In recent weeks I have heard at least 3 people, which includes Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Former Algore campaign chair Donna Brazile, and pseudo actress/political agitator Susan Sarandon make the statement that “Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.” By this statement they are suggesting at least one of three things, if not all:
1. The role of Jesus being demeaned down to that of a local political activist,
2. Painting Gov. Sarah Palin as nothing more than an uncaring politician who would go as far as killing the Messiah, or…
3. Elevating Barack Obama to the level of the Savior
My first question is what is a community organizer. According to Wikipedia a community organizer is someone who does the work of bringing people who live in close proximity to each other “together to act in their common self-interest. Community organizers act as area-wide coordinators of programs for different agencies in an attempt to meet community needs for various services.” While I can see that this is a valuable tool in inner cities, small towns, or where ever people feel like the government has forgotten about them…to suggest that Jesus was nothing more than a community organizer is nothing short of heresy. Even more so when you consider that modern community organizing is the brain child of Saul Alinsky, the author of the book Rules for Radicals that he dedicated to Lucifer, who he called the “very first radical”
When I look at Scripture and search out the reason Jesus came, I seem to overlook this new idea of Jesus being a community organizer.
• In Luke 19:10 Jesus says, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (NASB)
• In 1 Peter 2:24 the Apostle writes about Jesus, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”
• And in 2 Corinthian 5:21 the Apostle Paul said of Jesus, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”
Did Jesus come to pay the price for the sins of sinful man, or did He come to organize a few members of society who political activists felt were overlooked? To lessen the mission of Christ to that of a political activist is not Biblical, wrong and teetering, if not crossing the line on heresy.
Let’s consider a little more of what Scripture says about Jesus…
• He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the final Amen
• He is the Ancient of Days, the Author of Life and the Author of Salvation
• He is the Bread of Life
• He is the Chief Cornerstone, Christ our Creator, Our Deliverer
• Our Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace
• He is God
• He is the Good Shepherd and the Great Shepherd
• He is the Great High Priest
• He is the Holy One, the Hope of Glory
• He is the Image of the Invisible God, the Great I Am
• He is the Judge of the living and the dead
• He is King of kings and Lord of lords, Majestic and Mighty
• And NO ONE COMPARES TO HIM!
• The Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and full of truth
• He is the Power of God
• He is the Resurrection and the Life
• He is the Supreme Sacrifice
• He is the Way, the Truth and the Life
And He cannot be reduced to a political activist seeking a “revolution” at the local government level!
I realize when it is all said and done this is nothing more than a political stunt to glorify one candidate and to put down another…but I refuse to have it done in the name of my Lord and Savior. Jesus is the one who paid the price for my sins, as well as those who are demeaning His name and His mission.
Was Jesus a community organizer? The Scripture gives us a very clear and a very certain NO!
But Jesus is the one who came and lived the life we could never live (sinless) and died the death we deserved to die (for our sins) so that by grace through faith alone we can be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9).
(Cross post at Liberal Implosion)
In recent weeks I have heard at least 3 people, which includes Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Former Algore campaign chair Donna Brazile, and pseudo actress/political agitator Susan Sarandon make the statement that “Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.” By this statement they are suggesting at least one of three things, if not all:
Posted by boBByd at 09:14
If this is even half true, it's going to completely change US relations with the Middle East.
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.Whatcha wanna bet the Party of the Donkey will try to block drilling, preferring to cozy up to people like Bashar al-Assad and Ahmadinnerjacket?
Gotta love it!
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS to us political junkies) handed the Bush administration, and the President himself, a resounding defeat today.
BDS sufferers, rejoice! Bushitler got smacked down by the Courts!
But, wait... the case dealt with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), long the darling of the left. And the SCOTUS ruling was that Bush could not, I say again, could not order the state of Texas to obey an ICJ order.
So a defeat of Bush is also a defeat for the legality of ICJ orders within the US.
In other words, to say that SCOTUS was wrong is to say that President Bush was right.
I can hear BDS sufferers crying into their pillows now.
(Matthew 28:1-10, NKJV)
He Is Risen1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,[a] and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
The Women Worship the Risen Lord
9 And as they went to tell His disciples,[b] behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
Mr. Victor Davis Hanson, whose use of language and intellectual capacity remind me strongly of the late great William F. Buckley, explains Obama's larger problem:
The problem is instead the environment that he heretofore has navigated in — prep school, the Ivy League, the regional identity politics of Chicago, or Illinois liberalism — is hardly representative of his own country. So what he can say among sympathizers and friends will not be excused or contextualized by average others who don't know him and won't give him the latitude he is accustomed to and apparently has counted on.The problem is similar to one that plagued the elder Bush's re-election campaign, when he was apparently fascinated by a supermarket bar-code scanner, something which the public was by that time very familiar with. The problem is that Bush, and now Obama, are shown to be largely out of touch with everyday Americans.
Obama probably thought that his pretty little speech, which would have--and indeed did--impress his friends in the media and rank-and-file lefties would also impress Joe Average, who didn't go to Harvard, has never lived overseas, and drives a pick-up to work... drives it himself, of course, because he doesn't have a chauffeur.
Obama thought wrong. And therein lies his problem.
That's the summary from an LA Times author:
In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.I am sure that lots of folks expect these to be the words of some white conservative, but no. The article was penned by Michael Meyers, who identifies himself as black in the article, and who is listed at the bottom of the article as "executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP."
I think Obama better not give up his Senate seat.
Sorry I haven't been around for a while, an injury to my hand (which even required a late-night trip to the ER) has made typing problematic.
However, it's given me time to ruminate on Obama, Wright, and the future of the Party of the Donkey. And what I decided is, it ain't good.
The Democrats have always had their fringe elements--think Michael Moore, MoveOn, Cindy Sheehan, and Cynthia McKinney--just as the Republicans have--such as the John Birch Society. However, the Democrats have always done a fair-to-good job of keeping these elements more or less at arm's length; close enough to gain support from them and their supporters, but far enough away that the Party itself isn't truly "identified" with these fringes, at least not in the minds of the swing voter (political junkies like myself are a different matter).
However, with the revelations (no pun intended) about Wright, the Party of the Donkey is in a real bind. If they do end up nominating Obama, they will be drawing the fringe elements so close to the "mainstream" of the party that in the minds of many of the all-important swing voters, they will become the Party that represents the most odious and obnoxious of Wright's views. That label will then drive a large number of swing voters away.
On the other hand, if they choose to nominate Hillary--which is still numerically possible--they'll anger the very fringe elements that Wright stands for, possibly even causing them to leave the party. While that would keep the Democrats from being labeled as embracing the fringe elements, that would doom the Democrats' chances in the general election.
A party of principle would repudiate the fringe, as the GOP did years ago under the prodding of the late great WFB, pushing away the support of the John Birch Society. However, the amount of ink, both physical and electronic, spilled in defending Obama and Wright leads me to believe that such principle does not exist in today's Democratic party. The pursuit of power is all, principle is unimportant, it seems.
Unfortunately for the Donkeys, the pursuit of power will, in this case, likely lead to a bad end for the Party.
So much for the Party of the Donkey making everyone love America:
Cyclical slowdowns are one thing. What depresses politicians in both countries is their biggest trading partner's protectionist mood. A Mexican minister who is a strong supporter of NAFTA and who has been dealing with Washington for the past two decades says that on a recent visit to the United States' Congress he found an “almost xenophobic” mood of a kind that he had never before encountered.
