Flannigan's Right Hook's performance, on the Hall Stage, at the 2007 Weston Irish Festival.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
From Human Events via White Trash Republic:
With John McCain’s all-too-easy road to the nomination paved through Florida and now nearly complete one thing is clear: The Republican Party has been hijacked. Over the past month a new Axis of Evil has emerged -- not one based in Damascus, Tehran or Pyongyang -- but instead in Cedar Rapids, Charleston, South Carolina, Derry, New Hampshire and Boca Raton, Florida. It is the liberal and “independent” voters in these 4 states that have nearly completed a deed that makes Kim Jong Il envious -- the near crippling of the American Electoral System. These four states have combined their native liberal populism with an imported liberal electorate and have forced the GOP to accept a nominee so distasteful that in more than one poll -- the numbers of voters choosing not to vote and those choosing to vote third party actually exceed those who will hold their nose and vote for Maverick, War Hero, Amnesty Supporter, John McCain.
I can hear you saying, “surely you aren’t saying that South Carolina has gone liberal -- are you?” Are you kidding me? Drive through the Carolinas and count the number of license plates from NJ, NY and Pennsylvania. There is not much Dixie in the Carolinas; it’s more like Trenton and Long Island with fireworks. “But”, you protest, “New Hampshire, is Live Free or Die, it’s been a backbone of conservatism since the 1950’s.” No longer my friends -- NH has become an exurb of Boston, with Boston’s sensibilities and, ugh, their voting tastes. NH hasn’t been reliably conservative since Reagan’s first term. These voters would rather be loved by the Boston Globe, than respected by the Union Leader.
But the evidence continues, you say, “Iowa, that’s America, with small town values and homespun sensibilities.” Wrong again -- Iowa is just a state brimming with farmers on the federal dole, college students and ex hippie professors looking to con, libs in training at Grinnell.
And Florida? As my bubbies would say in Bay Ridge -- puhleeeez. It’s the 6th borough and has been since the mid 1960’s. Liberals have been sliding down the I-95 corridor since Kennedy was elected.
Sadly these 4 states have done more than set the tone for the other 46 -- they’ve dictated terms. Frankly I could extend the analogy to include Nevada, which is down to about 13% native -- but why beat a dead horse.
What we have is the sick and twisted dreams of Pinch Sulzberger, Don Imus, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews come true: the GOP has been forced to choose a nominee designed to cause the base to retch, and thereby not vote. Guaranteeing 4 years of Clinton score settling or Obama socializing entire corporate sectors.
Its time to simultaneously bring back democracy to the GOP and defang the left and her Rockefeller accomplices in the new Axis of Evil. It’s time for the nuclear option -- its time for the GOP to front-load the whole freaking process into one date. Make every state vote on exactly the same day. Make every candidate compete in EVERY state at the exact same time and hold every single GOP primary and caucus on Super Tuesday. When NH and IOWA complain, take a page from the Democrats and refuse to seat their delegates, or better yet, declare renegade states as straw polls.
This would balance our nomination process out. There will be no more “Big Mo”, no more singular precincts in obscure Iowa towns setting the tone for the rest of the country. If liberals from Englewood Cliffs NJ want to vote liberal, it’s going to get cancelled out by conservatives in Chattanooga -- who might actually get to vote for Fred. Its time to let Nebraska count as much as New Hampshire. Let Texas matter as much as South Carolina, let Florida be canceled out by California -- as it should be. The only two groups who have benefit from the current process are the media flacks selling the drama and John McCain establishment hacks. Does anyone think Fred Thompson got a fair hearing? Or Duncan Hunter? John McCain does not speak for me…or frankly for any one else, I know.
Folks, we have let the liberals and RINOS set the agenda. Open Borders, Higher Taxes, and surrender to Kyoto-worshipping technocrats. This is the Republican Party? But hey, the McCainiacs counter, “John McCain is a war hero -- right?” Let me be the first to say it’s not about what you did in the 60’s sir -- it’s about what you will do to America in 2009 and beyond.
This is our party, not John McCain’s or Mel Martinez's, or Lindsay Graham’s. The Republican Party is THE conservative party dammit. Let’s admit it and take it back. RINOS and Liberals have taken the GOP plane hostage, and its time for us passengers to revolt…and do what has to be done -- Let’s Roll.
LockAndLoad has joined the Dump McCain Now blogroll. Here is part of the email that they sent me:
My major beef (among many) is histreachery while co-chair with dill hole Kerry on the POW/MIA selectcommittee when he belittled and humiliated POW family members and sold our guys out to the Commies. BTW, he and dill hole both have familytrade connections with Viet Nam. Mc Cain dumped his ill wife to marry aCoors family member and of course Kerry's middle name is Forbes. Youcan expect his baggage to surface if he gets the nomination. Can't putmy finger on it right now, but am certain he was one of about a dozenHanoi Hilton POW's recommended for courts marshal for collaboration. Charges were dropped against all for political expediency. He's knownas the Manchurian Candidate among certain POW/MIA advocates.
I've heard things like this myself. Rush Limbaugh has hinted at some major dirt on McCain that will be released by the MSM in the event he gains the nomination. Anyone with any information on this let me know.
The superior blogs White Trash Republican, Born Again Redneck, Thunder Pig and Pecozbill have all joined the Dump McCain Now! blogroll.
If you want to join and show the world that John McCain (aka Capt. Queeg) is not an acceptable candidate for the Republican nomination just put the button at the left onto your sidebar and hotlink it back to the post right below this one. Then email me and I'll send you the blogroll code and add you to the roll.
The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."
But we won't let them.
The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.
Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.
Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."
McCain's neurotic boast that he is the only Republican who supported the surge is beginning to sound as insane as Bill Clinton's claim to being the "first black president" -- although less insulting to blacks. As with the Clintons, you find yourself looking up such tedious facts as this, which ran a week after Bush announced the surge:
"On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge." -- The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007
And yet for the 4 billionth time, at the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, McCain bragged about his own raw courage in supporting the surge despite (apocryphal) Republican attacks, saying: "I said at the time that Gen. Petraeus and his strategy must be employed, and I was criticized by Republicans at that time. And that was a low point, but I stuck to it. I didn't change."
