No Carter 2nd Term

The libs are trying to paint the McCain campaign as the 3rd Bush Term?

Yea, like those two agree on global warming, water-boarding, tax cuts, drilling in ANWR, etc.

What we need to really be afraid of is a SECOND JIMMY CARTER TERM!

h/t Rush Limbagh

Hoodwinked!

Remember this photo....a B. Hussein Obama rally in Oregon a couple days ago? Huge Crowd. The biggest ever for a political candidate?

Now we find out that the Portland band, The Decembrists, played a free concert before the Obama rally. Was it Messiah Obama that the people came to see? Was it the band? Why didn't the media mention that? Seems like an important tid bit, don't you think?

Did I expect the media to be honest for one darn day in their life? Is that too much to ask?

Sadly, it is.

Where is the love?

I love internal strife on the Left. I love watching them tear themselves down and eat their young.

Here is what John Aravosis wrote on the liberal Ameriblog. Since it is a left-wing blog, it contains naughty words.

Go away you horrible human being

IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Good God. What is wrong with her? The Clintons and their campaign staff don't give a damn that they are now hurting our electoral chances in the fall against McCain and against the Republicans in Congress. Their campaign isn't happening in some vacuum, and they know it. Our candidates can't fundraise because of her. Obama can't focus on McCain because of her. Obama is wasting money on HER, rather than spending it on McCain, because of her. EMILY's List, and AFSCME, and the American Federation of Teachers and others are wasting their members' money on her now-failed race - money that they could be spending, should be spending, on other real races, races that haven't already lost. She can't win, the math says she lost the nomination, but she doesn't give a damn. She's going to stay in the race like some spoiled hateful egotistical brat.

Why is the media even covering her? The only stories that should be written about Hillary Clinton is how much damage she's causing our party. How she's hurting fundraising at the DNC - they even admitted it, they're not raising the money they need to fight John McCain because of this woman. Why don't you write some stories about how she is hurting our candidates who can't fundraise because of her? How she has forced EMILY's List and AFSCME and the AFT to waste their money because of her. How she has caused a civil war in the Netroots. Five months ago we all felt that we had 3 great candidates. Now, far too many of us loathe Hillary Clinton, and she has done her racist best to ensure that her supporters can't stand Barack Obama either.

The Clintons don't give a damn about our party. Their party, their church, is themselves. To hell with everyone else. I actually liked Hillary up until a few months ago. Other bloggers used to tell me that Joe and I were too nice to Hillary. People just assumed that we were endorsing her. Now I actually loathe her. She makes me yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV - until now. I actually can't stand her or her husband any more. I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I'm actually wondering if the Republicans weren't right about them. That's how bad she has damaged her reputation. People who actually liked you, who actually helped you, who actually defended you, LOATHE you now. Call me a Clinton-hater all you like, but people like me were the ones who had your back. And we never will again.

57 States!

Barack is a tireless campaigner. He has already been to 57 states. That's simply amazing as it is frightening. And people think President Bush is dumb.

Empire Strikes Barack

This is what you missed while we were gone.

Principle

In today's Politico, President Bush sits down for an interview which is posted online. Say what you want about the man and his presidency, he stands firm in his belief. Liberals tend to mock him for that trait. Why? They tend not to share it? Bill Clinton had to take a poll to take a leak.

Here are a few things which stood out to me....

“I could have supported a lousy [Kyoto] treaty and everybody would have went, ‘Oh, man, what a wonderful-sounding fellow he is,’” Bush said. “But it just wouldn't have worked.

“I don't think you want your president trying to be the cool guy and not end up with policies that actually make a difference. So the policies I've outlined are policies that will actually make a difference: nuclear power for generating electricity, battery driven cars, ethanol.”

— Asked a question that was submitted online about skyrocketing gas prices, Bush said the problem doesn’t have “a quick answer.”

“It took us a while to get to where we are — very dependent on oil,” he said. “So my answer ... is that the best thing we can do is to increase supply and to drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways at home and build more refineries.”

— He criticized former President Jimmy Carter for suggesting an approach to Middle East involvement that Bush described as “if you want to be popular in the Middle East, just go blame Israel for every problem.”

“That will make you popular,” he said. “Popularity is fleeting. … Principles are forever.”

I think there is a lesson there.

prin·ci·ple Audio Help /ˈprɪnsəpəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prin-suh-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.

2.	a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.

Welcome Back

A Scary Upset

A huge upset in the IL-14 special election to replace former Speaker Dennis Hastert. Republican Jim Oberweis, millionare Dairy Farmer, LOST to first time Democratc Candidate Bill Foster. This seat was supposed to stay Republican, and the NRCC spent a ton of money in the district to make sure it did. Despite the fact that Oberweis had a tough primary against state Senator Chris Lauzen, he was still expected to win (at least publicly). I know we are not supposed to look for signs in early random Congressional elections, BUT no one can spin this as a good thing. This is scary. If Republicans can't hold on to this seat, how bad is it going to be in November?