That chimes with the frustrations of Colombia's government, which having negotiated a free-trade agreement with the United States has found it blocked by the Democrats in Congress. The message from the Democratic campaign is that “America is an unreliable ally”, says a veteran Latin American diplomat who spent many years working closely with the United States' government.
I don't think much more needs to be added to that (except the colored emphasis which I already added).
Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, has been one of the great defenders of the sanctity of life and traditional marriage in our time. One of his students, Sherif Gergis, a 2008 Princeton Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, has written a powerful letter to U.S. Senator Barack Obama on the subject of the protection of unborn human life. Professor George has asked that the following letter be read carefully and distributed widely.
Dear Senator Obama:
As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”
But do you mean it?
As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.
As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”
You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:
1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?
2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?
3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?
If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?
Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.
Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?
Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.
(Crosspost at Liberal Implosion)
Posted by boBByd at 11:49
Just what we need, terrorists in our own hemisphere, supported by totalitarian dictator Hugo Chavez, with the makings of a nuclear device.
But we can rest easy... President Obama plans to bomb Pakistan.
(CNN) -- Evidence found in computers seized in a raid over the weekend suggests that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently gave the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia $300 million, Colombia's national police chief said Monday.
Speaking at a news conference, Gen. Oscar Naranjo also said evidence in the computers suggests FARC had given Chavez 100 million pesos when he was a jailed rebel leader.
FARC has fought to overthrow the Colombian government for 40 years.
Chavez had no immediate response to the allegations involving him.
Naranjo said other evidence in the computers suggests FARC purchased 50 kilograms of uranium this month.
Okay, that's not exactly what Wes Clark said, but it still works:
If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.By that reasoning, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan should have been elected Commander-In-Chief.
In short, it's full of holes, and I expect McCain's campaign to rip it to shreds very soon.
Cross-posted at Liberal Implosion.
The intellectual father of conservatism, Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr., passed away this morning, appropriately, at his desk.
In a way, this is a sadder day than when Mr. Reagan died, because the argument can be made that without Buckley, there never would have been a Reagan Revolution. At the very least, it would not have looked the same.
National Review Online, naturally, has much more.
Godspeed, Mr. Buckley.
This just in, global warming is proven wrong once again: No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
Of course, that's why they stopped calling it "global warming" and started using "global climate change." Just one problem with that... if the planet is cooling, we want more greenhouse gases, not less, and all the proposals from the Goreacle and his followers are aimed at reducing them.
In other words, their policies would make the global cooling trend worse. But, don't worry, they'll have a solution for that problem... one that involves even more government intrusion into your life.
To a lefty, it matters not what the problem is, the answer is always more government. Even if government has caused or exacerbated the problem.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Still developing, here's what we know right now:
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) - Nancy Reagan's spokeswoman says the former first lady is staying overnight in the hospital after falling in her home in Bel-Air.Everyone please pray for the former First Lady.
Spokeswoman Joanne Drake says the 87-year-old Reagan was taken to St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica for examination Sunday. Doctors determined she did not break a hip as feared.
Drake says Reagan is staying in the same room where former President Ronald Reagan stayed after he broke his hip at home in 2001.
Courtesy Fox News:
WASHINGTON — Rep. Tom Lantos, who as a teenager twice escaped from a Nazi-run forced labor camp in Hungary and became the only Holocaust survivor to win a seat in Congress, has died. He was 80.
Spokeswoman Lynne Weil said Lantos, a Californian, died early Monday at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in suburban Maryland. He was surrounded by his wife, Annette, two daughters, and many of his 17 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
Annette Lantos said in a statement that her husband's life was "defined by courage, optimism, and unwavering dedication to his principles and to his family."
Lantos, a Democrat who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee, disclosed last month that he had been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus. He said at the time that he would serve out his 14th term but would not seek re-election in his Northern California district, which takes in the southwest portion of San Francisco and suburbs to the south including Lantos' home of San Mateo.
President Bush praised Lantos in a statement as "a man of character and a champion of human rights."
"After immigrating to America more than six decades ago, he worked to help oppressed people around the world have the opportunity to live in freedom," Bush said. "As the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, Tom was a living reminder that we must never turn a blind eye to the suffering of the innocent at the hands of evil men."
Flags were lowered to half-staff at the White House and U.S. Capitol.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "Tom Lantos was a true American hero. He was the embodiment of what it meant to have one's freedom denied and then to find it and to insist that America stand for spreading freedom and prosperity to others."
Speaking to reporters at the State Department, she said, "He was also a dear, dear friend and I am personally quite devastated by his loss."
Open mouth, insert donkey's hoof seems to be the reasoning behind the latest move made by the Democratic National Committee.
A bit of background is needed. The Party of the Donkey doesn't choose a nominee the way the GOP does... not only to the voters get to vote, but, in a move straight out of Mao or Lenin's Communist Party, the Party Members get two votes... one in their state primary, like all good citizens, and another one at the Convention; they're called "superdelegates." I guess the Donkeys don't want to leave the choice of the direction of the party up to, you know, the "little people."
Now comes the insert hoof part. Senator Joe Lieberman, who is a reliable lefty on basically every domestic policy, has been stripped of "superdelegate" status for the awful crime of (gasp) endorsing a Republican! And of course, this comes after the same Party of the Donkey kicked him out because he (gasp) supported the war in Iraq!
Just more evidence that the lefties support free speech only when it agrees with the Party Line.
(Cross-posted at Liberal Implosion)
That, neighbors, is why we need to get as many conservatives in Congress as we can. No matter who wins, we'll have someone in the Oval Office who is just fine "working with" lefties, and that is bad news for the country.
Between now and November, John McCain can make all the speeches and do all the reaching out he deems necessary to assuage the concerns of the conservative base of the Republican Party. He can even turn his considerable skills at political combat against the Democrats. It might help get him elected, or it might not. If it does, come next January he still will have to begin governing in the face of wider Democratic majorities in Congress, and he still will have to choose between success and failure.
In that instance, he will choose success. And it will be an easy choice for him to make because on a whole range of issues, both substantively and stylistically, he and the Democrats will measure success in the same way.
Read the whole article... link, as usual, in the title.
I have just finished reading the text of McCain's speech, and some commentary from those I trust, and I've come to a conclusion.
He hasn't sold me on voting for him. But I am now open to being sold. A lot of it will depend on who McCain picks to surround himself with. I am still concerned with the former Mexican official that is in his campaign.
However, in his speech today, he did acknowledge that he needs conservatives to win, and made some concessions, especially on immigration, that would be hard to weasel out of without everyone realizing that's what he is doing... and, thus, destroying his chances for re-election. So at least in a prospective first term for President McCain, we shouldn't have any amnesty bills signed.
We will see how things go.
As has been pointed out by two excellent posts on NRO's Corner today, even for those like me who cringe at the thought of marking our ballot next to "John McCain," it is critically important that you still vote. Perhaps even more so for those of us who don't want to vote for the McRINO.
Simply put, if we can install a conservative enough Congress, even President Hillary would have a hard time getting her socialist programs through... and even if we don't take a majority, every conservative voice added will help that.
So, my advice... write in Fred Thompson (or your favored candidate), and then vote for the most conservative people in each of the other races. I have a feeling we'll need them.