A review of contemporaneous news stories about the surge clearly demonstrates that the only Republicans who were so much as "skeptical" of the surge consisted of a few oddball liberal Republicans such as Sens. Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Olympia Snowe.
They certainly weren't attacking McCain, their standard-bearer in liberal Republicanism. But even if they were, it was a "low point" for McCain being "criticized" by the likes of Olympia Snowe?
In point of fact, McCain didn't even stand up to the milquetoasts. In April 2007, when Democrats in the Senate passed a bill funding the troops but also requiring a rapid withdrawal, "moderate" Republicans Smith and Chuck Hagel voted with the Democrats. McCain and Lindsey Graham skipped the vote.
But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.
Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemn the Rumsfeld strategy before that."
The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."
Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."
Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."
To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.
I know Republicans have been trained not to go prostrate at Ivy League degrees, but do we have to admire stupidity?
Mr. Straight Talk also announced at that same debate: "One of the reasons why I won in New Hampshire is because I went there and told them the truth." That and the fact that Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.
Even in the Florida primary, allegedly limited to Republicans, McCain lost among Republicans. (Seventeen percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida called themselves "Independents.")
That helps, but why would any Republican vote for McCain?
At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.
You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid.
Republicans who vote for McCain are trying to be cute, like the Democrats were four years ago by voting for the "pragmatic" candidate, Vietnam vet John Kerry. This will turn out to be precisely as clever a gambit as nominating Kerry was, the brilliance of which was revealed on Election Day 2004.
AFTER the Florida primary, John McCain is the clear front-runner in the Republican primaries, the first we've had since Rudy Giuliani vacated the role.
Underscoring his victory is a fascinating fact newly evident, now that we have had a Republican primary in a state which did not permit Independents to participate: The GOP primary electorate isn't very conservative.
Asked how they'd characterize their own ideology, only 27 percent of Florida GOP voters said they were "very conservative." They backed Mitt Romney by 44 percent to 20 percent. Another 34 percent said they were "somewhat conservative," and they broke even between Romney and McCain 33-32.
A further 38 percent said they were "moderate" or "liberal" - and they backed McCain by 44-22.
So it is not so much that McCain converted conservatives, but that Romney ran out of them - there weren't enough of them to give him the Florida delegation.
If you add the numbers up you get 61% conservative (either "very" or "somewhat"). That adds up to a conservative party in my book.
Four factors cost Romney the Florida primary.
1. McCain's status as a war hero attracted many votes from active duty military and veterans in a state with a large military presence.
2. McCain is the oldest person in the race and this makes him attractive to the elderly and Florida has a surplus of geezers.
3. Many of those Florida geezers are retired Northeasterners who belong to the "country club - blue blood" wing of the Republican Party and tend to be moderate to liberal (they would register as Democrats except that blacks and browns tend to be Democrats). They dislike conservatives and especially Evangelicals and see McCain as their chance to take back the party and get rid of all those nasty Reagan worshiping, Bible thumping neanderthals.
4. Romney is a Mormon and a small but significant number of people can't get past that.
Well, there is a fifth factor as well. Huckabee is in the race siphoning off anti-McCain votes. This is the result of some kind of corrupt backroom deal between Elmer and Queeg in which Elmer gets some kind of job in the McCain administration, Queeg gets the White House (and Satan gets Huckabee's immortal soul - but that's a topic for another post).
Michael Graham understands the implications of a McCain win:
Assuming there is no shocking revelation or health issue, the GOP nomination is over. Conservatives need to start practicing the phrase "Nominee presumptive John McCa....."
Sorry, I can't say it. Not yet.
But it's true. When the campaign comes here to Massachusetts on February 5th, I'll proudly cast my vote for any option on the GOP ballot other than You-Know-Who. But it will be a futile gesture. Mr. "1/3rd Of The GOP Primary Vote" is going to be the nominee.
He's going to win the big, left-leaning states on Tuesday. Huckabee will stay in and deny Romney a one-on-one contest for GOP voters that Captain Amnesty would almost certainly lose. The result: More wins for He Who Must Not Be Named, and fewer wins for Romney—regardless of delegate count.
Florida has launched the one ship that Romney's money and Rush Limbaugh cannot stop: The U.S.S. Inevitable. It's gonna happen. Even if there were a realistic pathway to stop him, the media have seized control of the process now and are declaring him inevitable. He is, after all, the favorite son of the New York Times.
So it is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton—perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.
And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.
You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it.
Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party.
And on that note, I'm off to climb into a bottle of Bushmill's. It's going to be a LONG nine months.
From The Washington Post:
As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.
McCain, as the "straight talk" candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party's right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party's potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.
Those key issues do not include McCain's firmly held nonconservative positions on campaign finance reform and global warming. Rather, conservatives among the second group want two assurances: first, that McCain would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress; second, that he would not emulate Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush in naming liberal Supreme Court justices such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter.
As I have said before and will say again, McCain's entire career (other than the single fact of his support for the Surge in Iraq) consists of partnering with liberal Democrats to shaft conservative Republicans.
During the next president's term in office two and perhaps three Supreme Court justices will retire and if Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Barack Obama is the president judicial nominees will be cleared with Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer.
It is as simple as that. No matter what he says on the campaign trail (remember McCain is a proven liar) he will coordinate his efforts as president not with conservative Republicans but with liberal Democrats.
I want all of you conservatives who keep yammering on about "the judges, the judges, the judges. . ." as the reason we must hold our noses and vote Republican regardless of who the nominee is to learn this and learn it well:
If John McCain is the next president his judicial appointments will be modeled on David Hackett Souter, a nominal Republican who consistently votes with the left-wing members of the court like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
As I said, I want you Republicans who care deeply about the makeup of the High Court to learn this well. I want you to stare at the above paragraph until blood pours from your eyes. I want you to take this information down deep into your soul and let it permeate every particle of your being. I want you to understand at the level of primal instinct that a vote for McCain, where the courts are concerned, is exactly the same as a vote for Hillary Clinton.
