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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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)

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...

Mr. Chafee? Your 15 Minutes Are Up Already

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.