Okay, so he's now the official frontrunner. Senator John McCain still cannot possibly win the Oval Office.
First of all, he has devoted far too much time and energy into attacking--yes, attacking--the values of those whose votes he now needs. From deriding opponents of his immigration bill as racists to his embrace of socialist rhetoric (i.e. using "managed for profit" as an insult), McCain has done his level best to push the base of the GOP away from him.
Second, he currently enjoys favorable media coverage, because out of the GOP candidates, he is the one closest to the media's own views... something which should open any true conservative's eyes. However, once it comes down to him vs. Obama or Hillary, the media will turn against him. If McCain thinks Romney's "attack" ads are bad, wait till he sees what the media will dig up on him once the conventions are over.
Third, a large portion of his support comes from Democrats and "independents" voting in open primaries. The idea that these people would vote for him over Obama or Hillary fails the laugh test... one-on-one against a real Democrat, McCain's support among Democrats will disappear faster than an ice cream cone in a Phoenix summer.
Simply put, nominating McCain is a recipe for defeat, just like nominating Bob Dole was. It seems that every few elections, we need to remind the GOP what happens to those who stray too far from the conservative base, and it looks like it's gonna be this election.
Oh, it think the blood is going to shoot out of my eye balls over this one. This weekend in Atlanta, GA is the first ever "New Baptist Covenant Celebration" conference. It is the brain child of Southern Baptist rejects/former US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Their goal is to unite the many baptists through out the United States who apparently have lost faith in the continued growth of the Southern Baptist Convention as it remains one of the most conservative denominational groups today. The elder former President said in his opening remarks, "For the first time in more than 160 years, we're convening a major convocation of Baptists throughout an entire continent without any threat to our unity or to our freedom brought by differences of race, politics, geography or the legalistic interpretation of Scriptures," according to Baptist Press.
Now, as bad as this is...various apostate and liberal so called "baptist" groups gathering to bash the SBC; that isn't even the worst thing. The high light of the day (and someone had to be high to decide on this one) was the awarding of former Vice President and Presidential Election Sore-Loser Algore with the "Baptist of the Year Award". Yes, i said "Baptist of the Year"...which apparently was not something that the vast majority of baptists had a say so in since i never got a ballot.
Robert Parhman, the Executive Director of the Baptist Center of Ethics (another SBC reject who left on his own accord) went as far as to refer to Algore as a...and this is where the head gets ready to explode a "baptist prophet" according to Baptist Press. No, really, i didn't stutter and i'm not making it up, Algore was called a "baptist prophet".
In Parham's introduction of the Profit maker, he said, "We have with us today a Baptist prophet who is so unacceptable that the Baptist establishment in his hometown of Nashville neither acknowledged his winning the Nobel Peace Prize nor honored with coverage his notable Nobel lecture...Prophets are unacceptable because their truth is inconvenient." Obviously, this was a slam on the Southern Baptist Convention which is based largely out of the great city of Nashville.
The Profit Algore went on to say in his speech that some Baptist spokesmen deny the reality of global warming because they are locked in a coalition with rich and powerful people who take advantage of the poor for economic profit. Yeah, that's right...i'm in a coalition with rich and powerful people to take advantage of the poor for economic profit. I'm just rolling in the dough here in my 3 bedroom home where i can just build up my carbon footprint!
If i was only the Profit maker like Algore, i could simply fly private jets across country, have someone drive me around in an SUV, and rest comfortably in my 10,000 square foot house when i finally get time to rest. No, instead i'm too busy trying to take advantate of the poor for my own profit according to the bitter ex-VP!
Just for the record Mr. Parham, a prophet is one who declares the truth of God to point people toward God. A prophet of God preaches to save the soul...not to "save the earth". If Algore is your idea of what "Baptist of the Year" is, i'm thankful that you have decided to abandon my Southern Baptist Convention...and i'm glad we were not invited.
It's kind of surprising, when you look at it, how much the McCain candidacy of 2008 matches up with the Bob Dole candidacy of 1996.
War hero, running largely on war record? Check.
Has run for President before? Check. (Dole tried in 1980 and 1988.)
Has been in the Senate long enough to grow moss? Check.
So-called "compromise" candidate coming out of a crowded field? Check. Dole's '96 run was against such notable Republicans as Lamar Alexander, Phil Gramm, Alan Keyes, Dick Lugar, and Dan Quayle.
Was considered to be the "electable" candidate? Check. See my earlier article on this.
Did not excite economic or social conservatives? You betcha! Check!
It didn't work for Dole, why the heck does McRINO think it will work for him?
I think we are heading for a November where many conservatives sit at home, and another Clinton gets elected.
Fellow conservatives, do you want your next President to have been officially endorsed by the New York Times?
Then don't vote for John McRINO McCain.
It would be hard to imagine a worse thing for Sen. John McCain as he tries to convince the Republican grass roots he's not a liberal. The Times, which for decades has attacked virtually all the policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, on Friday endorsed McCain as "the best choice for the party's presidential nomination," calling its decision "an easy one."And the best part of this IBD article:
The paper also cited McCain's liberal stances on government regulation to combat climate change and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as his willingness to co-write major legislation with far-left colleagues such as Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Other positions also make McCain Times-friendly. He supported the heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory regime now making it a nightmare to operate a publicly traded company. He voted to increase CAFE fuel regulations. He opposed a repeal of the "death tax." And he expressed support for raising Social Security payroll taxes on the middle class.
Moreover, while McCain may claim he opposed Bush's across-the-board tax cuts because they weren't paired with spending reductions, his arguments then were classic class-warfare rhetoric about "the most fortunate among us" not getting taxed enough. As Senate Commerce Committee chairman a decade ago, McCain even sponsored and voted for a near-tripling of cigarette taxes.
Heading toward Tuesday's Florida primary, the GOP nomination increasingly looks like a two-man race between Sen. McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney. Now Romney has a weapon that will resonate deeply with Republican voters who resent the establishment media's longtime crusade against Reagan Republicanism:
"Vote for me, not the candidate of the New York Times."
Let's see McRINO's supporters spin this one.
UPDATE: Looks like Rudy's already using it.
Voice Over: “Rudy Giuliani is not endorsed by The Tampa Tribune. Not endorsed by the Orlando Sentinel. Not endorsed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. In fact, he’s not endorsed by any of the liberal newspapers. When you’re responsible for cutting people’s taxes by an incredible seventeen percent …”And, near the end...
Voice Over: “… you’re the last person on earth to be endorsed by the liberal New York Times. Rudy Giuliani. Tested. Ready. Now.”Bad news for McRINO, I think.
Before you get all excited about HillaryCare or ObamaCare providing free health care to "everyone," take a look at who the British (whose system Hillary and Obama wish to copy) are considering excluding:
(red emphasis mine)
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Gee, here I thought the government could really provide free care to everyone.
Moral of the story: Never believe it when a politician says they can give you something for free... unless it's hot air.
Once again, Hillary is making the claim that rules don't apply to her:
Uh, excuse me, Hillary, if you're campaigning for the nomination of a given party, don't the party's rules kind of apply to you?
In a bit of political theater, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Florida Democratic Party clamored to restore convention delegates that had been stripped by the national party.
At stake: 185 delegates in a state where Clinton leads almost 2-to-1.
