of the water. No credentials over here, seething conservative fury over there. What do you think?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditUh-Oh Russia: Now You are Going to Get What's Coming to You
Filed under: Russia ~ US Elections
My latest installment on Pajamas Media reveals the horrifying manner in which Vladimir Putin's Kremlin has obliterated every single opposition candidate from the March presidential election which would in any case anoint Putin's hand-picked underling as his nominal successor while Putin retains all the real power as prime minister. The final nail in democracy's coffin is the striking of Putin's own former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov from the ballot. Check it out, and feel free to leave your comments as to the best way of responding to this final neo-Soviet outrage.
It's not an academic question any more. Last night, a triumphant John McCain, who has called for aggressively confronting neo-Soviet Russia, surged to a devastating victory in the Florida primary, eliminating Rudy Giuliani from the race and collecting his endorsement. Perennial loser Mike Huckabee, also a McCain fan, is staying in the race, drawing votes from Mitt Romney, whom McCain crushed in the Sunshine State by a much wider margin than expected despite being vastly outspent and facing a closed primary where independents could not help him; McCain already leads in the polls in most of the Super Tuesday states for the likely decisive final contest next week. Exit polls showed voters have more confidence in McCain than Romney on Romney's base issue, the economy, indicating he has little chance to stage a comeback. In other Florida news, despite the Kennedy clan endorsement of Obama (or perhaps because of it?) Hillary took him to the woodshed. McCain vs. Clinton? Let the salivating begin!
Who would be his best vice-presidential choice? Ideas?
McCain's time has certainly come, and none too soon given Putin's shamelessly barbaric actions against Kasyanov. America needs a new Russia policy, and it needs it yesterday. John McCain is precisely the man to step into the void and provide Regan-like leadership as the world once against struggles to hold back Russia's Iron Curtain.
Go, McCain, go!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWe have a New "Paper of Record"
Filed under: US Elections
For my money, if there be such an animal, the nation's "paper of record" is the Washington Post, not the New York Times. Case in point:
On Monday morning, WaPo exposed Nancy Pelosi's green-hued fraud:
In November, the Democratic-led House spent about $89,000 on so-called carbon offsets. This purchase was supposed to cancel out greenhouse-gas emissions from House buildings -- including half of the U.S. Capitol -- by triggering an equal reduction in emissions elsewhere. Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota, for tilling practices that keep carbon buried in the soil. But some farmers were already doing this, for other reasons, before the House paid a cent. Other funds went to Iowa, where a power plant had been temporarily rejiggered to burn more cleanly. But that test project had ended more than a year before the money arrived. "It didn't change much behavior that wasn't going to happen anyway," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who writes a blog calling for more aggressive action on climate change. "It just, I think, demonstrated why offsets are controversial and possibly pointless. . . . This is a waste of taxpayer money."
The Post has also reported a major story on Russian dissident Oleg Kozlovsky, drafted into the army to silence him; the NYT has ignored both events.
Indeed, it seems that the Very Gray Lady had abandoned all pretense of objectivity and become an openly partisan screed no different than the Daily Kos. Rivaling the DK in blatant, seething hatred of America, it has been prominently touting for days on the same website a lengthy anti-American diatribe in its magazine, complete with multiple photographs of a tiiiiiiiiiny little America.
Could it be that the Times is trying a little misdirection, so we won't notice who's really got so tiny all of a sudden?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditShe Should have Stuck with the Dollies
Filed under: US Elections
Writing in the New York Times (where else), Caroline Kennedy (whose cousin Joe is playing footsie with Hugo Chavez) says she's supporting Barrack Obama because he'll be a president "like my father."
And certainly, Obama is totally lacking in elected executive experience, just like her father, the last time in American history a such a candidate was elected. Without a majority of the popular vote.
So, if Obama wins, according to Caroline here's what we have to look forward to:
- Obama will lie to the nation about crucial facts like his health and his marital fidelity and his ties to organized crime
- Obama will disgrace the nation with a failed use of mercenary troops to do our fighting for us, like the Bay of Pigs
- Obama will start a war that will end badly, like Vietnam
- Obama will not complete his first term because he'll do something mind- bogglingly stupid like riding through Texas in an open car
- Obama's vice president will succeed him and be even worse, so that he won't even be allowed by his own party to seek reelection
- Obama will allow Russia to dupe him with a grandstand play like the Cuban missile gambit into abandoning a key U.S. strategic position in Europe
Isn't that exciting? What a paradise it will be! It turns out the Democrats are offering us a choice between another Kennedy and another Clinton. Oh joy! Rapture!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditClintonian Waterloo in Dixie?