And then I want you to act on that knowledge by voting for Mitt Romney in the primary in your state. Forget about Mike Huckabee. He is not going to win and he knows it. At this point he is in the race only to draw conservative voters away from Mitt Romney and divide the "anti-McCain" vote. I don't know what McCain has offered him in exchange for his treacherous and deceitful actions (I hope that it is a great deal because a man should not damn his soul for pennies) but whatever the price was Huckabee has been bought.
The next thing I want you to do is to form the unalterable determination in your heart that if McCain is the nominee that you will not vote for him. You will go to the polls and vote for Republicans in the House and Senate races and in all your state and local races but you will leave the top of the ticket blank.
The purpose of this is to send the message that "I am a Republican and I voted for Republicans but since there was no real Republican running for president this time I didn't cast a vote for president".
I know that some of you are thinking that if you want to send a message you should use Western Union, but sometimes that is the only weapon you have available.
If we follow this strategy we have a good chance of bringing in a Republican legislature along with a Democrat White House. If this happens Republicans in congress can gridlock government and prevent any new socialist programs or tax increases from becoming law. They can hold government spending at its current levels just like they did in the first Clinton presidency.
However it will be much harder for a Republican legislature to act in a similar way against a liberal Republican president. Remember how difficult it was to fight Bush on Harriet Meyers and amnesty. Yes we got the job done in the end, but it was made vastly more difficult by the fact that we were having to circumvent "our own guy" in the White House.
It will be far better for the nation to have a bad Democrat in the White House than a bad Republican because at least the Democrats will get the blame. And when the public goes to the polls in the next election to vote for a change of direction they will be voting for a Republican rather than for a Democrat.
Remember, it took Carter to give us Reagan.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
NEW ORLEANS — Democratic candidate John Edwards has decided to drop out of the presidential primary race, giving a speech this afternoon at the same place where he began this campaign — in New Orleans.
Throughout this season, Mr. Edwards hasn’t been able to break through the dueling high-profile candidacies of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. And he had not been able to raise the kind of funds that those two had early on.
Top advisers said that Mr. Edwards would not be endorsing another candidate today when he makes his announcement at 1 p.m. On Tuesday, Mr. Edwards canceled events in Alabama and North Dakota, opting instead to fly to New Orleans late Tuesday night. His press aides told reporters that he would make a “major policy speech” on poverty, in the city where Mr. Edwards announced his candidacy in December 2006.
Will he follow the rest of the Democrat pack and endorse Obama? Word on the street is that he has been offered the AG spot in an Obama administration. About the only thing Clinton could offer to top that would be the VP slot.
Mark Steyn wrote this on The Corner last night:
Looks like it's over. The Panhandlers are giving McCain bigger margins of victory.
This is a tough night for the Romney campaign. Fred's withdrawal should have benefited them more than McCain. If Huck stays in, there's no prospect of southern victories for Mitt on Super Tuesday. And, if Huck and/or Rudy pull out, their votes on balance are likely to break for McCain.
I'm afraid that Mr. Steyn is correct. It has been apparent for some time that Huckabee is in the tank for McCain. The latest manifestation of that was Elmer's backing up McCain's lying smear of Romney on the issue of an Iraq pullout. Rev. Gantry is clearly planning to stay in the race in order to split the anti-McCain vote and sink Romney's candidacy. And it grieves me to say this but he will probably succeed because there is a segment of the Evengalical community (not a very large one, but large enough) that is just too shit-all stupid to see that they are being played for suckers.
We now have the disgusting sight of Mike Huckabee, Rudolph Giuliani and Fred Thompson all chasing after McCain trying to jam their lips up against his backside in the hopes of becoming the VP or getting some plum cabinet post.
If these men wish to betray their nation in the service of their ambition then fine. I say to hell with the lot of them.
Terence Jeffrey has McCain's number:
While the liberal establishment may be conflicted over whether it wants Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, there's no doubt which Republican it favors.
John McCain is the liberal elite's go-to guy in the GOP. They believe he'll be there for them when they need him.
That was the essential message of last week's New York Times editorial endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination.
"With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field," said the Times. "We have shuddered at McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle."
What the Times is saying here is that it does not take McCain's conservative campaign-season rhetoric seriously. No, they're convinced the man on the Straight Talk Express is railroading Republican primary voters.
Long experience has taught the Times to read McCain's sign language. No matter what contortions McCain undergoes to shape this language, its message is reassuringly constant from the left's point of view. It says: I am no threat to the liberal agenda.
Two Senate votes taken a day apart are illustrative. On June 7, 2006, McCain voted against a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Then, on June 8, 2006, he voted for a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which would have allowed Native Hawaiians to create a race-based separate nation within the United States.
In both instances, McCain voted with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and against most Senate Republicans.
McCain professed deep support for the underlying purpose of the marriage amendment, he just opposed allowing colleagues to vote on it. Conversely, he expressed deep opposition to the underlying purpose of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act -- he just supported allowing colleagues to vote on it. Each time, McCain gave rhetoric to the right and material cooperation to the left.
In the process, he demonstrated radical inconsistency in his willingness to defend federalism, a principal he says is at the core of his beliefs.
The marriage amendment was designed to prevent unelected judges from overruling state legislatures and voters and manufacturing by judicial decree a right to same-sex marriage, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in 2003.
In a statement submitted to the Congressional Record, McCain acknowledged this and other extra-legislative challenges to traditional marriage, but said: "I do not agree that all the above circumstances have made it necessary to usurp from the states, by means of an amendment to the federal Constitution, their traditional role in regulating marriage. I'm reluctant to abandon the federalism that is part of the essence of conservative political thought in this country."
On one day -- June 7 -- so great was his commitment to federalism he could not allow the Senate to even vote on an amendment that would require a two-thirds majority in both houses and then ratification by three-fourths of the states before it could become law.
On another day -- June 8 -- McCain's commitment to federalism was a bit more flexible. Now the threat to state's rights was an effort to create a new nation out of one segment of the population of one state of the union.