The presidential candidate said Friday — just four days before Florida's primary — that she wants the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated. The national party eliminated all the delegates from those states — more than 350 in all — because they broke party rules against holding their primaries before Feb. 5. All the major Democratic candidates also made pledges not to campaign in those states before their primaries.
What's interesting here, tho, is that a couple of left-leaning commentators are taking issue with Hillary's stand, here and here.
Congratulations, guys, you're finally figuring out what the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has known about the Clintons for over a decade.
(cross-posted at Liberal Implosion)
I hope everyone is seeing the 5 little stars at the bottom of each post... that's a new rating system I installed, thanks to the nice folks at HaloScan, who also handle my commenting and trackbacks.
Feel free to use it, that's what it's there for. Of course, we all know that lefties will try spamming it, but we won't let them spoil things.
Hmmm... greens against trees? Well, in one case they are:
In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office is pursuing a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels.Wonder which side Algore will come down on.
Okay, this speaks volumes about McCain's illegal immigration stand right here:
McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director" is the same guy who held that job for Mexico's President Vicente Fox! U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez was in Fox's cabinet as Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad and is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"Now, can anyone reading that truly believe that McCain has decided to actually secure the southern border?
If he truly has, as he claims, let's see him offer a bill to do that--and only that--in the Senate during the next session.
Don't hold your breath, tho.
I want to begin by stating, for the record, that Senator John McCain's service to this nation and sacrifice for it is both laudable and honorable. He is certainly a Genuine American War Hero.
But, I wish to take issue with those who apparently think that somehow qualifies him for the Presidency. And I can do it in two words, with explanation to follow: Max Cleland.
Like McCain, Cleland was in Vietnam. Cleland was also grievously wounded in Vietnam. To be sure, the circumstances differ (Cleland was injured by an accidental grenade activation), but Cleland's sacrifice of two legs and part of an arm in service to America would also seem to qualify him as a Genuine American War Hero.
So, here's the question... would all you self-proclaimed "conservatives" who are supporting McCain based on his war record also support Cleland?
Here's a blast from the past to think about... from Time, 13 Nov 1995:
It certainly isn't enough to protect Dole's status as heir apparent. Polls last week were indicating that while Dole would narrowly beat Powell for the Republican nomination, only Powell could beat Clinton in the general election. That scenario leaves a gaping hole in Dole's game plan, which depends, among other things, on his being able to argue that he's the most electable Republican candidate in a field of unknowns and extremists. If Powell doesn't run, Newt Gingrich has often said he just might. Last week in an interview with TIME, he repeatedly hinted that Dole may not be comfortable as the leader of the revolution. "I think he's effective at it,'' Gingrich said. "Whether he's comfortable, you'd have to ask him, but he's certainly effective...There seems to be a relaxed, comfortable effectiveness, which is very real. Now whether or not, inside himself, that fits his zeitgeist, I haven't a clue.''My, my, don't we hear a lot about who is the "most electable" these days? And wasn't Senator John Kerry (D-Christmas in Cambodia) picked by the Party of the Donkey last time based on "electablity"?
Hmmm... food for thought, methinks.
Okay, I got a small problem.
I just got my first shipment from the Conservative Book Club (no link, cause I am not intending to plug them), and it contains the following four books:
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
A statement issued today by Fred Thompson:
Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.I kind of doubt we've seen the end of Fred. If some GOP candidate doesn't offer him a cabinet position--or maybe Veep--they're all idiots.
For the time being, the Blogs for Fred Thompson links will remain on the sidebar, for two reasons:
- They provide links to some really good blogs.
- I haven't completely decided who I am going to support yet. I am leaning Romney, but not 100% sure yet.
This time, Jed Babbin of Human Events takes a good long look at some numbers:
According to a Fox News exit poll, 32% of the Michigan Republican primary voters identified themselves as independents or Democrats. Another Fox exit poll showed 20% of the South Carolina Republican primary voters said they were either Democrats or independents. In Michigan, Gov. Romney won with 39%, Sen. McCain was second at 30% and Gov. Huckabee third at 16%. In South Carolina, John McCain won with 33% of the vote, Mike Huckabee had 30% and Fred Thompson had 16%. Given those margins, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and independents controlled the result in both states.Now, why would so many Donkeys vote for McRINO? Maybe because he follows their philosophy?
Professor Bainbridge makes a case for staying home this November:
God made the people of Israel wander in the desert 40 years so as to remake the Israelis into a people fit for the tasks ahead. The GOP seriously needs a time out so that it can rethink its role in American democracy. There are a lot of legitimate questions facing the GOP. Do you adhere to the limited government principles of Reagan and Thatcher or do you follow the lead of UK Tory leader David Cameron? As the Economist recently opined, “it seems likely that the Republican Party, as a number of its members are already urging, will have to embrace environmentalism and cuddly economics as the Tories were forced to.”He has a point, and more than just the Biblical one. Losing the White House to Slick Willie set the stage for the GOP comeback of 1994.
If the choice is between choosing the lesser of 4 evils and teeing up a process by which the GOP reinvents itself for the 21st Century, I’m inclined to opt for the latter. Coupled with losing Congress in 2006, losing the presidency in 2008 will provide a pair of defeats that surely will prompt “attentiveness” on the part of the GOP leadership and the intellectual base of think tanks and academics who helped lay the foundation for the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions. Just as the Israelis had to be punished for listening to the 10 fearful spies, the GOP needs to be punished for having been seduced by Bush and DeLay. Just as the Israelis came back stronger and fitter for the tasks ahead, so might a chastened GOP.
I'm not prepared to say that I won't vote for anyone except Fred, but if the nominee is The Huckster or McRINO, there's a very good chance I will write in Charlie Brown for President.
I've been looking over the results of the primaries and caucuses (caucii?) so far, and I've discovered something about media darling McCain. First, the data:
Of the six contests held so far, Romney has come in 1st in three, 2nd in two, and 4th in only one (South Carolina). McCain, on the other hand, has been 1st only twice, 2nd once, 3rd once, and 4th twice... and one of those was a tie (at zero) with Rudy, The Huckster, and Paul in Wyoming--so that might as well be counted a last place finish.
Now, the analysis of the data. What this tells me is that Mitt has appeal to people across the country, from New Hampshire to Nevada. McCain does not.
So why is the media so enthusiastic to anoint McCain? Simple: he hates tax cuts, wants to impose Algore-like environmental restrictions on business, quashes free speech, and wants to let illegal immigrants into the country and give them official status within 24 hours! McCain is loved by the media because he agrees with them on so many issues.
McCain is really McRINO. He should have switched to the Party of the Donkey when he had the chance after the 2000 election.
So, McCain is now the media-anointed front-runner for the nomination. His supporters are saying that he is conservative enough to lead the GOP.
I beg to differ.
We thought Mr. Bush the elder was conservative enough. Then he went and broke his "no new taxes" pledge, and nominated the liberal David Souter to the Supreme Court. In his defense, he also nominated Clarence Thomas, and stood with him throughout the Anita Hill kerfuffle, and Gulf War I was run relatively well, except that he didn't take care of Saddam once and for all.