Filed under: US Elections
Well, women came out in droves to vote in South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary . . . and they voted for Barack Obama in droves. Looks like Operation Oprah is paying dividends big time.CNN says female turnout was 50% higher than it had been in the Republican primary a week earlier, and Clinton got clobbered, collecting less than a third of the vote, barely more than John Edwards, while Obama seized a majority. African-Americans also turned out en masse, comprising over half the electorate and going 75% for Obama.
Hmmm . . . when Republicans can't pick a nominee right away, apparently that's a sign of weakness. So that must mean . . .
The Daily Kos is crowing that a new national Rasmussen poll shows Obama, their preferred candidate (isn't this disqualification enough?), drawing to within 3 points of Hillary. Dissent is in the ranks. One Kozniak writes: "I left this adolecent [sic] crowd a long time ago, and now I am sick of reading the diaries of Edwards and Obama supporters 'outroving' Karl Rove in their witless atttacks [sic] on Hillary and Bill Clinton."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditMr. Bush, Your Legacy is Calling
Filed under: Africa ~ US Elections
The blog of attorney Robert Amsterdam, one of the lawyers fighting to free Mikhail Khodorkovsky from the Kremlin's railroad job, is a leader in reporting on developments in the energy sector, where Amsterdam has considerable professional expertise.
In a recent post, one of his contributors, Tom Nicholls, explains how ExxonMobil is poised to bring a huge new supply of oil onto the world market by means of an exploration project off the coast of Angola, the sixth-largest supplier of crude to the U.S. He writes: "The 0.6 billion barrel oil project -- which has the capacity to produce 200,000 barrels of oil a day -- is a milestone for the US supermajor, the operator, and for the country." With this production, Angola will run up against its OPEC-imposed production cap, but a field operated by BP has the potential to bring another 200,000 barrels on line later this year. Within ten years, Angola will have the capacity to produce 2.7 million barrels per day, 800,000 barrels above its current cap.
If Angola's cap isn't increased, then there will be a dramatic disincentive for the oil majors to develop fields like these, and hence to increase world production and reduce prices. American action against Iraq should have secured a major flow of oil, yet we have seen prices skyrocket. Meanwhile, our government seems to be ignoring the need to confront OPEC over issues like Angola. President Bush recently approached the Saudis in this regard, but apparently has little to show for his efforts.
It's presidential election season. Have you heard any candidates talking about the means by which we can increase the world supply of oil and hence lower prices? If not, isn't it time to start demanding it?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBill Clinton, Foundering
Filed under: US Elections
Ouch!
As Bill Clinton scrambles furiously to get his wife (and himself) back into the Oval Office, more and more of his abysmal record (did somebody say "dot.com bubble"?) is being scrutinized and exposed, decimating his legacy. If his wife isn't elected, he'll be paying a pretty extreme price indeed for his risky foray back into the spotlight.
We've already pointed out that Clinton set the ball in motion for the invasion of Iraq and dropped the ball on Bin Laden.
Now, Slate exposes his fundamental fraud regarding African-American economic progress, showing that his claims of gains compared to whites are bogus:
As Clinton performed blackness, real black people got poorer. The poorest African-Americans experienced an absolute decline in income, and they also became poorer relative to the poorest whites. The richest African-Americans saw an increase in income, but even the highest-earning blacks still considerably lagged their white counterparts. Furthermore, the '90s witnessed the continued growth of the significant gap between black and white median wealth.
"Performed blackness." Ouch, that one's got to sting a bit. Wonder what color purple he'll turn this time.
And then Pajamas Media writes his epitaph: "Everybody hates Bill Clinton."
A sensible person would have known enough to keep a low profile the rest of his life after something like the Lewinsky scandal. This is so lame it's almost possible to believe he doesn't really want his wife to become president and is trying to sabotage her.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAmerica, the Indispensable Nation
Filed under: US Elections
Over the past four trading days, the Russian stock market has lost over 13% of its value (leaving brokers who sold the market to their clients as a safe haven based on Russia's oil resources looking like the crooks they are). The Indian Sensex Index took the second-biggest one-day loss in its history on Monday, and markets throughout Asia also suffered massive losses. Europe immediately felt the ripple effects.
The reason is simple: Us. Or rather, U.S.
America's stock market is dragging them down. See, the world depends on our purchasing power, and if that's taken away, the world's economy will collapse. The world depends on American buyers just the same way America depends on foreign oil suppliers, except to a far greater extent. America has made itself indispensable to the world. Checkmate. Game over. It's not clear, though, that the world has yet come to grips with this reality.
Without American purchases of crude oil, the price on world markets would collapse, and it would take the Russian economy with it. Russian investors know that, so they're selling their shares as fast as they can.
Without American purchases of Chinese and Indian crap, their nations would be buried under mountains of it. Chinese and Indian investors know that, so they're selling their shares as fast as they can.