There Will Be Blood

Democrats are the party of fairness, or so they claim. They fight against the "racists" and hate-mongers who "disenfranchise" on the right.

Which party has super delegates? You know, the Democrat party insiders who are free to vote for whomever they want. They can vote for the candidate that carried their state or congressional district. Or not. They could vote for the Democrat nominee that promises the most campaign cash or patronage jobs. Or not.

Funny, the party that tells us that they put their "people" in front of the "powerful" (Al Gore's former campaign slogan), they let the politically powerful decide what is the best for the people. They don't trust the people. They never have. They trust their elitist pals.

The DNC made their rules in terms of which states vote when. Florida and Michigan broke the rules that everyone agreed to. Florida and Michigan knew the consequences. Now, that the Hillary-Obama race is tight, the delegates in these two states want a re-vote.

Hillary wants a "do-over." The governors of the two states want a do-over as well. Does Obama take up the re-vote mantle or will he choose to disenfranchise the sizable electorate of those two states? A black guy not letting the votes count?? That would be interesting. A Clinton changing the rules in the middle of the game? Well, that is a shocker. Democrats wanting to keep counting the votes in Florida until the outcome changes? Didn't we see that show already?

The Hillary-Obama race will be a battle for the ages. It will likely go to the convention. Will there be a re-vote in Florida and Michigan? Will the super delegates thwart the will of the people at the behest of the powerful?

I know one thing for sure. There will be blood. And, it will be fun!

Obama only has Obama to blame for “big” loss – McCain has lessons learned

So we just witnessed what was a “big” win for the Clinton campaign on Super Tuesday Duece. For those of us who didn’t get sucked into the hype, we knew that the numbers weren’t going to show a big win or loss for either candidate when the dust settled because of the proportional set-up. None-the-less, here we are talking about the “big” Clinton win. Although I don’t care fundamentally who emerges as the Dem’s nominee, if I had to credit this outcome, I would say Clinton didn’t win as much as Obama lost.

This is for two main reasons. First, Obama raised the stakes when he forced the idea through his base endorsers that this was a “must win” for Clinton. Logically, if it was a “must win” then it “must” be important and if she didn’t win, then it “must” be a big loss. Essentially, he raised the stakes (when it didn’t really matter on paper) and Clinton called him out. Now, instead of claiming a 12-3 record in the recent contests, Obama is spending time explaining why his half-dozen delegate loss wasn’t really as big a loss as he said it would have been (had the loss been Clinton’s.)

Second, I think we owe McCain some credit for this. He briefly went on the aggressive against Obama and won. During the short lived back and forth between McCain and Obama on the war and AQI, voters saw that while Obama is more eloquent at delivering a message, McCain has him beat when it comes to the facts. Again, Obama can thank Obama for this outcome. This helped weaken Obama’s “experience” image enough to help Clinton grab her win.

Good lesson learned for McCain – if it comes to Obama and McCain, attack him often, clearly and aggressively on issues and let Obama take care of the rest. If the last few days are any indication, Obama won’t disappoint when it comes to beating Obama.

RIP Bill Buckley

William F. Buckley Jr. has passed away at the age of 82. Words cannot begin to describe the influence he had on American social and political thought for the past 50 years. He was a giant, one of the great thinkers of our time. I honestly believe that conservative accomplishments this past half century (from Goldwater and Reagan, to the rise of conservative think tanks, and to the popular movement of modern conservatism as a whole) can be largely traced to this great man. I miss him already.

When will the surprise end?

I don’t doubt that the conservative base wishes they had a candidate that at least tended to the right over the middle. I don’t doubt they wish they had a candidate whose first reaction would be in defense of the right. I don’t doubt that it is frustrating when McCain shoots back at the likes of Bill Cunningham and the right and the recoil of his salvo pushes him closer and closer to the center. But honestly, I ask you, how are you still surprised? This happens again and again and every time the response is surprise.

Where you really that shocked this is how the situation played out? If I came to you last week and said “at a McCain rally, Bill Cunningham will make an over the top speech that will offend the Obama camp, what will McCain’s reaction be?” I bet you would have called how it happened today. When you listen to conservative talk radio tomorrow, you will hear from Rush to Hannity how this is a failure on McCain’s part to build up support for his base…but they will be wrong.

This wasn’t a failure on the part of McCain -- his reaction was consistent with his MO -- no, it was a failure on the part of his event organizers. The regional organizers should have seen how this would play out. Instead of setting up a standard event, they projected yet another scene to highlight the separation between the conservative base the McCain camp. This separation is a problem, but you don’t close the gap by highlighting the issue and you don’t set up an event in hopes the problem doesn’t exist. Whether you like his policies, his stance and his fly in face of conservative attitude, in the game of elections, it is the job of the campaign team to line their event up with the candidate, not the be surprised when their candidate doesn’t line up with the event. I imagine the McCain camp has some strategic vision on how to address this problem and I can’t imagine a confrontation with Bill Cunningham was anywhere in the mix.