We also thought Bush the younger was conservative enough. That was, however, until No Child Left Behind, which Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) sponsored in the Senate. Any bill that Teddy sponsors is hardly a conservative bill. Then there were the--fortunately stymied--proposals to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and grant literally millions of lawbreakers amnesty--I refer, of course, to illegal immigrants. And don't get me started on the huge expansion of the federal government. Again, in his defense, I must admit he did push through tax cuts, and has so far prosecuted the Iraq War with relatively few mistakes.
However, we need to get past this idea that "conservative enough" is enough. Each of the post-Reagan Republican Presidents has been considered "conservative enough," yet has pushed through some very liberal programs... and not, as President Reagan did, only when they had no choice. No one was pressuring Bush 43 to ram No Child Left Behind through; there was no huge public outcry for amnesty for illegal immigrants--in fact, quite the opposite!
For those who think that rock-solid conservatism cannot win, I point you back to The Gipper. He won, and won easily, in his re-election bid carrying 49 states. Democrat-Lite he was most assuredly not, yet he won with no problem.
Be warned, McCain supporters... history shows that conservative enough isn't.
It's probably too early to tell if this is the start of a trend, but I offer it For What It's Worth:
Four votes for Fred Thompson from a family of evangelicals, which is interesting because, when I spoke to these same folks two weeks ago, none of them were Thompson supporters. In fact, they were barely aware of his candidacy. One was a Giuliani supporter and the others were looking fondly upon Huckabee, but hadn't made a decision.
Proving...? Nothing, of course. But this is a storyline I've been hearing from South Carolina all week: "Values voters" drifting away from Huckabee. This might explain why he decided to play the Robert E. Lee card in the final days of the campaign. Can't get the religion vote? Go for the rednecks.
Erick Erickson is with Fred in South Carolina, and provides an interesting and enlightening report:
Traveling through snowy South Carolina with Fred Thompson, I’m struck by the sense that finally, the man has arrived. The candidate so many conservatives were excited by early in 2007 is finally walking the land.It's really no wonder that Fred doesn't get much coverage from the leftymedia... they always ignore the conservative candidate as much as they can. We tend to forget that because in the last few election cycles the GOP candidate has also already been a high government official--President or Vice President--and thus a lot harder for the leftymedia to ignore. This time, however, with neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Cheney in the race, they feel safe in ignoring the true conservatives and focusing on the RINOs, namely McCain and The Huckster.
The Fred Thompson in South Carolina this week is the one America saw knock into Mike Huckabee as a pro-life liberal with “blame America first” beliefs whose economic policies would destroy the economy. And the crowds love it.
Though barely mentioned in the national media, Senator Fred Thompson has been on a barn storming tour crisscrossing South Carolina for more than a week. In a unique approach, he is not just going to major media markets, but to rural areas of South Carolina. On my first day on the trail with Senator Thompson, he drew a crowd of 180 people to a small Mennonite restaurant in Abbeville, South Carolina — population 26,000 with a median income of $15,370. He capped off the day at the Orangeburg-Calhoun County Technical College in Orangeburg, South Carolina with over 200 people braving a rare snow shower to hear him. The day before I joined him on the campaign trail, Senator Thompson’s campaign saw large capacity auditoriums overflowing with people standing outside the buildings waiting to get in.
Don't, I say again, DO NOT let the lack of coverage make you think Fred is dead. He's out there, the leftymedia are just showing their true colors by not reporting on him.
Fred can win... he has just as good a shot as any of the others right now, and with The Huckster imploding, it's entirely possible that Fred could pick up a large block of the Christian Evangelical vote--I really can't see them going to Romney, Giuliani, or McCain in large numbers. Fred is also heading into the area of the country where his style really shines--just read the article linked in the title. If he can pick up a lot of support there, he can increase his visibility and make a real run for it.
I've said it before and I will say it again... this one is far from over.
The lesser known Limbaugh, David (Rush's brother), has a great piece on Fred today:
There is simply too much herd mentality among us about electability. We tell ourselves a candidate is not inspiring, then pretty soon we're convinced he's unelectable, and, voila, he almost becomes so. Yet, at that very moment, he's proving to us that he is quite presidential, quite electable and quite motivated for the job -- if we can only shed our predispositions against his "electability." Since electability is often a matter of collective perception, it can turn on a dime, as with the reversal of the respective fortunes of screaming Howard Dean and somniferous John Kerry in 2004.Indeed.
This primary season, relatively speaking, has just begun. But Fred is now up against the wall. How can we expect him to have done much better than he has to date with everyone prattling on about the overwhelming odds against him? The "experts" continue to be wrong at almost every turn, so why can't they be wrong about Fred, too? It's time to quit empowering them by following their dictatorial doom-prophecies. It's encouraging that John Zogby's latest South Carolina poll shows that while levels of support for McCain and Huckabee "have remained static," Fred is starting to move up.
Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.
Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?
Fred is, as Limbaugh points out, not perfect, but he is the most Reaganite of the current crop of candidates. If you, like me, are a Reagan conservative, you really need to take a close look at Fred.
I guess the UK's National Health Service is staffed with fans of Invasion of the Body Snatchers:
The UK Nanny State just revealed its latest agenda item and it is decidedly ghoulish. Last week, British (but really Scottish) Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced his support of a Labour government plan to snatch the body parts of any citizen. The good news is that this policy only applies to dead people. The bad news is obvious. This is the ultimate death tax, surgically extracted.
Without any apparent squeamishness, Gordon Brown backed the Presumed Consent Scheme (they often call programs “schemes” in England) to redress the demand for transplanted organs by fiat. Here’s the deal. Rather than go looking for those bothersome donor cards on a fresh cadaver, the British populace is now fair game. If you don’t specifically carry a card saying “leave my corpse alone” -- known as “the opt out option”, or unless one’s family is on hand to object, one’s remains are considered fair game for an organ harvest festival.
The justification for adopting Presumed Consent is a function of a recognized market deficit. The Government has noticed that 1000 patients die annually while waiting for a critically-needed transplant. Another 8000 are on various organ waiting lists hoping to get lucky when they go critical or for just the right replacement part to turn up in the chop shop.
According to the NHS Organ Donor Registry, there are more than 14 million Brits who have voluntarily listed themselves as donors, however, one third of all families refuse consent for organ donation when a loved one dies, usually in unexpected circumstances. In typical fashion, the government plans to overcome this donor reluctance by setting up -- you guessed it -- a new Task Force to enlighten the populace about the importance of giving this gift of life.
Read the whole thing... as usual, the link is in the title of this post.
More evidence of the implosion (I'll explain after the quote):
I think that every candidates should speak for themselves, and that every thing that involves the candidate's name or another candidate's name should be authorized and approved by that candidate, otherwise it shouldn't be spoken....Okay, first off, this is basically slicing the First Amendment out of the Constitution and stuffing it in the shredder. Essentially, if this law were passed, I would have to get Mr. Huckabee's permission before I could even include his name in this sentence (no idea if nicknames like "The Huckster" would also require permission).
However, this is also evidence of his campaign imploding. There's a pattern here, and it is reminiscent of another politician. See if you can guess who:
- The Huckster raises taxes while in office. Realizing that this is bad news in a Republican primary, he immediately latches onto a plan that many conservatives like, the FairTax.
- The Huckster pushes for a federal smoking ban. When he discovers that such a ban doesn't sell well among the GOP base, he dumps it.
- Now, The Huckster gets caught push-polling, so he immediately calls for lots and lots of restrictions.