Americans routinely ask what we might do to encourage foreigners to hate us less. But when was the last time you heard a foreigner ask how he might help the American economy do better, and thus help themselves as well? When was the last time you heard one speak up and say: "Hey, our future depends on these people you want to destroy. Shut up, already." Instead, it seems there is a whole host of benighted morons who delight in American difficulties, seemingly oblivious of the horrific impact on their own lives. Or else, they're simply overcome with bitterness and suicidal impulses.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDid you know John McCain's daughter has a blog?
Filed under: Protest Babes ~ US Elections
Triumphant in South Carolina, John McCain's candidacy offers new hope that the U.S. may soon obtain a real foreign policy. Huckabee failed to carry a majority of the state's evangelicals, and his margin of victory fell among them, indicating he is all washed up. Thompson's woeful performance in his native land means it's likely he too is out, leaving a three-man battle between McCain, Romney and Giuliani -- which would likely fall to two if Giuliani doesn't win convincingly in Florida. So McCain, written off not long ago, is amazingly resilient.
Over on my blog La Russophobe we note that the U.S. Ambassador to Russia is going to be replaced, and call for McCain to have a role in naming his successor (if not actually becoming that successor should he fail to get the nomination).
Did you know McCain's daughter (pictured, a major protest babe if there ever was one!) has a great blog relating her experiences on the campaign trail? Check it out!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThere's Just no Substitute for "It"
Filed under: US Elections
David Broder, dean of political correspondents, in the Washington Post:
It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night's MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have not a day of chief executive experience among them. By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing. In the past, voters have preferred to entrust the White House to those with executive credentials. John Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elevated to the presidency. Since then, the former governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas have dominated the list of successful candidates. All of them stumbled during their tenures in the White House, and only Ronald Reagan left the presidency with his place in the history books seemingly securely enhanced.
David comes a bit late to the party, I've been making this point here for some time. But it's nice to have MSM confirmation. And David overlooks a major fact: While it may be true that all those with executive experience "stumbled" while in office, Kennedy did too, big time. He didn't even manage to protect his own life and finish his term. Plus which, little things like the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, concealing his woeful physical condition and sexual peccadillos that would make Bill Clinton look like a choir boy may be the reason that, since his tenure, the public feels experience counts.
Proving once again how ignorant/insane they are, the feral lunatics at the Daily Kos responded furiously to Broder:
But nice how Broder parses his list. Missing from his list of recent Senators and members of Congress who became president are Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford, none of whom had any executive experience prior to their short stints as Vice President. On those various lists of the best and worst presidents compiled by scholars, Truman often ends up in the top ten, and Kennedy typically does well. Ford and Johnson seldom if ever appear in the bottom ten.
Apparently, the Daily Kos is unaware that Truman, Johnson and Ford became president only because they were vice president when the president died (literally or figuratively) in office (and/or that the point of Broder's analysis is electability). What's more, both Johnson and Ford were denied reelection, and Truman decided not to seek it. Apparently, they think not being in the bottom 10 is an accomplishment. Little wonder, then, that the Democrats haven't reelected an elected president with a majority of the popular vote since World War II, while Republicans have done this many times (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II).
What a bunch of totally clueless freaks. Heaven help America if their ilk ever govern.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditA Forest of Weak Candidates, Awaiting the Buzz Saw
Filed under: US Elections
According to a new NYT/CBS poll, Hillary Clinton's electability number has plunged from 64% a month ago to 47% today, despite her win in New Hampshire, while Barack Obama's number has more than doubled, from 14% to 35%. According to NYT/CBS, only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters plan to support Clinton (5% of those who think she's the most electable will vote for somebody else anyway).
Good news for Obama? Far from it. Just 27% of Democrat voters said they planned to vote for him, a number that is unchanged from a month ago. Worse, according to the poll a shockingly low 49% of black Democratic primary voters supported him. A black columnist for the Washington Post points out, without seeming to understand the significance of his own point, noted that just "a month ago, Clinton held a big lead among African Americans." When Obama considers how badly the polls in New Hampshire overestimated his support, he (and his supporters) must get chills reflecting on that puny number.
A WaPo/ABC poll, though, puts Obama's primary vote number much higher, at 37%, while giving Clinton the same 42%. It has Obama's electability number up 20 points (while NYT/CBS has him up 21). Kind of sort of looks like the Democrats almost think they are having to choose between the lesser of two evils, doesn't it? Which one is the least likely to have his/her head handed to him/her by the Republicans in a general election, they must be wondering, the Farrakhan supporter or the Clintonian shrew, neither with elected executive experience, neither from the south. To win they'd have to be the new JFK. Gulp.