So, the real question isn’t whether the fissure between the conservative base and McCain will be an issue again -- I can assure you it will be -- the real questions is, when it happens, will you still be surprised?

Obama vs. Clinton in Cleveland

In a nutshell:

Game. Set. Match.

Hillary came across incredibly shrill. Can't say I really blame her. She needed to go all out, but it just didn't work. Her whining about always being asked the questions first was just pathetic.

Obama, by contrast, came across as cool and calm. His interchange with Hillary over "renounce" vs. "reject" was impressive. He's real quick on his feet to say the least.

She needed a win. Unfortunately for her, I think she actually did more damage. However....

I'm not the audience they were playing to. Her aggressive tone could have helped her with Democrats wondering if she was still in it to win it. Plus the mentions of Farrakhan and Obama together might put subtle doubts in some voters heads. Even if Obama did play it masterfully.

Barack Hussein Obama

McCain came out in record time to denounce Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham's speech at a recent rally in Ohio. Cunningham made repeated references to Obama's middle name "Hussein," and gave what was generally was perceived as a red meat speech.

Cunningham was definitely a little over the top, but that's what he was there for! To fire the up the crowd! You know...the base.

And of course, McCain falls back to the same old game plan, smacking down conservatives while scoring brownie points with the MSM media.

I was watching CNN, and one of the anchors (I think Candy Crowley) said how McCain had done right by apologizing so quickly, getting this potential "bad press" out of the way. I guess I have to ask: how does this hurt McCain? He needs to shore up his base. They want to hear red meat. They don't want to hear McCain throw another conservative under the bus. So WHAT if this guy Cunningham mentioned Obama's middle name twenty times! It's his middle name! He wasn't making it up. If people recoil at its use, then too bad. This is a presidential election. Man up.

Sooner or later we are goin to have decide how bad we want to win this election. This means hitting hard: Obama's far left positions, his radical black nationalist church, and his shady land deal with Tony Rezko. We need to hit him on all of this. We need to hit him on the fact he has never run any business or area of government once in his life. It's all fair game.

The media won't call him on any of this. It is is up to conservatives. It is up to McCain. Sorry John, the media won't be with you on this one. The New York Times hatchet job is proof of that. Get in the game. You are going to need conservatives like Bill Cunningham alot more than the cheers and approval of CNN.

The Beginning of the End?

Stories like this can't be good for Hillary. Of note:

"There is a widespread feeling among donors and some advisers, though, that a comeback this time may be improbable. Her advisers said internal polls showed a very tough race to win the Texas primary — a contest that no less than Mr. Clinton has said is a “must win.” And while advisers are drawing some hope from Mrs. Clinton’s indefatigable nature, some are burning out."

This Debate...

Is a snoozefest...Hillary isn't doing enough to make any ground. Her line about "change you can xerox" was lame and actually got boos.

The Gray Lady and John McCain

This has already been beaten to death so I won't rehash why this story is bogus. The Times doesn't have it. Period. But they still ran the story. Hopefully there will be a sufficient enough backlash to warrant an apology, but I doubt it. McCain was fantastic in today's press conference. The image of him and his wife standing side by side was pretty powerful.

One thought: Why did the Times feel the need to dedicate 600 words of this article to the Keating Five scandal? It's twenty year old news. There is nothing new to report. So why? This whole thing wreaks of a hatchet job.

Matthews Grills Obama Supporter

In case you haven't seen it, a preview of things to come.

Obama: Who the Hell is this Guy?

Last night's results changed the dynamic of the race. Before WI and HI, many observers of the race deemed Obama a slight front runner, but with hesitancy. Ask anyone watching this from the third base line, particularly conservatives, and they would say Obama is the favorite, but with the one caviatt that you can never count Hillary out. I was one them that thought, if you put a gun to my head, that Hillary would still be able to pull this thing out.

Last night changed that. A 17 point rout in WI, one of the bluest of blue collar states, proved that Obama will more likely than not win this thing. And all signs are pointing to Texas on March 4th as the firewall. The CNN poll taken before WI showed it an essential tie in TX. He might very well be ahead now in the Lone Star state.

The stakes of the game for Hillary seem to be as follows: If she wins TX and OH on March 4th, she can still justify staying in the race. She would then have to win PA to have a shot at being the nominee. And by win, I mean convincingly. If she loses TX, even by a few points, and squeaks out a victory in OH, you will start hearing calls for to step aside. She probably won't listen to those calls (shocker). If she loses TX and OH, she's done. She'll have to go. No way she can survive.