"I have serious reservations about the wisdom of this legislation," McCain said on the Senate floor. "I am sure that the sponsors have good intentions, but I cannot turn away from the fact this bill would lead to the creation of a new nation based exclusively -- not primarily, not in part, but exclusively -- on race. In fact, any person with even a drop of Hawaiian blood would qualify to vote on the establishment of this new, legislatively created entity that would then negotiate with the Federal government of the United States and the state of Hawaii on potentially unlimited topics."
Nonetheless, McCain voted for cloture on this bill -- which, after all, he had already shepherded through the Indian Affairs Committee, which he then chaired. The cloture vote failed with 56 votes, just four short of the needed 60. Unlike the marriage amendment, this bill would become law with simple majority votes in both houses and the president's signature. (It won just such a vote in the House in October, and has been reintroduced in the Democrat-controlled Senate.)
McCain's deference to what liberal's wanted trumped his vaunted deference to federalism. When push comes to shove, would it be any different if he becomes president?
The answer is NO. McCain's behavior as president would be no different than his behavior as Senator. He will continue to be a loyal servant of the left's agenda.
Please some McCain supporter who claims to be a conservative tell me why President McCain won't be the same lying sack of shit liberal that Senator McCain has been.
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Rudy Giuliani, who bet his presidential hopes on Florida only to come in third, prepared to quit the race Tuesday and endorse his friendliest rival, John McCain.
The former New York mayor stopped short of announcing he was stepping down, but delivered a valedictory speech that was more farewell than fight-on.
Giuliani finished a distant third to winner McCain and second-place finisher Mitt Romney. Republican officials said Giuliani would endorse McCain on Wednesday in California. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public announcement.
"The responsibility of leadership doesn't end with a single campaign, it goes on and you continue to fight for it," Giuliani said, as supporters with tight smiles crowded behind him. "We ran a campaign that was uplifting."
Asked directly if he was dropping out of the race, Giuliani said only: "I'm going to California."
Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to debate in Simi Valley Wednesday night.
Tuesday's result was a remarkable collapse for Giuliani. Last year, he occupied the top of national polls and seemed destined to turn conventional wisdom on end by running as a moderate Republican who supported abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.
"Elections are about fighting for a cause larger than ourselves," he said at one point, echoing one of McCain's most popular refrains.
The results seriously decimated Giuliani's unconventional strategy, which relied heavily on Florida to launch him into the coast-to-coast Feb. 5 nominating contests.
He largely bypassed the early voting states, figuring that the early states would produce multiple winners and no front-runner.
But Florida proved to be less than hospitable. The state's top two Republicans - Sen. Mel Martinez and Gov. Charlie Crist - endorsed McCain. And Giuliani, who once led in state polls, saw his support swiftly erode.
After seven contests, Giuliani had just one delegate and four sixth-place finishes. His third-place showing in Florida was his best. He finished fourth in New Hampshire.
Giuliani's bid for the nomination was based on his leadership. The only question was how many voters would follow.
His stalwart performance as New York mayor in the tense days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks earned him national magazine covers, international accolades and widespread praise. Yet, Giuliani was always a Republican anomaly - a moderate-to-liberal New Yorker who backed abortion rights, gay rights and gun control in a party dominated by Southern conservatives.
At least McCain pretends to believe the right things - when he is campaigning.
As to how he would govern if elected just imagine what he will need to do to maintain friendly relations with hard-left legislators like Ted Kennedy and receive praise from hard-left media outlets like The New York Times.
What kind of Supreme Court justices will McCain have to appoint in order to have the approval of Charles Schumer and The Washington Post?
What kind of people will he have to appoint to cabinet posts in order to have ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC describe him as "wise and statesmanlike"?
With the single exception of his support for the Surge McCain's entire career in politics has consisted of jumping the isle to join Democrats in opposing the Republican agenda and whoring after the liberal media.
Why do we suppose that he will behave any differently as president?
As for Rudolph Giuliani if you needed more proof that he was a left winger at heart here it is. He can't get the nomination so he runs to endorse a Democrat in all but name.
IF the Republican Party survives all of this as a viable and conservative party (doubtful, but still possible) I hope we will have learned the lesson that no good can come of tolerating RINOs in our ranks.
In the future we need to send pretend Republicans like McCain and Giuliani packing, preferably with a thick coating of tar and feathers. Democrats do this. Just look at what happened to Joe Lieberman when he broke ranks on just one issue that the Democrats considered to be of critical importance. The result for them is that there is no doubt about their identification as a party of the extreme left (which is where they desire to be). Just look at their primary contenders. The most conservative person in the race for the Democrat nomination is Barack Obama and he stands somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.
If the Republican Party was in the habit of practicing that kind of ideological rigor we could have had a slate of candidates which would have made Fred Thompson seem like the "sort of liberal" guy. But instead we have to make our tent so large that there is even room for our bitterest enemies (like John McCain).
We will pay the price for our inclusiveness either in a defeat this November or worse in a McCain administration which will have at least four years to gut the Republican Party and render it unable to ever again win an election.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Crazy John McCain wins the Florida primary.
There is a deal in the works, so we hear, for Giuliani to endorse McCain in a day or two at an appearance in California.
This is a sad day for America and is probably the beginning of the end of the Republican Party.
George Will nails crazy left-wing John McCain's character (or lack thereof):
Then, last week, came the radio ad that even South Carolinians, who are not squeamish about bite-and-gouge politics, thought was one brick over a load, and that the Clintons withdrew. It was the one that said Obama endorsed Republican ideas (because he said Republicans had some ideas). The Clinton campaign also accused Obama of praising Ronald Reagan (because Obama noted the stark fact that Reagan had changed the country's trajectory more than some other recent presidents — hello, Bill — had).
This was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was no worse than — actually, not as gross as — St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago, Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business.
That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.
But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject concerning which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so. And in South Carolina, Obama, more than doubling Clinton's 27 percent, won a majority of the votes, becoming the first person in either party to do so in a contested primary this year. He won a majority of men and of women, which pretty much covers the rainbow of genders. And he used his victory speech to clearly associate the Clintons with "the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election" (hello again, Bill, you political ethicist who famously said "you gotta do what you gotta do") and "the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea — even if it's one you never agreed with."