Meanwhile, Obama's resurgence has induced the Clinton camp to open fire upon him, splitting the party and squandering resources that might otherwise be used in a general election. Even more devastating, it's apparently induced New York City Mayor/Billionaire Mike Bloomberg to consider an independent run that could totally undermine the whole Democrat field just the way Ross Perot did in 1992 (he's the only reason Bill Clinton became president).
John McCain now leads the Republican polling, but with just a thin 28% plurality, as Rudy Giuliani has take a major nosedive. One of the most fascinating dramas in recent primary voting history is building, whether Guiliani's "Florida plan" will work or not. Given the Republican incumbent's lack of popularity and the Republican field's lack of luster, how could the Republicans be any more pleased than to see the Democrats ripping themselves apart and spending themselves into the ground over issues of race and gender, their supposed strong points.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Laughable Fraud that is the Daily Kos
Filed under: US Elections
If you've long thought that the Daily Kos is a ridiculous fraud masquerading as a potent political force, you now have your proof. DK is currently running a poll in which it asks where its readers live, in congressional districts ranging from really-really-Republican to done-deal-Democrat. With over 10,000 votes tallied, the overwhelming winner from a continuum of 10 choices is "a Democrat with no chance of losing in 2008." 2.5 times more respondents answered this than the next-most-chosen option, namely "a Republican with no chance of losing in 2008." These two choices accounted for 70% of all respondents, meaning that the overwhelming majority of Kozniacs live in congressional districts where their political behavior means absolutely nothing.
In another poll, the overwhelming preference of the Kozniac nation was the rejection of not only religion but also spirituality, and only 5% of readers self-identified as religious. That figures, since they are doing Satan's bidding.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditLook who is Hiding Behind Louis Farrakhan's Skirts
Filed under: US Elections
The hate-mongering racist maniac and "Honorable Minister" Louis Farrakhan received Trinity United Church Of Christ's "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer Award" at the 2007 Trumpet Gala held on November 2, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. Farrakahn was also the focus of a cover story in the church's November/December 2007 issue the magazine called Trumpet.
Dr. Wright is the Pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its motto is: "We are an African people, and remain true to our native land."
That's the church Barack Obama has been proudly attending for two decades now. Obama refers to Wright as his "spiritual mentor."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditFeminism Stabs itself in the Back
Filed under: US Elections
I find it positively terrifying to witness the damage women are doing to the cause of feminism.
If Hillary Clinton were to be elected president, it would set the tone for decades to come that women can only do it if they have marriage to lean on. If Hillary really cared about the plight of women, she would have found a woman who achieved greatness independent of her marriage and backed her for president. Did Condi Rice become the first female national security adviser, or Madeline Albright the first female secretary of state, or Sandra O'Connor the first female supreme court justice, because their husband did the job first and let them watch?
Then there's this in the New York Times, from one Caitlin Flanagan, the author of To Hell With All That, who is working on a book about the emotional lives of pubescent girls:
The movie Juno is a fairy tale about a pregnant teenager who decides to have her baby, place it for adoption and then get on with her life. For the most part, the tone of the movie is comedic and jolly, but there is a moment when Juno tells her father about her condition, and he shakes his head in disappointment and says, "I thought you were the kind of girl who knew when to say when." Female viewers flinch when he says it, because his words lay bare the bitterly unfair truth of sexuality: female desire can bring with it a form of punishment no man can begin to imagine, and so it is one appetite women and girls must always regard with caution. Because Juno let her guard down and had a single sexual experience with a sweet, well-intentioned boy, she alone is left with this ordeal of sorrow and public shame.
Guys don't need to be careful? Can't they catch STDs? Can't they get sued for child support? Can't they get beaten up by girls' fathers? There are actually women in positions of power at the New York Times editorial page, a woman might even have been responsible for publishing this garbage. Sure, only a woman can have a child. And although there's responsibility in that, isn't there also power, if women are wise enough to seize it? Doesn't the hand that rocks the cradle rule the world?
Unfair? Well, if the woman had been on the pill (perhaps insisting her lover pay half its substantial cost), and if she had insisted her lover wear a condom (perhaps offering to pay half that cost), and if she then got pregnant anyway, that would sure be unfair. In that case, she would have every right in the world to complain that our society fails to impose any burden upon the father in such cases and places her in a position where her life, and certainly her psychology, might be ruined. That would be an outrage. And, in those circumstances, lots of men would rally to support her cause.
But such a woman wouldn't be heard to complain in the world wrought by derelicts like Ms. Flanagan, because so many little girls like her have cried "Wolf!" so many times without the slightest thought of what they are saying. You won't hear anything about that from this traitor to the cause of women's rights. Instead, all she can talk about is how women are victimized by biology, in a tone that implies they can only get justice if men condescend to give to them. She writes: "Biology is destiny, and the brutally unfair outcome that adolescent sexuality can produce will never change." If that's feminism, give me a male chauvanist pig any day of the week!