So, if Obama is the nominee, then can someone please find out who the hell this guy is??!! A community organizer with three years experience as a Senator!? He seems like a fine man, with a lovely family, but President of the United States? The Democrat primary has proven that people value an idea of change or experience (though I laugh that a one-term Senator and former first lady is the experience candidate). But please, this guy looks like and is a lightweight when compared to McCain. Half of a term in the US Senate gives one essentially ZERO experience to be President. Compare that with McCain's 25 years in Government, and his military record. I hope, for the sake of sanity, that the general electorate snaps out of this "Change yes we can" daze and starts to get serious about who can actually BE President.

A candidates with great oratorical skills, and with little or no national experience is fine. A candidate with great oratorical skills, little or national experience, AND the ability to convince large segments of the electorate to turn their brains OFF and vote their hearts scares the hell out of me. I get nervous when large segments of the electorate so willingly cast away any sense of critical thinking and vote for someone they barely know because of how he makes them "feel." I do hope at some point in this general election voters will, for lack of a better phrase, "grow up."

Why Hillary Will Lose

It is crap like this...



Guess that is why she lost 9 primaries/cauci in a row.

Just Figuring It Out?

Maybe it is because my father is a Veteran of WWII - "The Greatest Generation." Maybe it's because my grandparents came to this country to seek freedom and to live the American Dream. Maybe I can see the influx of immigrants (even the illegals) flock to this country daily to seek freedom. Maybe I was taught that even a quirky, shy kid from a blue-collar steel town can grow up and be anything he wanted to be - if he was willing to work hard. Maybe it's because I actually paid attention in every civics class I attended.

Michelle Obama spoke yesterday at a campaign rally in which she said that she that now for the first time in her adult life, she is proud of her country! She is 44 years old! She is just figuring it out now?? Where the hell has she been?

She is a successful lawyer. She has an ivy league education. Talk about being asleep at the wheel. What are they teaching over at Harvard??

Frankly, it is sad. I almost feel sorry for her. See her clip below.

The Upside to John McCain

To be fair, there could be an upside on a micro level. See Martin Kady's write-up in the Politico on how John McCain could actually help some GOPers. Some could call these folks "RINOs.", and many times I would be one of those "some." Call them what you want, but there is an unfortunately reality that we need to face. We still need them if we want to get back the majority....some day. Don't believe me? Look at what happened in 2006. Republicans were crushed in NY, CT, and PA.

Here's a sample:

“McCain has a great deal of appeal in crossover Democrats,” said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), who faces a competitive race in his blue-collar Erie-area district. “I don’t think McCain brings the same liability to the race that some members of the current administration would. ... Having McCain on the ticket is appealing to veterans, to reform voters, and will have a positive effect on my race.”

Full story here.

David Brooks on Obama

Just to show that I have nothing against David Brooks, take a look at his editorial on Obama this morning in the New York Times here. He nails it. A noteworthy line:

"If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper."

Exactly. And this does illustrate and important distinction between McCain and Obama. McCain could be classified as "independent" (or not conservative) based on his stance on a number of issues (campaign finance, immigration, taxes, the environment, etc.) His independent streak is why he is the focus of so much disdain within the bases of the Republican party. But as a result he does have "crossover" appeal, to the detriment of his conservative appeal.

Obama is an independent in rhetoric only. I cannot find one issue of substance that separates him from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." If there was one small difference, it would be his health care proposal, which was pounded for months by Hillary and Edwards for not being "univeral enough." In there eyes, Obama is a crypto-Republican because his plan would not...gasp....mandate health coverage for every American, even though it would still establish a government sponsored health plan! It's a difference between who would socialize medicine more. Fidel would be so proud.

I would love to see one issue where Obama goes against the grain of the Democrat party establishment. Just one! I'd have maybe an inch more respect for the man. As of now he's still Ted Kennedy with a great stump speech.

Liberte? Liberte? Liberte?

Castro is "retiring." Big news of course, but Castro's retirement certainly presents more questions than answers. What will happen next? Will Castro really be "retired?" Who will run the country (after Raul)? What will the US do? Most importanly: What will the Cuban people do?

Link

Desperate

The Clinton campaign is now accusing Obama of pulling a Joe Biden by lifting lines from a Deval Patrick speech. You know things aren't going well for you when you're accusing your opponent of stealing from his ally and backer. Read here.

Read My Lips

If you saw "This Week" on ABC on Sunday, you saw John McCain pledge not to raise taxes as president. He went further in his comments, "...if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates," as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax."

Now, if he would only revisit immigration.

Well Isn't That Convenient?

Henry Waxman now says it was a mistake to have the hearing, and that it was Clemens' attorneys who wanted it in the first place. Ridiculous

The 9th Circle of Hell?

Dante could never have imagined this...

41 to Endorse McCain

According to the Politico, former President George H.W. Bush will will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in Houston on Monday during a media availability at 9:30 a.m. Texas time, Republican sources say.