Obama is running against two Clintons — or one and a fraction of one, given how much she has been diminished by her overbearing spouse. Romney is marginally better off running against a Clinton impersonator.
Even establishment Republican George Will knows what a disaster John McCain would be as the party's nominee.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com reports some disturbing news out of Florida. Will this kind of shite be crazy liberal John McCain's margin of victory?
In northern Coral Springs, near the Sawgrass Expressway and Coral Ridge Drive, David Nirenberg arrived to vote as an independent. Nevertheless, he said poll workers insisted he choose a party ballot.
"He said to me, 'Are you Democrat or Republican?' I said, 'Neither, I am independent.' He said, 'Well, you have to pick one,''' Nirenberg said.
In Florida, only those who declare a party are allowed to cast a vote in that party's presidential primary.
Nirenberg said he tried to explain to the poll worker that he should not vote on a party ballot because of his "no party affiliation" status.
Nirenberg said a second poll worker was called over who agreed that independents should not use party ballots, but said they had received instructions to the contrary.
"He said, 'Ya know, that is kind of funny, but it was what we were told.' … I was shocked when they told me that." Nirenberg said he went ahead and voted for John McCain.
Rudolph Giuliani said that whoever wins Florida will get the nomination. This is not necessarily true, but is highly likely.
H/T: Dowager Viscountess
Military historians agree that the doom of the Third Reich was sealed on the day that Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union, thus opening a second front in the war. Fighting on two fronts forces you to disperse your forces between multiple threats and almost guarantees that you will be forced onto a defensive posture. And as every military strategists knows, the best you can achieve when fighting on the defensive is to delay your ultimate defeat.
What is true in war is often true in politics as well and that is so in this case. No political party should ever seek a conflict which will require it to fight on two fronts. Yet that is what Republicans seem poised to do.
We all remember what a close thing the battle to defeat amnesty was, don't we? What made the fight so difficult was the fact that not only did the congressional leadership favor amnesty but the president was behind the measure as well. The Republicans who made up the only force opposing amnesty were hampered in their efforts by the fact that their own president kept trying to slip a knife in their backs.
When you cannot turn your full attention to the enemy in front of you, but must also constantly fight off attacks from the rear you must divide your forces and are denied the opportunity to concentrate your resources for an attack.
If the Republican Party chooses John McCain as its presidential candidate and if the Party is unfortunate enough to actually win the general election with McCain at the head of the ticket (unlikely, but still possible) Republicans in congress will find themselves spending the next four years (or maybe even eight years) fighting a vicious two front war as they constantly fight off attacks from both the Democrats in congress and the White House.
Make no mistake about it. With the single exception of the Surge McCain's entire history as a Senator consists of picking the issues upon which a defeat would do the GOP and the nation the maximum amount of harm and cooperating with Democrats to make that Republican defeat happen.
Whether it is further curbs on free speech, gun control, tax policy, amnesty for alien criminals or the US buying into the hysteria of global warming junk science (and thereby ruining its economy) Republicans will find themselves pinned down by a withering crossfire as they are shot at from both Capitol Hill and the White House.
Understand that for this scenario to play out the president must be a turncoat Republican, not a Democrat. If the White House and Congress are both controlled by Democrats then Republicans have one enemy to fight - Democrats. This was the case in the first two years of Clinton's first term when Republicans managed to kill Hillary's socialized medicine scheme. In this situation Republicans have shown themselves able to preform brilliantly highlighting the differences between the Democrat Party and the GOP so well that they gained control of both houses of the legislature.
It is only when a Republican president attempts to move the Democrat agenda forward (as Bush has tried to do a number of times) that congressional Republicans find themselves at such a serious disadvantage. And that disadvantage would become a constant fixture of a McCain administration as President McCain [spit] sought to advance the liberal agenda in every way possible.
Do not allow this to happen. Do not vote for John McCain in the primaries and if he gains the nomination do not vote for him in the general election.
The Bible tells us that an enemy who looks you in the eye and tells you he is your enemy is better than a "friend" who smiles at you then stabs you in the back. John McCain is the very definition of the backstabbing false friend. Do not trust him.
Monday, January 28, 2008
A week ago, Rasmussen Reports noted that if John McCain wins Florida, he may be close to unstoppable in the race for the Republican nomination. Nothing has happened in the past week to alter that assessment, but McCain’s prospects in Florida remain far from certain. The Arizona Senator finds himself in a Sunshine State toss-up with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. (Today's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Romney at 28% nationally and McCain at 26%)
Given the importance of Florida, the Rasmussen Reports weekly analysis of the GOP race will be updated on Wednesday this week.
While no one knows who will win Florida at this moment, it is worth noting how much the GOP race has changed since South Carolina. For most of the year, the Republican nomination field was crowded with five candidates in double digits and no one able to gain a lasting advantage. It is now clearly a two-man race.
In fact, it is now distinctly possible that the GOP nomination could be wrapped up before the Democrats select their candidate. While South Carolina clarified things for Republicans, it had the opposite impact on the Democratic race.
As the two-man finals play out, Romney will present himself as the champion of conservatives in general and economic conservatives in particular. McCain will present himself as a “foot soldier” in the Reagan Revolution and a national security conservative. However, many conservatives will paint the Arizona Senator as closer to Hillary Clinton than Ronald Reagan.
Polls in Florida and nationally present potentially good news for both men. The economy is seen as the top voting issue which could help Romney. But, Republican voters say it’s more important to select a President who can handle national security issues. That’s partly because Republicans tend to prefer a government that stays out of the way on economic matters.
Nationally, Romney leads McCain 36% to 21% among conservatives likely to vote in a Republican Primary. McCain leads Romney 41% to 12% among moderate voters. The good news for Romney is that there are more conservatives than moderates.
Rasmussen Reports conducts national telephone surveys on the Presidential race every night and releases updated data from our Presidential Tracking Poll by noon each day.
Those results are based upon a four-day rolling average and provide a quick update on the race.
In addition to the daily tracking poll, Rasmussen Reports provides weekly results to provide a longer-term overview of the race. These updates are based upon nightly telephone surveys. Results are reported based upon interviews conducted on the seven days up to and including the night before posting.