Nonsense. What will never change is the childish and irresponsible attitude some women, a tiny minority unfortunately vested with disproportionate influence, have towards power (Ms. Magazine, for instance, recently refused an advertisement touting women's accomplishments in Israel). That, and only that, keeps women from realizing their full potential. Dispense with it, and our majority status would incinerate sexism and blow it from the face of the Earth like dust in a typhoon.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditLies, Damned Lies and Nutroot "Truths"
Filed under: US Elections
On January 7th Markos Moulitsas, the publisher of the Daily Kos nutroot bible, stated that the country was in the midst of an "Obama surge." He stated: "This thing is becoming a tsunami, and that's before Obama even wins New Hampshire and South Carolina. I don't see how Clinton recovers." Oh and, by the way, he plans to vote for Obama in the California primary.
And indeed, as always, Weather Boy Markos was correct. It was a tsunami. The very same one that blew John Kerry into the Oval Office, just as WB predicted it would. Impressively, Obama won the New Hampshire primary by exactly the decisive margin WB Markos predicted, 45-26 over Clinton.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDemocratic Doings in New Hampshire
Filed under: US Elections
New Hampshire went to the polls to choose presidential candidates in the nation's first primary election yesterday. Hillary Clinton, just like her husband before her, became the "comeback kid" (she actually won, her husband only came in second in 1992, but still claimed victory in a classic bit of Slick Willy) and John McCain once again fueled the flames of hope that this nation might once again have a real foreign policy.
As an excellent analysis on Pajamas Media points out, many pundits (including William Kristol) were left with a bit of egg on their faces, having predicted Obama would be anointed in New Hampshire based on polling data that proved utterly false. Clinton squeaked by him 39-36. What these pundits failed to remember is that while Clinton may be weak, Obama may be even weaker. The American people have always demanded elected executive experience from their presidents since JFK (who didn't have it and didn't live out his first term), and Clinton is much more associated in the public mind with that kind of experience than Obama (which is not to say, of course, that her claims to it are legit -- as we've said before, they're inherently fraudulent and harmful to feminism, as was her recent bout of sobbing).
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditO Mighty Kristol!
Filed under: US Elections
The Weekly Standard's William Kristol's first op-ed column has exploded like a thermonuclear device within the ivory tower of the nation's Paper of Wretched.
Get this: He not only quotes Michelle Malkin, he identifies her as "the conservative writer" -- not "the blogger." With one genuinely amazing sentence, the ivory tower shatters and crumbles into dust.
How's this for an opening paragraph: "Thank you, Senator Obama. You've defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you're about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you."
Wow! We're not worthy! Be still my heart! Click through to read the rest of this thrilling ode to America, and consider the possibility of Obama (totally bereft of executive credentials and bearing a name that rhymes with Osama) running against a former governor like Huckabee (but the governor of Arkansas can't be elected president, right?) or a former mayor like Giuliani. Suddenly, the Republicans look like a pretty good bet.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAnd Now a Daily Kos Bubble Burst, and Now a Nutroots World
Filed under: US Elections
Previously, we outlined some of the ways that Barack Obama's win in Iowa represented bad news for Democrats. The New York Times and Weekly Standard now explain how it's not exactly a bowl of cherries for the Nutroot- Moonbat Axis of Evil, either. See, they haven't exactly been in what you could call Barack's corner from the beginning, no, not exactly. In other news, it seems the Nuts are eating their own.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditGoings-on in Iowa
Filed under: US Elections
Democratic doings in Iowa last night.
The Iowa Caucus failed to correctly predict the eventual candidates in three of the last seven presidential elections: 1992 (it said Bush-Harkin, actually Bush-Clinton), 1988 (it said Dole-Gephardt, actually Bush-Dukakis) and 1980 (it said Bush-Carter, actually Reagan-Carter). That's a failure rate of nearly 43%.
No Republican candidate has received a majority of the Caucus vote during the past 25 years, and this tradition continued in 2008. Last night, 66% of Republican Caucus-goers voted against the winner, Mike Huckabee. On the Democrat side, three candidates have won a majority of the Caucus vote during that period (Gore, Harkin and Carter).