Texas Two-Step

Two different polls, Two Different Results:


Texas Credit Union League
Clinton: 49%
Obama: 41%

American Research Group (ARG)
Obama: 48%
Clinton: 42%

I didn't even know that the Texas Credit Union had a poll. The poll surveyed "400 Democratic primary voters." The methodology said nothing of likely or registered voters, and said nothing of the composition of the the sample (Registered Dems, Independents, Republicans). The ARG study surveyed 600 "likely Democratic voters" comprised of 466 Democrats and 134 independent voters and Republicans.

(h/t NRO Campaign Spot)

Brooks' NY Times Piece

Read David Brooks' morning op-ed. Is this guy really one of the "conservative" writers for the Times? Click here to read.

Brooks' five point plan for "positive government" as he calls it is not very conservative (by any traditional defintion) at all. In his view, we need to capture the spirit of reforms like the Morrill Act (which established land-grant colleges in the early 1860s).

There's so much to go after here, but look at the first point of the Brooks Five Point plan:

"A new working class tax credit applied against the payroll tax would reduce some of the stress. So would a larger child tax credit and increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit. The federal budget should bestow less on seniors and more on young families.

Since when does expanding tax credits that largely go to people who don't pay taxes (EITC) spur economic growth? It doesn't. Bush's tax cuts were successful because they were across the board, but also targeted towards driving investment (cap. gains and dividend tax cuts).

The rest of Brooks' article reads like the Big Government Republicanism (excuse me..."Positive Government") we've come to know from the Bush administration. At what point did smaller government, pro-growth and non-collectivist policies become a bad thing to Brooks? Maybe they always were.

Happy Valentine's Day

McCain on Larry King

Only John McCain can sound defensive with Larry f'n King. Larry and McCain were mixing it up over immigration and Iraq, specifically over border security and public opinion polls on the war. Well, as much as you can "mix it up" on Larry King Live anyway. Senator, it's not Hardball. Relax.

Seriously, and this is the perception of many, but he seems to get rattled when challenged even slightly on policy. Contrast that to Obama. I worry...


*Update: Paraphrasing McCain on Mark McKinnen's comments that he wouldn't work for McCain if Obama was the nominee: "I think I'd like to get some clarification from Mark on that." Translation: This guy is so fired.

Shot of the Day

SEIU To Endorse Obama?

From politico.com here:

"Two labor sources tell Politico that the giant Service Employees International Union, which has been neutral through the primary, is on the verge of throwing its support to Sen. Barack Obama.

'It's done,' said one person close to the union."

That's huge. SEIU has a big presence in PA with 14 offices, and OH with 11 offices, spread out throughout the states. One more nail in the coffin...

Romney to Endorse McCain

Good to hear Romney is endorsing McCain. Figure most of Romney's 280 delegates move to McCain and this thing is over, or almost over. Its been fun for Huckleberry, but time to go. I guess we all need to get on board the ....barf.....Straight Talk Express.

Mr. Chafee? Your 15 Minutes Are Up Already

Lincoln Chafee endorses Obama. I could care...but I don't. (h/t NRO Corner).

George Will Has a Huge Brain

Nice editorial by Will this morning here. I can only hope to write a line like this someday:

"In his preternatural neediness, Clinton, an overflowing caldron of narcissism and solipsism, is still smarting from Obama's banal observation, four weeks ago, that Ronald Reagan was a more transformative president than Clinton."

Brilliant!

We Don't Need No Earmarks!

The Washington Post's article on the candidates and earmarks here. In a nutshell, Hillary had $340 million worth of earmarks in last years spending bill, placing her the Senate top ten, while Obama had $91 million. Give Senator McCain credit:

"Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."

The Clinton Team in Turmoil

Inside the campaign process stories like this certainly do not help Hillary. The WSJ story even has a chart detailing which Clinton staffer is in, staying in, and out! Highlights include a blow up between ad girl Mandy Grunwald and strategist Mark Penn, and this important reminder:

"One priority now is wooing the so-called superdelegates -- elected and party officials who could decide the nomination if the tally of pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses is very close. Some who were supposed to stay neutral aren't holding. Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, who initially wasn't backing either candidate, came out this week for Mr. Obama. Yesterday, another superdelegate, David Wilhelm, sided with Mr. Obama. Mr. Wilhelm had been Bill Clinton's 1992national manager."

Wonder how many more are going to follow Moran.

(h/t Drudge)

Clemens and Steroids

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Congress is in this mess. But putting that aside, why did the hearing yesterday turn so partisan? It seemed like most Republicans were hitting McNamee and most Democrats were hitting Clemens. I honestly don't get it...

Glenn Beck Rocks

There is only one reason to turn your TV dial to CNN Headline News - Glenn Beck. He is a right-thinking guy who is a common sense conservative. The guy also has a sick sense of humor which reminds me of myself.

New York Magazine has a segment called "21 Questions" where they ask people about their favorite things (generally New York related). Here are a few of my favorite Glenn answers:

Do you give money to panhandlers?
Only when they are actually handling pans. It's a lost art.