In short, there is no core set of political beliefs in The Huckster (I won't comment on his religious beliefs except to say that many of his policy positions fly in the face of my understanding of Southern Baptist theology--but I am not a Southern Baptist so I may be misunderstanding their positions on some issues). There simply is no "there" there. I may have policy disagreements with Mr. Giuliani, but at least he is open and honest about them, and I respect him for that. Rudy is not my first choice, nor my second, but if he gets the nomination I would vote for him (First and second choices are Mr. Thompson and Mr. Romney, in that order, in case anyone is curious). Anyway, getting back to The Huckster, he has not shown us the kind of honesty that Mr. Giuliani has, and as such, he reminds me powerfully of another Arkansas governor who had the same lack of core beliefs.
The Huckster is Slick Willie with less polish. That's about all there is to it.
Because I frequently comment on Confederate Yankee's blog (yes, I am that C-C-G), I generally try to stay away from stuff he is covering... it just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.
This time, however, I am gonna make an exception.
The obvious suspect here is the campaign of the man who wants to rewrite the Constitution to match his personal idea of God's will... and has even said so!
Okay, enough channeling CY... I just had to share that one, tho.
UPDATE: More, from Reason Magazine:
Ah, the joys of the primary season. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster has been asked to prosecute pro-Mike Huckabee push polling now underway in the state. State law bans such automated calls.
McMaster is a major John McCain supporter in the state, but the prime target of the calls -- at the moment -- seems to be Fred Thompson. In a call partially recorded last night by one South Carolina resident and sent to McMaster, Thompson's record on abortion and taxes was attacked.
This mirrors similar recent efforts in Michigan against Mitt Romney, where the same firm placed calls to voters blasting Romney's record on guns and immigration. One report pegged the number of such calls into Michigan at five million while South Carolina is on tap to receive one million calls.
As I commented to a friend earlier today, The Huckster is imploding, and it's about time. This sort of Bravo-Sierra is not Christian at all.
UPDATE II (and bump): The Palmetto Scoop has uncovered more about the firm actually making the calls, and it's not pretty:
The firm that’s been doing the calls on Common Sense Issues’ behalf is ccAdvertising (also known as FreeEats.com). And their legal record isn’t encouraging. That company has already lost twice in federal court. In 2004, they challenged North Dakota’s do-not-call law and lost (they’d made approximately 235,000 calls polling a range of GOP hot-button issues). The company was fined $20,000. And in 2006, they challenged Indiana’s do-not-call law and lost (the group made 400,000 calls attacking Rep. Byron Hill (D-IN)). [PAUL KIEL - TPMmuckraker]Also, The Huckster's campaign has issued a sort of a call for it to stop:
Huckabee's campaign quickly disavowed the push polling. "We know nothing about that and don't condone it. Anyone who is doing that in an effort to help us needs to stop. This does not reflect the positive spirit of the campaign," said spokeswoman Alice Stewart.Oh, where to start with this one.
First, why is a spokeswoman saying this and not The Huckster himself?
Second, why not name the companies--and the leaders of those companies--that are doing this by name and demand that they stop? The "we know nothing" Sgt. Schultz defense ain't gonna fly, the name of Common Sense Issues has been out there since soon after this story broke.
Third, I nearly spewed my morning beverage all over my laptop when I read "positive spirit of the campaign." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! That "positive spirit" that had The Huckster claim that a crying baby was a Romney supporter, perhaps? How about the "positive spirit" that had The Huckster openly questioning Romney's religion, while at the same time not permitting any questions about how The Huckster's own actions square with his own religion? Maybe they're referring to the "positive spirit" that had The Huckster call an organization dedicated to prosperity for all Americans "The Club For Greed," just because they pointed out The Huckster's real economic track record? "Positive spirit," indeed.
Just more evidence of The Huckster imploding, folks.
Update III: It ain't just SC:
The more this story gets around, the worse The Huckster looks... which is why I am doing my small part to spread the word.
Nevada Republican voters are receiving automated phone calls that appear to be a poll, but end up criticizing candidates with the exception of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Also known as "push polls," the phone calls are intended to present negative information about candidates and have caused hostile reaction in Nevada.
"I got it myself," said Heidi Smith, chairwoman of the Washoe County Republican Central Committee. "I can testify to it. I was so mad.
"They were pretending they were doing a poll. It was horrible. At the end, they said this was not paid for by any political party, but you'd have to be an absolute moron to know it's not Huckabee (this group is supporting)."
The calls, which also targeted voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, are sponsored by Common Sense Issues, a nonprofit organization that backs Huckabee.
Now this is what I call Fred at his best... explaining things clearly, but in 60 seconds.
According to NRO's Corner, this will start running tomorrow in every media market in South Carolina. And I expect that it will help Fred to victory.
Do not adjust your computer monitor. I changed the look of the blog. To be honest, I kinda got tired of the light-text-on-dark-background thing, and I do like red, so here we go. :)
Some posts with color highlighting may be hard to read... if you spot one that is particularly difficult, I'd appreciate if you'd drop me a line, or comment on it.
WARREN, Mich.: Confronted by crying toddler on Tuesday, Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee quipped the child must be for his rival Mitt Romney.
"He's not the happiest boy today," Huckabee said, smiling for a picture with the boy and his brother and sister. "I think he must be a Romney voter. Look at him. He's so sad."
Real classy, Pastor Huck.
Gotta love it:
LADY'S ISLAND, S.C. -- Mixing theology and social issues on the campaign trail is rare for Fred Thompson, but he discussed it today answering a question from a member of the audience.Huckabee's campaign and supporters claiming this is an attack on the Huckster in 3... 2...
A woman asked him if he would “as a Christian, as a conservative” continue President Bush’s programs to combat global AIDS.
“Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it,” Thompson said.
“The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.”
It's not being widely reported as far as I can see online (Yahoo! News, for example, has not one wire story about it), but Hillary "won" the Michigan primary on the D side.
So why is it not being reported? Because even though she was running essentially unopposed (there were three also-rans in the field--Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel--none of whom has a snowball's chance in Hades to ever make it to the Oval Office), she still "won" only 55% of the vote.
That's what the leftymedia doesn't want to report... "uncommitted" got 40% of the votes cast for Democrats in Michigan. Let me rephrase that: 40% of those voting in the Democratic primary in Michigan would rather vote for nobody than vote for Hillary!
Sure, it's a "victory," but it's also a huge embarrassment to the Hillary campaign. That's why there's not much coverage of it.
Once again, been doing some ruminating, this time on the Ron Paul brand of neo-isolationism. I've decided that it's a fundamentally flawed policy for several reasons:
- The central premise itself is fatally flawed. The idea is that if we ignore the world, the world will ignore us. Sorry, folks, but putting our collective hands over our ears, closing our eyes, and singing "lalalalalala" at the top of our lungs won't stop other nations from knocking on our door--or knocking over our skyscrapers either. History shows this clearly; the last time isolationism was seriously tried in this nation was during the 1920s and 1930s. It ended rather suddenly on one Sunday morning in December, 1941.
- There is also an idea that if we stop "meddling" in the Middle East, that things will calm down. Again, this is not in line with reality. Like a cop standing on a corner keeps neighborhood kids from causing too much trouble, America's presence in the Mideast has helped keep the violence from getting worse. Just imagine what the turbulent Mideast would look like if those bent on violence weren't afraid of American planes, bombs, tanks, and troops showing up if they went too far.