Only twice, however, in the past 25 years has a Democrat gone on to win the White House (never once in the past quarter century has a Democrat been elected with a majority of the popular vote, whilst Republicans have achieved that every single time they've won, except Dubya in 2000), and none of the three Democrat majority-getters from Iowa managed to actually take the oath of office. That may be good news for Barack Obama, because 62% of Democrat Caucus-goers voted against him last night when he won their contest. But the only Democrat elected president in the past 25 years was the governor of a state -- as were all the Republicans who were elected president other than the one who was vice president. Obama is neither. An idiotic op-ed in the Washington Post stated: "People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements." Too right they are, because the office of POTUS is an EXECUTIVE position, not a legislative one. Every single POTUS elected in the past 25 years has had elected executive experience before taking office. Obama lacks it. Huckabee has it -- so maybe choosing him isn't as crazy as some people might like to suggest.
Hillary Clinton. Third place. Ouch. Then again, her hubby came in fourth in 1992 (behind Paul Tsogas!). So maybe it's not the end of the world. Quite. On the other hand, she has no elected executive experience either.
Also bad news for labor unions. Double ouch.
Obama's win is rather inconvenient for all those who accuse America of being a racist nation intolerant of diverse viewpoints. Iowa is lily-white, Obama handily whipped his lily-white opponents. Triple ouch.
Speaking of the America-haters, in a virtually insane piece of gibberish the New York Times editorial board said that Iowa shouldn't have so much importance in American elections and the way they pick the candidates isn't very democratic. Yeah, yeah -- only every haughty, elitist, ideologically- motivated word they wrote is totally wrong: (1) It doesn't have that much influence, as seen in the above-mentioned failure rate. (2) The board (or is that bored) then went on to put the Iowa results on the front page of their paper, giving them even more importance. Is that insane or what? (3) Is telling a state how it can/should pick the president really in the spirit of democracy? Is trying to homogenize an electoral process? Is the Times actually worried that the process is too democratic, and allow candidates they don't like to rise to power? Do the so-called "Americans" who edit the Times believe at all in the principle of federalism and freedom of choice? (4) See why these dead-tree psychopaths going extinct, dear reader?
But the most pathetic thing of all was Democrat moonbat-in-chief Howard Dean commenting on CNN. He said Huckabee's win proves the Republicans are in disarray since he came out of nowhere and is only the governor of a small unimportant state. Then Wolf Blitzer reminded him of Bill Clinton. Dean turned beet red and muttered like an imbecile.
Nuff said.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditRatboy Poison
Filed under: US Elections
Remember back six weeks ago when I told you about the insane scheme of New York Times columnist Thomas "Ratboy" Friedman to impose a massive surcharge on gasoline, which would result -- he claimed -- in reduced spending so that American dollars would be kept at home? Remember how I asked: "Suppose Americans, who love their cars rather a lot, don't drive less. Suppose they simply pay the tax. In that case, exactly the same amount of money will go to all those evil regimes, and now a huge chunk of money will also go to Washington DC too. The people will be poor, and DC will be rich, and so will the oil empires."
And remember just yesterday, when I pointed out how a Times editorial was attempting to bash George Bush over rising gas prices (without for instance saying a single word about how Russia is working to destabilize the Middle East and artificially inflate prices), lamenting the horrible damage increasing prices would do to our economy? Apparently, the editorial page editors don't pay much heed to things Ratboy says, now do they.
I'll bet you're hardly surprised to learn, as the picture-worth-a-thousand-words from National Review shown above clearly demonstrates, that they're both wrong.
U.S. consumer spending has not flagged at all in the face of skyrocketing world oil prices, but rather has kept pace with it. As NR notes: "You see, when gas prices climb from $2 a gallon to $3 a gallon, one of the components of retail spending goes up. Gas stations are retail establishments. People make money working at gas stations (which now generally serve as convenience stores). People make money managing the corporations that own these stores. And, of course, people make money by owning shares in these companies."
So increased oil prices don't stop people from buying oil, nor do they wreck the economy. The only thing they do is force people to make choices about what is important to them. They force other products to become more competitive if they want to compete with oil, and that's a good thing.
Of course, it's perfectly true that we should become less dependent on foreign oil, and rising prices will encourage that by creating profit opportunities for those who can find alternatives. The miracles of capitalism take care of this without needing any government-imposed taxes to accomplish it, and without ruining the economic base.
Kind of makes you think the Times should spend more energy trying to figure out why its circulation and stock price are tanking, and less giving advice to others, now doesn't it?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWhy Does the New York Times Hate America so Much?
Filed under: US Elections
Is it simply because it won't buy their paper?
Can there be, anywhere in American society, an institution more loathsome, contemptible and pathetic than this self-styled "paper of record"?
In the past few days, we've reported two tremendous batches of good news for America, first on the domestic front and then on the international. We noted, in passing, that the New York Times either concealed the data from its readers or grossly perverted it into malicious propaganda.