What's your drink?
As a conservative, I guess it's what you'd expect: I drink the blood of small people who are different than me.

How often do you prepare your own meals?
If by "you" you mean "my people," then, yes, all the time.

See full list

Hey...Ron Reagan...Why?

Why does Ron Reagan get air time? He's on Larry King now. He can put complete sentences together...I give him that. But....an "independent political commentator?" C'mon. Could it be....and I'm just spitballing here....that he gets air time because he is the polar opposite of his father in every way...and folks in the media just find that....well...just so damn compelling to see the son stick it to everything his father believed? Nah...he's an independent political commentator. That's it.

Finding His Voice

Did you see or hear McCain's speech last night after the Potomac primaries? While it is still early, he nailed it last night.

They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us. They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of "trust me, I know better.

Hope, my friends, hope is a powerful thing. To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

Read the full speech

Just Name One

I think the following clips on Hannity and Colmes sums up what Obama is all about - symbolism over substance. It is just about personality. It is about timing. He is an empty suit. He has accomplished nothing. I will argue that Hillary has accomplished nothing on her own as well.

If this election is about "thinking" then the GOP will win. If the focus is on "feeling," we'll lose.

Um..hmm...yeah

I'm reading Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" as we speak. Then I saw this. Then I chuckled...

Conservatism as an Ideology

In 1957, Samuel Huntington penned a now famous piece entitled "Conservatism as an Ideology" in which he argues that Conservatism cannot be tied to or defined as a specific ideology. In a nutshell, conservatism in, say England, is different from conservatism in Japan. It is argued that conservatism as an idea is inherently reactionary, an instinctive response to its counterpart--modern liberalism (which does have a common ideology).

I note this only to further defend the idea that it is perfectly noble, as a conservative, to vote against someone or something rather than voting for someone. Huntington might say that it is in our nature to do so...

Samuelson on the Budget

The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson has a pretty good article on the growing budget, and both Republican and Democrat candidates' unwillingness to address specific areas of savings (or cuts). He's right on about Social Security and Medicare spending, and the pubic's unwillingness to..well..frankly to care. Read here.

Two quick gripes:

1) "Since 1961, the federal government has run deficits in all but five years. Only the surplus of 1969 stemmed from deliberate policy: a 10 percent income surtax reluctantly passed by Congress in 1968. The others (1998-2001) mostly reflected good fortune: the end of the Cold War, resulting in a 40 percent drop in defense spending as a share of the economy, and an unexpected surge in taxes from the economic boom. Neither was a policy act of the Clinton administration or the then Republican Congress."

Good fortune? Unexpected surge in tax revenue? Or....aggressive anti-Soviet policies and pro growth economic policies throughout the 1980's. Yeah...that sounds about right.

2) "Democrats have spent seven years denouncing Bush's tax cuts but are willing to repeal only the cuts benefiting those with incomes above $250,000. When Republicans created the Medicare drug benefit (2007 cost: $41 billion), it was simply added to existing benefits."

The Medicare drug benefit and the tax cuts are not one in the same, as Samuelson treats them. Part D is a revenue loser. The tax cuts are a revenue raiser. Because of sound tax policy, the deficit shrank from $412 billion in 2004 to $248 billion in 2006 (See OMB charts).

A Defensive Election

Following up on yesterday's post, it occurred to me that our choice in November between McCain and Obama/Clinton will force many conservatives to vote defensively. Defensive vs. Offensive voting has often been a part of the third-party politics debate for some time, and it has relevance to conservatives today. Defensive voting is seen as repugnant by many third party voters, as the basic tenant of voting is an expression of support for a candidate, not in opposition. Hence, the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" argument in 2000. While distasteful to most conservatives, it seems that we have to start getting into a defensive voting mindset in November. We are voting against Obama/Clinton first, and voting for McCain second. It's a defensive election. I don't like it...but that's the hand we've been dealt.

Clinton Ex-Campaign Manager Backs Obama

This story broke on AP not long ago and is making the rounds. David Wilhelm, former DNC chair and Clinton Campaign head in 1992, is backing Obama. More importantly....the last sentence:

" Wilhelm is a superdelegate from Illinois who was previously uncommitted in the race."

Gotta wonder how many more are going to come out for Obama vs. stay on the sides and wait.

Where's the Dirt?

A scary thought just occurred to me. What if there is really no dirt on Obama? And by dirt, I mean anything seedy or checkered that could be used against him in the general election. We all know about the Rezko thing, which you can read about here, and that could come back to haunt him. But nothing else? There might be, but you know the Clintons would have used it by now or are going to use it soon. Steve made a good point about Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell pulling out the race card the other day. That's pretty much what they have left.

Bill Maher said a couple of weeks ago that he has no doubt that the "Republican slime machine" will do quick work on Obama. But short of the race card (which would be disgusting and surely backfire) and the whole Hussein-is-his-middle-name card, what else is there?