For the seven days ending January 27, 2007, John McCain led the GOP race with 26% support followed by Mitt Romney at 25% and Mike Huckabee at 17%. Rudy Giuliani picked up 12%, Ron Paul’s support for the week is at 5% while 15% are either undecided or supported candidates no longer running (review history of weekly results).
The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,200 Likely Republican Primary Voters. This includes both Republicans and those independents likely to vote in a Republicans Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Very good news, if accurate. I should have more faith in my fellow republicans they are an intelligent bunch (if they were mindless they would be Democrats) and they will see through McCain as they have seen through Huckabee and Giuliani.
Just keep saying that . . .
From The Los Angeles Times:
Rudy Giuliani appears to be pondering an end to his long pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination.
In a meeting in the back of his chartered plane en route to St. Petersburg, Fla., a short while ago, the onetime, longtime GOP front-runner told a small group of reporters, including The Times' Louise Roug: "The winner of Florida will win the nomination."
He then went on to predict he would win. And his spokeswoman, Maria Comella, said later he was speaking with confidence.
But that's an unusually categorical statement suggesting that only a total first-place upset by Giuliani, who trails both Mitt Romney and John McCain in all major polls for Florida's Republican primary tomorrow, will keep him in the competition, despite previous repeated vows to continue.
Giuliani's campaign, which led in national polls when it began and stayed there for many months, is showing signs of serious financial fatigue. This month his top staffers are foregoing their paychecks so the maximum amount of money can be invested to salvage his political fortunes in the Sunshine State, which was where Giuliani's late-state strategy was to kick into high gear.
So far, he's yet to finish first anywhere and ended up behind Rep. Ron Paul in Iowa and Nevada.
In his meeting with reporters today, Giuliani added that, no matter what happens Tuesday, he definitely would participate in the Republican debate co-sponsored by The Times on Wednesday at the Reagan Library.
All the way back at the beginning I said that it would be almost impossible for Giuliani to get the Republican nomination. The Republican Party isn't yet ready for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, gun controlling social liberal.
Of course if the Party chooses someone like McCain or Huckabee it won't be long before the Party degenerates to the point where Rudolph Giuliani will seem like a mainstream candidate.
Mark Levin on The Corner:
I keep hearing that Jeb Bush quietly supports Romney. Now that Crist has made his last-minute endorsement of McCain, I wonder if Jeb will have the will to endorse Romney. Or maybe Jeb is worried that in a match-up with Crist, he might lose the endorsement game. I would hope he has more confidence than that.
I'd like to know the answer to that one as well. Where is Jeb?
The world wonders.
On Jan. 28, 1986, space shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after liftoff from Cape Canaveral, killing all seven crew members.
I was pulling into the post office in Old Fort, NC when I saw the headline on the newspaper in the machine, "Space Shuttle Explodes". That was when I found out.
Bob Novak looks at Clinton's risky strategy:
LOS ANGELES -- Sen. Hillary Clinton is relying on the big Latino vote as her firewall to prevent losing the California Democratic primary Feb. 5, the most important of 22 states contested on Mega Tuesday. But that reliance, say both pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton Democrats, is fraught with peril for the Democratic Party's coalition by threatening to alienate its essential African-American component.
Clinton's double-digit lead in California polls over Sen. Barack Obama is misleading. Subtract a Latino voting bloc whose dependability to show up Election Day always has been shaky, and Clinton is no better than even in the state, with Obama gaining. To encourage this brown firewall, the Clinton campaign may be drifting into encouragement of brown vs. black racial conflict by condoning Latino racial hostility to the first African-American with a chance to become president.
[. . .]
Experienced California Democratic politicians doubt the validity of Clinton's double-digit polling lead in the state. At the heart of Obama's support are upper-income Democrats (in exceptional supply here) and young voters whose intentions are difficult to predict. Will the state's huge, currently passive college campuses erupt in an outpouring of Obama voters?
Another problem for pollsters is a California peculiarity. A registered independent who shows up at a polling place Feb. 5 and asks for a Republican ballot will be told, sorry, but the Republican primary is for registered Republicans only. But the voter then may take a ballot of the more permissive Democratic Party. How many will do this and then vote for Obama? The polls cannot predict.
Clinton's 39 percent against Obama's 27 percent in California's Field Poll released last week provides much less certainty than a 12-percentage margin normally would. With Clinton falling and Obama rising, it compares with her 40-point lead six months ago.
The demographics are most important. Clinton has dramatically lost support among blacks, trailing Obama 58 percent to 24 percent. It is a virtual dead heat among white non-Hispanics, 32 percent to 30 percent. Therefore, the 12-point overall lead derives from a 59 percent to 19 percent Clinton edge among Latinos.
In California, the Latino vote is notoriously undependable in actually voting, especially when compared with African-Americans. How the Clinton campaign deals with Hispanic voters is a sensitive matter, but sensitivity never has been a hallmark of the Clinton style.
Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when Clinton's veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates."
That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base, but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, "In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone."
But not in Hillary Clinton's. During the Jan. 15 debate prior to the Nevada caucuses, where the Latino vote was important, NBC's Tim Russert read the Bendixen quote and asked Clinton, "Does that represent the view of your campaign?" Her response was chilling: "No, he was making a historical statement."
Consider the above in the context of this article by Steven Malanga which is up on Front Page Magazine:
Terry Anderson is angry. From his KRLA-AM radio perch in Los Angeles, the black talk-show host thunders, “I have gone on the streets and talked to people at random here in the black community, and they all ask me the same question: ‘Why are our politicians and leaders letting this happen?’ ” What’s got Anderson—motto: “If You Ain’t Mad, You Ain’t Payin’ Attention”—so worked up isn’t the Jena Six or nooses on Columbia University doorknobs; it’s the illegal immigrants who allegedly murdered three Newark college students last August. And when he excoriates politicians for “letting this happen,” he’s directing his fire at Congressional Black Caucus members who support open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. “Massive illegal immigration has been devastating to my community,” Anderson, a former auto mechanic and longtime South Central Los Angeles resident, tells listeners. “Black Americans are hit the hardest.”