The Times is undoubtedly fuming because, as we've also reported recently, Repubicans have enjoyed a series of impressive electoral successes while Nancy Pelosi's first term as Speaker has been exposed as a pathetic sham, even as their own stock price and circulation (to say nothing of paper size, ad revenues, etc.) have plummeted. It can't have helped calm the Times moonbats that, only days ago, the paper was forced to take on a second right-wing columnist for the first time in its history, and William Kristol of all choices. But if one thought (or even hoped) that this was a good sign, a sign of reform and improvement at the times, one was cruelly disappointed. The bitterness of failure, it seems is now seeping out of every pore.
And so we get yesterday's editorial in which the Times roots, cheers, hopes for America to fail economically. I mean really, how low can you go?
It's so sad to see the editors of the Times, post Jayson Blair, post George Bush re-election with a majority of the popular vote, squirm and wiggle like worms in the muck to avoid what the paper itself recognizes are "rising wages, low unemployment and what he calls healthy economic growth" combined with booming "business investment and exports."
It says house prices are down. So what? It's called capitalism, and perhaps that's why the commie rats the Times don't understand it. Markets have some irrational exuberance, then they have a correction. Those who speculated to brashly pay the piper; those who had previously been priced out of home ownership now can enter it. The Times says bank losses are mounting. That's the same problem, in different words. Shameful. It says the price of oil is soaring. Indeed so. And this will force America to wean itself from foreign dependence, one of the healthiest things that could possibly happen to the country. Time to fully develop the Canadian oil shales and make America energy subsistent. That will drive enemies like Iran and Russia right into the ground, and it couldn't happen any other way.
Read the editorial for yourself. But I warn you: You'll feel sick in your stomach as you realize that the Times editors don't offer one single constructive suggestion as to how to improve our economic progress even more. Instead, they just use the opportunity to bash President Bush in the manner of Soviet propaganda. Hatred for our country oozes out of every word like pus from a pimple.
Of course, it would be quite difficult for the Times to offer advice on economic success, because they themselves are failing so miserably. The hypocrisy might cause what few readers it has left to simply burst out laughing. Try to find a Times editorial that attacks the paper's owners for their mismanagement in the same way it attacks George Bush, though. Good luck with that.
An article today by one of the Times most-criticized reporters, Alessandra Stanley, states: "Late-night talk shows are soap operas dressed up as entertainment." Maybe so, but those "soap operas" (especially Jon Stewart) are cleaning the Times' clock when it comes to providing information to young people, the future, and maybe that's the most crucial factor in explaining the Times' seething bitterness, which has now apparently resulted in total blindness and a Thelma-and-Louise-like rush to the edge.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit2008 Perspective: America, Resurgent
Filed under: US Elections
Publius Pundit wants to wish all its readers a prosperous, safe and very happy New Year!
O beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain,For purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain.America, America, God shed his Grace on thee,And crowned thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!
In the December issue of Commentary magazine, Peter Wehner, until recently the director of the White House office of strategic initiatives and currently senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and Yuval Levin, a fellow at Center, offered up an early Christmas present to America. Confounding the nutroot naysayers, Wehner & Levin showed that across a wide spectrum of social indicators, America is making breathtaking progress:
Crime, especially, has plummeted. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the rates of both violent crime and property crime fell significantly between 1993 and 2005, reaching their lowest levels since 1973 (the first year for which such data are available). More recent figures from the FBI, which measures crime differently from the NCVS, show an unfortunate uptick in violent crime in the last two years -- particularly in cities like Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Even so, however, the overall rate remains far below that of the mid-1990's.Teenage drug use, which moved relentlessly upward throughout the 1990's, declined thereafter by an impressive 23 percent, and for a number of specific drugs it has fallen still lower. Thus, the use of ecstasy and LSD has dropped by over 50 percent, of metham-phetamine by almost as much, and of steroids by over 20 percent.
Then there is welfare. Since the high-water mark of 1994, the national welfare caseload has declined by over 60 percent. Virtually every state in the union has reduced its caseload by at least a third, and some have achieved reductions of over 90 percent. Not only have the numbers of people on welfare plunged, but, in the wake of the 1996 welfare-reform bill, overall poverty, child poverty, black child poverty, and child hunger have all decreased, while employment figures for single mothers have risen.
Abortion, too, is down. After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has dropped to fewer than 1.3 million, a level not seen since the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized the practice. The divorce rate, meanwhile, is now at its lowest level since 1970.
The moonbat America-haters were left with only two responses to these devastating facts: lies and suppression. Neither worked.
The nation's Moonbat of Record, the New York Times, tried first to hide these facts from their readers. No such luck. It's brilliant conservative columnist David Brooks pointed them out to readers in his column. Stymied, the Times turned to boldfaced lies, reporting in a breathless "news" item that divorce rates were skyrocketing. But speedily to the rescue rode Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School, who forced the Times to print an op-ed article exposing their fraud. Divorce rates are dramatically down, not up. (Outrageously, the Times neither linked to their news story in the online version of the column nor appended a correction to the news story itself). And by the end of the year, as we recently reported, the Times was announcing the addition of a second right-wing pundit to its stable of columnists.