"He might be the geniune article." That was Richard Jemmons', the James Carville-based charcter in Joe Klein's Primary Colors, thought on replacement candidate Freddy Picker. Picker was the the candidate of hope, change and optimism. The oppo research later found out he was involved in a torrid affair involving a gay lover and mounds of cocaine. Go figure.

Doesn't look like we're gonna find a special man-friend and two pounds of blow in Obama's past. The Clintons would have taken care of that by now. No. If Obama is the nominee, we are going to have to beat him...gasp....on the issues.

Here We Go

It was only a matter of time before the libs open their political deck and played the race card.

Guess we had to wait for Obama to start getting some momentum. Bubba used it during the South Carolina primary and got burned. But, we are keenly aware of the double standard when the race card is played against a Republican.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell says that some white conservatives may not be ready for a black candidate.

Wolf "Blitzed" on CNN asked Larry Elder how “worried” he was about Republicans energizing “elements of racism” by producing “Willie Horton kind of commercials...potentially against Barack Obama?”

How soon the libs forget that it was Al Gore who first brought out the Willie Horton attack against Michael Dukakis.

Time to put down the race card.

Barack en fuego. Ay dios mio.

According to CNN exit polls, Barack won Hispanics 52-47% in Maryland. Keep in mind, Hispanics make up only 4% of the Maryland population, but still: he's making progress. His progress helps him in Texas, where Hispanics make up about 35% of the population. If he wins in Texas, this could be close to over. He might not even have to win. If he cracks 40-45%, putting a dent in the delegate count in the state, he could do some real damage. After tonight (especially after looking at the exit polls) we need to really brace ourselves for the possibility that Obama can really pull this thing off and beat Hillary.

McCain's Veep

John McCain will be the Republican standard bearer in November. Let's focus on the future. Who will be the Robin to his Batman? In other words, who will be his running mate?

Regional balance is less an issue than before. The Clinton-Gore ticket proved that. In my mind, the veep candidate has to have conservative bona fides, and business or gubernatorial experience. The veep-to-be also has to be young-ish (under 55). McCain brings the military, legislative, anti-earmarks heft. He needs someone the conservatives can trust on the ticket.

I have heard a few names being tossed around - Tim Pawlenty, the Governor of Minnesota and Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina. Personally, I would like to see a J.C. Watts or Haley Barbour. What say you?

Primary Update: The Weather

Wow. The roads in Northern Virginia are just awful. This is some of the worst traffic I have ever seen in this area. For those Virginia residents in the know, apparantly all of the the "mixing bowl" (where 395, 95, and 495 meet) is closed. This has to have had some impact on the last minute voters in Northern VA who were looking to go for McCain. Could maybe explain why he is struggling a bit.

Looks like Obama dominated Virginia and DC, and Maryland is keeping their polls open another 90 minutes do to the weather. If the Huckleberry guy keeps this thing close that'll be the big story tomorrow. If Obama's margin in VA is above 20 percent, look at that to be a big story as well.

Quick aside: I voted in Arlington, VA, a Democrat haven. Walked into the polling...place. The exchange was as follows:
Election officer: "Democrat or Republican ballot?"
Me: Republican please
Election officer: "Oh....really? Um...over there.

A stranger in a strange land....

Good Lord

Without Comment

Being a Maverick Sucks

Arianna Huffington hates the 2008 John McCain but she liked the 2000 John McCain. Conservatives hated the 2000 John McCain but can mostly (or hopefully) tolerate the 2008 McCain. He's managed to piss off both sides of the aisle for substantially different reasons. That's a "Uniter, not a Divider" folks.


Note: I won't go down the line of why Huffington's points on McCain are pretty absurd, but I have to pick one out. Here:

"And we've got the money shot of his betrayal on tape: McCain singing the praises of Karl Rove, calling him 'one of the smartest political minds in America,' and saying, 'I'd be glad to get his advice.' Face it, this ain't the same man you married."

Please. At least try and be objective. Rove is one of the smartest political minds in America. And McCain would be a fool not to listen to him. You think Obama would tell Carville and Begala to take a walk if they wanted to help out? Again...please.

Rhode Island: A Beacon of Light

The Boston Globe's Maria Sacchetti has a good article on the ongoing illegal immigrant problem in Rhode Island. Click the title link above to read the whole thing. Despite a small gripe (the interchange between "immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "undocumented immigrant," which is a battle I have long given up on) it is a great read. Of particular note:

"We need to start taking care of the people who are residents of the state of Rhode Island, who rightfully belong here, who come here, pay taxes, and support all these programs," said state Senator Christopher B. Maselli, a Democrat and the great-grandson of Italian knife makers, who is cosponsoring the legislation that, among other things, would punish landlords and business owners who harbor illegal workers. "They're sick and tired of having to support people who don't come here the right way."