Though blacks have long worried that the country’s growing foreign-born population, especially its swelling rolls of illegal immigrants, harmed their economic prospects, they have also followed their political leadership in backing liberal immigration policies. Now, however, as new waves of immigration inundate historically African-American neighborhoods, black opinion is hardening against the influx. “We will not lay down and take this any longer,” says Anderson. If he’s right, it could upend the political calculus on immigration.
Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular are banking on black stupidity to win them the upcoming election. There has only been one brief period in the entire history of the Democrat Party when it had the genuine best interests of black Americans in its heart. That was when the original civil rights legislation which ended Jim Crow was passed (and then Democrats weren't united on the issue). At all other times whether it was before the Civil War when Democrats supported slavery or after the Civil War when Democrats were supporting segregation to the latter phase of the Civil Rights Movement when Democrats were supporting the welfare laws which destroyed the black family and turned the inner city black neighborhoods into hell-holes of crime, drugs and violence the Democrat Party has preyed upon the black community like a malignant parasite.
It may be that now, as last, blacks are beginning to wake up to the fact that their so-called "leaders" are for the most part whores bought and paid for by the white left-wing power structure. Men and women who sell out their people for a place at the Democrat table of power.
Don't expect a great deal of movement in black voting patters at first. Blacks in America have been raised from birth to believe that America is a structurally racist country and that the Republican Party is the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan. They have been taught everywhere from the politician's soap box to the minister's pulpit that black's only hope for survival in the US is to elect Democrats.
It is hard to break that kind of conditioning, but it is possible. If just 20% of the blacks who currently turn out to vote for Democrats in presidential elections were just to stay home on election day it would be impossible for a Democrat to be elected president. That is unless the left gets an amnesty bill passed and floods the electorate with tens of millions of new Democrat voters.
From Front Page Magazine:
A Wall Street stockbroker fears for her life after she rebuffed a Brooklyn imam she met on a Muslim dating Web site.
In an explosive $50 million lawsuit that blows the lid off the wacky world of Muslim dating in New York, Cherine Allaithy alleges the religious leader promised he would make her one of four future wives and boasted of a cousin in al Qaeda. When she dumped him, he trashed her reputation in the Arab press.
The imam, Tarek Youssoff Hassan Saleh, 42, says Allaithy is a loose, mentally unstable woman. He has filed criminal charges against her in Brooklyn for allegedly destroying two computers at the Oulel-Albab mosque in Bay Ridge. He also claims she threatened to frame him for rape.
Allaithy, 32, says she met the imam, who goes by the name Sheikh Saleh, online at the Muslim Matrimonial Network site in May 2007. They courted for a month.
In June, she claims in court documents, Saleh proposed marriage, telling her she would have to start wearing a veil and be subservient to him.
When Allaithy rejected the sheik's proposal, she alleges, he suggested they have a temporary marriage, or mu'ta, so they could have sex without committing a sin.
Allaithy again declined. In the meantime, she started dating Bessem Elhajj, an engineer also living in Bay Ridge.
Saleh said Allaithy two-timed him with Elhajj. She came to Saleh in August, the imam told The Post, distraught that Elhajj had broken up with her.
Saleh insists he is single and not actively seeking four wives. Allegations contained in the court documents say he used Arab-language newspapers to accuse Elhajj of being a womanizer bent on luring Muslim women into temporary marriages.
Allaithy attempted to reconcile with Elhajj and in August went to the mosque, where Saleh lives, to beg him to stop the newspaper stories. He told her she would be exposed next in the press, according to court papers.
In order to prevent her name from being smeared, she said, she ran into his bedroom, grabbed two laptops, and threw them in the sink.
Saleh responded by beating her up, she claims in court papers.
In another article referenced in the complaint, Saleh alleged she came to the mosque to threaten to have him charged with rape.
According to Allaithy's court claims, the sheik sent her an e-mail describing her as "a trashy and lustful woman, a weeping and cursed Jewish woman."
Dr. Yasser Shalaby, editor in chief of Al Zalzala, an Arabic-language paper, said he also ran an article to protect Saleh. "I felt it was very dangerous for someone to come to the mosque and try to get the leader in trouble," he said.
Allaithy, a former broker with Gun Allen Financial, filed a defamation suit against the imam, his mosque and several Arab newspapers in Brooklyn Supreme Court on Jan. 14.
"This is a dishonor to my entire family, every member. My parents disowned me. Basically, he's ruined my life," she told The Post. "I have to clean my name."
Worst of all, she fears she is now a target for an "honor killing" by al Qaeda, according to court papers. Saleh admitted to The Post that a distant relative is a member of the terrorist organization, but said he has had no communication with him.
Elhajj, the man in the middle, said he has washed his hands of both of them.
"He's crazy," he said of the imam. "He says he's a holy man, but it's just a cover to go after women."
And of Allaithy: "She's a child, she's stupid. She went to him to come after me, but it backfired. He went after her instead."
Want to know where everything went wrong? Here: ". . . a Brooklyn imam she met on a Muslim dating Web site." If you are A, looking for love on a Muslim dating web site and B, dating an imam how the hell can you expect anything but trouble?
He wanted her to wear a veil and be subservient to him and she was surprised? Hasn't she ever read the fraking Koran?
And as for the guy using being an "holy man" as a cover to go after women he is just following in the footsteps of Islam's founding "prophet", but at least he isn't screwing 9-year-olds. That we know of.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Seosaimhin Ni Bheaglaoich sings The Brown Haired Woman accompanied by:
Triona Ni Dhomhnaill - bodhran
Muireann Nic Amhlaoibh - flute
Mary Ann Kennedy - harp
Steve Cooney - guitar
Allan Henderson - fiddle
Caoimhin O Raghallaigh - fiddle
Allan MacDonald - jews harp
Iain MacDonald - flute
Mick O'Brien - whistle
Jim Sutherland - bodhran
This from The BBC's The Highland Sessions.
WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.
Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support.
That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.
Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.
The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.
"The America of Jack and Bobby Kennedy touched all of us. Through all of these decades, the one who kept that flame alive was Ted Kennedy,'' said Representative Bill Delahunt, A Quincy Democrat who is also backing Obama. ``So having him pass on the torch [to Obama] is of incredible significance. It's historic.''