America, more than any other country that has ever existed, is capable of learning from its mistakes, of reforming and improving, of reinventing itself. More than any other country, it looks forward to the future, and therefore shapes it. If you are lucky enough to be ushering in the New Year in the United States, consider yourself fortunate to be able to gaze upon the brightness of our future prospects. With due diligence on the part of her people, America will remain the world's beacon light of liberty throughout all human time.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBursting the Obamaballoon
Filed under: US Elections
Remember how some of us thought that when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR collapsed, this meant that the people of Russia would then be able to show their true colors and build a civilized, democratic nation that would not terrorize the planet any longer? It's amazing how naive and just-plain- stupid that attitude seems now, as we watch the people of Russia freely elect a proud KGB spy as their leader and allow him to reestablish an imperials neo-Soviet state, isn't it? When will we ever learn?
Writing in the Washington Post, an Iranian expat named Reza Aslan tries to help us, by brutally bursting the bubble-gum bubble that is Barack Obama. He points to the argument made by such as Andrew Sullivan, Dominique Moisi and the editors of the Boston Globe:
Imagine that a young Muslim boy in, say, Egypt, is watching television when suddenly he sees this black man -- the grandson of a Kenyan Muslim, no less! -- who spent a small part of his childhood in Indonesia, taking the oath of office as president of the United States. Suddenly, the boy realizes that the United States is not the demonic, anti-Islamic place he's always been told it was. Meanwhile, all around the Muslim world, other young would-be jihadists have a similar epiphany. "Maybe Osama bin Laden is wrong," they think. "Maybe America is not so bad after all."
The possibility that this little Muslim boy will do exactly what Osama bin Laden would do, namely to attack all those supporting Obama in the U.S. as traitors, just as he attacks all the Muslims who support the U.S. in Iraq, and redouble his efforts to destroy us, seems not to occur to any of these brilliant pontificators.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe New York Times Raises the White Flag
Filed under: US Elections
Ding-dong, the witch is comatose.
Ravaged by a plummeting stock price and circulation, brought on by egregious errors in turn caused by its crazed ideological blindness, the New York Times appears to have raised the White Flag of surrender.
It has agreed to have not one but two right-wing columnists and hired -- of all people -- William Kristol of the Weekly Standard to fill the second spot. As the Times notes: "In a 2003 column on the turmoil within The Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote that it was not 'a first-rate newspaper of record,' adding, 'The Times is irredeemable.'"
First, owing to the Jayson Blair apocalypse, the Times was forced to appoint an Ombudsman, and now this. These are the wages of left-wing fanaticism -- ignominious failure and humiliation. But who knows? If the Times continues down this road, it might once again entitle itself to the nation's respect.
For anyone willing to bet it's intelligent enough to do so (and to let Kristol write what he really thinks about the Times in its own pages), there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'm offering cheap . . .
Predictably, the moonbats and nutroots are going ape. If you can believe it, they're actually complaining that there is "no word on whether the Times will follow Newsweek and 'balance' Kristol with a progressive columnist."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditJohn McCain has Legs: Does he know how to use them?
Filed under: US Elections
As we've previously reported, despite flying low under the radar John McCain has made impressive strides towards victory in securing all the major newspaper endorsements in the forthcoming Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries. Now, he's doing amazingly well on a poll being run by uber-blogger Michelle Malkin. Michelle simply asks whether her readers would vote for McCain if he's the nominee, and "yes" is leading 57% to 43% with over 8,500 votes having been cast. This is remarkable because the poll is part of an article trashing McCain for his stance on immigration, which seems to be a litmus test for Michelle. The poll has actually been drafted to reflect this bias, with three different "no" choices and only two "yes" options. And McCain is still winning! This clearly shows the man has political legs. The question now is, does he know how to use them? In any case, his performance ought to strike fear in to the heart of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, since McCain has forcefully called for Putin's ouster from the G-7. You can cast your vote in Michelle's poll here.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Ugly American: Jack R. Van Ens
Filed under: US Elections
To be fair, if your parents name you Jack Ens, it's pretty much guaranteed you're going to grow up to be a jackass.
Even still, though, Jack R. Van Ens achieved a new low in the annals of American ignorance with a column published on Christmas Day in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Identified weirdly as a "dramatist, historian and author" without any university affiliation (or any other kind of association -- a web page I found says he "portrays Thomas Jefferson for students in grades K-12 so that they may learn Jeffersonian virtues," seems like the Inquirer forgot to mention that and may