- A corollary to this is that America is primarily responsible for the restraint shown by Israel. If we stopped asking Israel to hold back on their responses to Arab violence, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand what would happen... just look at the Six-Day War, for example, and Israel's bombing of Iraqi nuclear facilities in the 1970s.
- There's also, among at least some proponents of neo-isolationism, a concept that the people of the Middle East are not worth shedding American blood to help. This one doesn't need a lot of comment from me, so I will just say that people are people, they all bleed red, and to single out one group as unworthy of our help is distasteful in the extreme.
Ya know how the Democrats like to demean the surge by claiming that it hasn't brought political progress? Well, that claim just got a lot harder to support--not that that will stop the lefties.
Oops... there really is political progress happening, folks. It may be slow, but the Iraqi Parliament has still passed more substantive laws than the US Congress has managed. Reid, Pelosi, et al are apparently more interested in beating the dead horse of pulling out of Iraq (what is it now, 40+ failed attempts?) than actually doing what they're supposed to do, like pass spending authorization bills.
BAGHDAD - Iraq's parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of thousands of former supporters of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to government jobs, a key benchmark sought by the United States as a step toward easing sectarian tensions.The bill, approved by a unanimous show of hands on each of its 30 clauses, is the first piece of major U.S.-backed legislation approved by the 275-seat parliament. Other benchmarks languish, including legislation to divide the country's vast oil wealth, constitutional amendments demanded by minority Sunni Arabs and a bill spelling out rules for local elections.
Here's an excerpt:
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.Maybe Fred is starting to turn things around?
In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
Ya gotta know that Fred's had a stupendous night when the editors and contributors to an online publication that endorsed Romney say with no dissension that Fred won tonight's SC debate.
I guess when Fred says he's "all in," he means it.
UPDATE: Okay, we have some dissension in the ranks of that online publication. There's one Ron Paul supporter who, of course, claims that Paul won the debate. This illustrates, again, the alternate reality that Paulites inhabit.
More on the victory over the terrorists:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq's western province of Anbar, hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency for the first four years of the war, will be returned to Iraqi control in March, a senior U.S. general said Thursday.
In a telephone interview from Iraq, Marine Maj. Gen. Walter E. Gaskin, commander of the roughly 35,000 Marine and Army forces in Anbar, said levels of violence have dropped so significantly - coupled with the growth and development of Iraqi security forces in the province - that Anbar is ready to be handed back to the Iraqis.
Thus far, nine of 18 Iraqi provinces have reverted to Iraqi control, most recently the southern province of Basra in December. The process has gone substantially slower than the Bush administration once hoped, mainly because of obstacles to developing sufficient Iraqi police and army forces. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that he expects the process to continue.
And yet Harry Reid is still trashing the surge.
I begin to believe that Democrats don't live in the same time-space continuum as the rest of us.
Those opposing the simple requirement to show photo ID in order to vote have made a huge error in choosing their "poster child." Turns out she'd be a better example of why we need laws that make it mandatory to show photo ID to vote:
On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.It really doesn't take a lot of rumination to figure out why the Party of the Donkey opposes voter ID laws so vehemently--if they believe that they are the beneficiaries of the votes of people like Mrs. Ewing, then naturally they'd fight tooth and nail against any law that stops such fraud.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she's never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.
Subsequently, Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down.
But Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita said Monday that Ewing’s tale illustrates exactly why Indiana needs the law. “This shows that the Indiana ID law worked here, which also calls into question why the critics are so vehemently against this law, especially with persons like this, who may not have a legal right to vote in this election,” Rokita said.
Their error in picking their "injured party," however, makes it a lot less likely that they'll win this one.
File this one under "oops."
Heck of a negotiator, hmmm? Can't even get a hostage turnover to work right.
Acting as freelance "mediator," last week Hugo Chavez let the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC, make a fool of him by offering to release three hostages and then failing to show up as Chavez's traveling circus of 150 journalists, 15 international observers, the Red Cross and Hollywood film director Oliver Stone waited.
They had come to toast the Venezuelan dictator as "the only" solution to Colombia's 46-year conflict and introduce his hand as a player in Colombia's U.S.-backed war. Instead they swatted mosquitoes in the jungle, and as the Colombian government revealed the real truth of a baby hostage's whereabouts, they blamed the government.
It's quite simple.
Here's the RealClearPolitics poll averages for the NH Democratic Primary:
|New Hampshire Democratic Primary|
Tuesday, January 8 | Delegates at Stake: 22
|RCP Average||01/05 to 01/07||Obama +8.3|
|Suffolk/WHDH||01/06 - 01/07||Obama +5.0|
|American Res. Group||01/06 - 01/07||Obama +9.0|
|ReutersC-Span/Zogby||01/05 - 01/07||Obama +13.0|
|Rasmussen||01/05 - 01/07||Obama +7.0|
|CNN/WMUR/UNH||01/05 - 01/06||Obama +9.0|
|Marist||01/05 - 01/06||Obama +8.0|
|CBS News||01/05 - 01/06||Obama +7.0|
Here's the actual results:
Democrats (100% reporting)
|Total Write In||2,502||1|
Okay, here's the results of my ruminating so far. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later time... say, any time more than 30 seconds after posting this.
Fred has to bring his "A" game to South Carolina. Fortunately, South Carolina's culture is a lot more similar to Tennessee's than Iowa's or New Hampshire's, so if Fred is going to shine anywhere, it will be in SC. I am cautiously optimistic that Fred will do well there, especially if he and others start really pointing out Huckabee's dismal record on taxes and other issues.
Giuliani also has to bring his "A" game, but to Florida, not SC. That's the first state where Rudy has a halfway decent chance of winning, IMHO. Fred could do well there, but so could Romney or McCain... Huckabee probably wouldn't sell well in Florida.
Others have suggested this and been pooh-poohed, but if Fred takes SC and Rudy wins Florida, a brokered convention is a real possibility. Note that there's a lot of ifs in that statement, but the chances are better than in any election since I've been watching elections.
I think a brokered convention could be a good thing. With the popularity of "reality" TV, a brokered convention might just draw more eyes to the TV than a convention usually gets, and give the GOP a real opportunity to explain who they are and what they stand for. Of course, if the GOP screws it up, they could end up turning off a lot of prospective voters, so it would have to be handled with care... and rule number one should be to remember that the media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is not their friend.
Well, that's my take on it. Your mileage may vary, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, coffee is hot, and all the rest of the usual disclaimers apply.
I kid you not.
MSNBC: "College Drinking Games Lead to Higher Blood Alcohol Levels."
Up next, "Turning Lights On Improves Visibility at Night."
Here's some more thoughts on Mitt's recent anti-Fred rumor-mongering:
All evidence points to the Politico story being the result of a dirty trick. As Bob Novak reports today the rumors of Thompson’s supposed plan to drop out after Iowa were apparently being pushed by Mitt Romney’s campaign. One political consultant who appears on the news as unaffiliated with any campaign was apparently at the center of the trick. His involvement is something we are investigating. Why isn’t anyone else tracking him down? Who was he working for, and how? Do any of the grand guardians of journalism even care? Perhaps after today they will.Yeah, where are the big investigators on this one?