Amen...

Destroy the Village to Save it?

I'm doing the train of thought thing now to decide if I vote in today's Chesapeake-Potomac-Crab Cake-VA is for Lovers primary. Ya see, I'm not a McCain fan ( I know, take a number). I'm not necessarily a hater, but I can't in good conscience vote in the primary or a man who has made a living pissing off conservatives to get brownie points from NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times (who endorsed J-Mac).

The arguments against McCain are long and at this point have been played out to the point of nausea. He's not a conservative. He pisses off conservatives. The few issues he's conservative on he is quiet. The majority of issues he is anti-conservative on he is vocal. That's it in a nutshell.

So today, I'm going to write-in someone else. Anyone else. After all, McCain has this thing locked up. So that's that....but.....

With that being said, we need to vote McCain in the general election (or more accurately, vote against Hillary or Obama). Some pundits and pollsters say voters can't be swayed by asking them to vote against someone. Eventually, as they say, you have to ask them to vote for something. Well....not me. I will vote against Hillary. I will vote against Obama. More importantly, and please pay attention, I will vote against Democrat control of the House, Senate, and Executive Branch.

Count me out as a conservative who believes in the Vietnam War era ideal of destroying the village in order to save it. One can argue, love him or hate him, that President Bush was able to accomplish a great deal in large part because of a mostly-unified Republican Congress. Under Bush's watch he was able to pass No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Tax Cuts (across the board, dividend, and cap. gains), the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and..oh yeah..Roberts and Alito. For the record, I'm not going to defend the entire domestic agenda. Med-D, despite it's private market structure, is still big government health care, and No Child Left Behind, despite it's idea of measurable benchmarks of success, is still big government education. But...imagine the flip side to this. Imagine President Obama/Clinton with a Democrat Congress. In addition to a "rollback," as they say, of the Bush tax cuts, health care would almost certainly move closer to single-payer, or if nothing closer to general socialization (look no further than the current SCHIP debate). We would probably see at least one retirement on the Court (maybe Stevens), so there goes that opportunity. Not too mention the war on terror, which so many on the left continue to call "the war on terror." The quotes say it all...

If that's not enough to motivate anyone to vote "against" Obama or Clinton, I don't know what is. It's just not worth it to file a protest vote in the general election and lose all we gained just because McCain's conservative heart is not pure. There is a harsh reality that we often overlook: It is enormously difficult to elect the party in the Executive Branch again after 8 years, let alone when that President has an approval rating in the low 30's. The election is more often than not a referendum on the previous president. It's not rocket science to see that if want to win in November, we just might have to give a little. It's a simple choice, a moderate Republican in McCain or a Democrat Unity Government? Your choice...if you want to call it that.

That AP Poll

I can't claim to be a complete polling expert, but that recent and now much talked about AP poll showing McCain losing to Obama 48-41 and McCain essentially tied with Clinton 45-46 is interesting in that it confirms what most (honest) observers on both sides of the isle think: That Obama is the tougher candidate to beat in the general election. And I agree. But doesn't this sample seem weird? First paragraph makes sense:

"The survey was conducted from Feb. 7-10 and involved telephone interviews with 1,029 adults. It had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

But then:

Included were 520 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4.3 points, and 357 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.2 points."

College stats told me that a MOE of over 5.1 meant a questionable survey. And 520 Democrats to 357 Republicans? Seems odd.

Viva La Obama!

Ok look. I know Obama is going to get a soft ride throughout the primary from the media. He's a pretty likable guy and the fact he's taking on the Clinton machine and (seemingly) winning is impressive. But a free ride? Please. Tell me someone in the media will call him out on this.

(h/t to Newsbusters at http://www.newsbusters.org)

No More Shadegg :(

Roll Call and AP both report that Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) will not seek re-election, making him the 29th House Republican to call it quits. Gotta say that this is a sad shocker. Shadegg raised over $1 million according to the most FEC reports, and was in a +60% Bush district. Looks like he did have an opponent of note in local attorney Bob Lord, who managed to raise an impressive $612,000 to date. This is still a relatively safe(ish) seat for Republicans, but the NRCC better kick into high gear to ensure it remains safe. The DCCC was calling this seat a pick-up opportunity even before Shadegg's announcement, and be sure they will throw tons of money into the race now.

Politics aside, this is a sad announcement for conservatives. Few have carried the conservative torch with as much passion, and a part of me wishes (no disprespect of course to the current leadership) Shadegg won the race for Minority Whip in 2006. So it goes...

Welcome to "Still a Conservative"!

Hello and welcome to Still a Conservative, a brand new blog started by a disgruntled conservative (is there any other kind these days) whose sole purpose is to rant, rave and foam at the mouth about all things politics. I'll do my best to keep the discourse at a quasi-adult level, and along the way, hopefully provide a "fresh" perspective on the issues of the day. Check back tomorrow for some updates.