Politico’s coverage broke several basic rules. Most importantly, it was reported on the day of the caucuses at about 11 am Eastern time, when Iowans were making last minute decisions to go to the caucuses that evening. Several other media outlets apparently had the same story, possibly from the same sources. Yet they declined to cover it because they recognized the red flags that waved all around it. Politico chose to go with it.
I asked Politico editor John Harris why. In an e-mail response to several questions I’d e-mailed him, Harris said, “The Politico story that you and others focused on was based on reporting within Thompson’s political circle. It was not based on information from rival campaigns. The writers were passing on newsworthy reporting about the state of thinking within Thompson’s operation.” Harris also wrote, “Thompson spokeswoman Karen Henretty did not deny our reporting when we contacted her. She told Politico, and was quoted in the story saying, ‘Doing well in Iowa means exceeding expectations, and Fred has been exceeding expectations for more than 40 years, Thursday’s results aren’t likely to close any chapters.’” And, “I do not have any knowledge about your assertion that the Thompson story was being promoted by other campaigns. It did not influence our reporting.”
Politico -- either willfully or by being duped -- was party to a dirty trick. But Politico’s coverage broke another basic rule of campaign reporting. Though Thompson’s campaign denied the rumors, the denials were buried in the story rather than properly written into the lede. There was no attempt at balance. The editors didn’t do their jobs.
Politico’s coverage -- despite the obvious problems -- got worse, not better. The following morning, a second story quoted a Thompson volunteer reacting to Thompson’s post-caucus speech: “‘Michael Murphy, a Thompson volunteer who drove down from Cleveland, shouted exuberantly after the speech, ‘You hear that? No dropping out!’ Not just yet anyway.” The broad sneer in that last line couldn’t have been missed by any editor who had read the story. Leaving it in removed any doubt about Politico’s bias.
It was only after my questions reached Harris that they published a piece saying Thompson was staying in the race. But the damage had already been done. How many voters didn’t go to the caucus for Thompson because they believed their cause was lost? How many donors didn’t write checks that day -- or since -- because they believed Thompson would soon drop out?
The issue here isn’t only the fate of Fred Thompson’s campaign. The issue is how the campaigns and the press will do their jobs this year. There are huge undercurrents of nastiness among the candidates and distrust of government among voters. Negative advertising seem to have crowded out all other ads. If that isn’t leavened by skepticism in the media to what the campaigns say privately, the dirty trick that befell Thompson will this year beget many more.
Note to Howard Kurtz: why aren’t you investigating this one?
Probably fawning all over Obama.
Gotta love it!
LESTER HOLT: We saw on the Democratic side Iowa became kind of a viability test. We saw some of the lower-tier candidates drop out after seeing the results in Iowa. What is your gut check right now in terms of your own viability? will it be South Carolina, will it be Super Tuesday?
FRED THOMPSON: I'm not going to engage in that -- further beating the process issue to death. We're talking about the future of our country here and the fact that our worst enemies are trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons and we're bankrupting the next generation. That's what I'm talking about. The rest is all speculation and I don't engage in it.
Of course, I posted earlier about which campaign started that rumor, but if Fred had mentioned the name, I'm sure someone would have lambasted him for smearing another campaigner. So, Fred stays above that fray, and instead smacks the leftymedia a good one.
HOLT: It's a fair point you make; you don't engage in it. But you were the victim of some rumors on this subject of your viability and questions if you would drop out. How much did that hurt you?
THOMPSON: Well let's think about that. It did hurt me, and the media lapped it up. It was put out by another campaign; made no sense at all.
HOLT: Which campaign?
THOMPSON: A few days before the election and made no sense at all, and I was coming strong, and the media took it up, and spread the rumor, and probably cost me two or three points in Iowa. So the lesson there is not, you know, politicians being politicians. The lesson there is that the news media really ought to check these stories out and come to me, and ask me, and take my word for it.
HOLT: Senator, fair shot against the news media, but what candidate were you mentioning that put that out there?
THOMPSON: I'm not gonna. I owe you nothing, frankly, in that regard and I'm not going to say anything more about it right now.
That's the current running order in the only "poll" that really matters... the results from the states that have already chosen their delegates... and did you know that there's more delegates pledged than just the ones from Iowa?
Anyway, here's the breakdown as of right now (subject, of course, to change)
Romney: 26 delegates.
Huckabee: 20 delegates.
Thompson: 6 delegates.
McCain: 3 delegates.
Since 1,191 delegates are needed for a majority, you can see that everyone still has at least a statistical chance of making it.
This one is still way too early to call, folks.
I can't say I care much for this report from Robert Novak:
Published reports that Fred Thompson soon will withdraw from the Republican presidential contest and endorse Sen. John McCain have been traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign, trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson.That is, I think even Mitt supporters would agree, hitting below the belt.
I just lost a lot of respect for the man from Massachusetts.
Courtesy Jim Geraghty over at NRO's Campaign Spot, here is Fred's schedule for today:
WHAT: Fred Thompson Interviewed Live by John Roberts and Kiran Chetry on CNN's American Morning.
WHEN: 6:15 am CT
WHERE: CNN, Check your local listings.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Interviewed Live by Harry Smith on CBS's The Early Show.
WHEN: 7:00 am CT
WHERE: CBS, Check your local listings.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Interviewed Live by Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocy, and Gretchen Carlson FOX's FOX & Friends.
WHEN: 7:35 am CT
WHERE: FOX News, Check your local listings.
With a schedule like that, how can anyone call anyone lazy?
WHAT: Fred Thompson Live Interview on Morning Report with Dan Kennedy.
WHEN: 8:20 am CT
WHERE: WOC 1420, Davenport
NOTE: Listen live at http://www.woc1420.com/main.html.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Live Interview on Schulte & Swann Morning Show.
WHEN: 8:35 am CT
WHERE: KZIA 102.9, Cedar Rapids
NOTE: Listen live at http://www.kzia.com/HOME/tabid/36/Default.aspx.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Interviewed Live by Tim Russert on MSNBC.
WHEN: 9:45 am CT
WHERE: MSNBC, Check your local listings.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Participates in Radio Town Hall with KFAB's Tom Becka
WHEN: 12:30 pm CT
WHERE: Quality Inn & Suites
3537 West Broadway (Hwy 6)
Council Bluffs, IA
NOTE: Doors open at 12:00 pm CT. Please pre-set all equipment by 12:10 pm.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Participates in Press Availability
WHEN: 1:15 pm CT
WHERE: Quality Inn & Suites
3537 West Broadway
Council Bluffs, IA
WHAT: Fred Thompson Live Interview on Mac's World
WHEN: 2:40 pm CT
WHERE: WOW 98.3, Des Moines
NOTE: Listen live at http://www.983wowfm.com/default.asp.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Live Interview on The Sean Hannity Show
WHEN: 3:05 pm CT
WHERE: Check Your Local Listings.
NOTE: Listen live at http://www.wabcradio.com/.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Interviewed Live by Wolf Blitzer on CNN's The Situation Room.
WHEN: 4:20 pm CT
WHERE: CNN, Check your local listings.
WHAT: Fred Thompson Live Interview on The Bob Bruce Radio Experience
WHEN: 4:40 pm CT
WHERE: WOW 98.3, Des Moines
NOTE: Listen live at http://www.983wowfm.com/default.asp.