I do not underestimate the seriousness of this blow to Hillary's candidacy - even if I do find Ted Kennedy to be an utterly loathsome and odious turd.
For the king of America's left-liberal establishment to snub Hillary Clinton for the upstart Obama could very well be the signal that the Democrat establishment has turned its back on the Clintons and embraced Obama. And never forget in the Democrat Party the candidate of the establishment always gets the nomination.
If this is indeed a shift of the backroom allegiances from Clinton to Obama you can expect to see the state party organizations begin to turn to Obama over the next week as we head into Super Tuesday. If this is the case Clinton's candidacy will collapse quickly.
The latest from Rasmussen
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows a two-man race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. John McCain and Mitt Romney are tied for the lead at 27% and no one else is close. Mike Huckabee is eleven points back at 16%, Rudy Giuliani is at 14%, and Ron Paul is supported by 6% of Likely Republican Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).
New polling data released today shows Romney with a six point lead over McCain in Florida. But, the survey was conducted just before Governor Charlie Crist endorsed McCain and nearly one-in-four likely voters still might change their mind.
Looking ahead, McCain leads in New York, McCain and Giuliani are close in New Jersey, while McCain and Romney are close in California. Huckabee leads in Georgia, Huckabee and McCain are essentially tied in both Missouri and Alabama.
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, has gotten much tighter. It’s now Hillary Clinton 40%, Barack Obama 31% and John Edwards 17% (see recent daily numbers). In general election match-ups, Clinton and Obama both lead Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.
Edwards and Obama are clearly splitting the "anybody but Hillary" vote. The best thing Edwards could do is take Obama up on his offer of the Attorney General position in an Obama administration and drop out and throw his support behind Obama.
With Edwards off the ballots and aggressively campaigning for Obama the majority of Democrats who do not want Hillary to be their party's nominee will have one candidate to rally around. The unions will also be delighted at the prospect of having a full-on certifiably insane class warfare loon like Edwards in the AG spot and will turn on the cash spigot to Obama and turn it off to Hillary.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Moch sa mhaduinn is mi g'éirigh
Sèist: Ò hì shiùbhlainn leat
Hì ri bhò hò ru bhì
Hì ri bhò hò rinn o ho
Ailein Duinn, ò hì shiùbhlainn leat
Ma 's e 'n cluasag dhuit a ghaineamh
Ma 's e leabaidh dhut an gheamainn
Ma 's e 'n t-iasg do choinlean geala
Ma 's e na ròin do luchd-faire
Dh'òlainn deoch ge b' oil le càch e
De dh'fhuil do choim 's tu 'n déidh do bhathadh
How sorrowful I am
Early in the morning rising
Chorus (after each verse): Ò hì, I would go with thee
Hì ri bhò hò ru bhì
Hì ri bhò hò rinn o ho
Brown-haired Alan, ò hì, I would go with thee
If it is thy pillow the sand
If it is thy bed the seaweed
If it is the fish thy candles bright
If it is the seals thy watchmen
I would drink, though all would abhor it
Of thy heart's blood after thy drowning
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Barack Obama routed Hillary Rodham Clinton in the racially-charged South Carolina primary Saturday night, regaining campaign momentum in the prelude to a Feb. 5 coast-to-coast competition for more than 1,600 Democratic National Convention delegates.
Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina battled for a distant second place. Either way it was a sharp setback in the state where he was born and scored a primary victory in his first presidential campaign four years ago.
The percentages are:
Also it seems that Billy Blow Job didn't do his wife any good on the campaign trail:
(CNN) — Bill Clinton's aggressive campaigning in South Carolina in the days leading up to the state's primary may have had a net negative effect among South Carolina’s Democratic primary voters, CNN exit polls indicate.
Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of those voters voted for John Edwards
Meanwhile, the exit polls also indicate Obama easily beat Clinton among those voters who decided in the last three days — when news reports heavily covered the former president's heightened criticisms of Obama. Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their decision in the last three days and 51 percent of them chose Obama, while only 21 percent picked Clinton
Could the bloom be off the Clinton rose?
Hillary lost. I never get tired of saying that.
Sen. McCain's Washington Leadership – Leading The Democrats:
Sen. McCain Is Touting His Leadership Inside The Beltway As A Reason To Support His Candidacy. "Speaking to reporters on his bus elsewhere in Florida, McCain insisted his service on the Senate Commerce Committee is better preparation for overseeing the U.S. economy than Romney's work as a business consultant, venture capitalist and Olympics CEO." (Glen Johnson, "GOP Candidates Tout Economic Skills," The Associated Press, 1/26/08)
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "John McCain Was Not Only Against Us, But Leading The Charge On The Other Side." SEN. SANTORUM: "The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate – the number-3 leader – who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "A Conservative Case Against McCain," National Review Online, 1/14/08)
Leadership? Opposing The Bush Tax Cuts:
Sen. McCain Took The Lead With Democrats Opposing President Bush's 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. "On taxes and spending, Mr. McCain ... has been disingenuous in explaining his opposition to Mr. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He claims to have cast these votes to protest the fact that the tax cuts were not accompanied by spending cuts. But the fact is that in opposing these measures, Mr. McCain joined liberal Democrats like Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Tom Daschle in employing class-warfare rhetoric and pushing in favor of higher taxes - voting on the pro-tax side on 14 different occasions." (Editorial, "McCain vs. McCain," The Washington Times, 1/25/08)
- Club For Growth President Pat Toomey: Sen. McCain Opposed The "Most Important Pro-Growth Tax Cuts In A Generation." "When the most important pro-growth tax cuts in a generation were proposed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, Sen. McCain vigorously opposed them." (Pat Toomey, Op-Ed, "The McCain Record," The Wall Street Journal, 3/13/07)
Leadership? McCain-Kennedy Immigration:
Sen. McCain Took The Lead With Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) On Immigration Reform, Which Many Conservatives Derided As "Amnesty." "On illegal immigration, Mr. McCain said that anyone who says he supported amnesty is 'a liar' and says he has 'never' supported Social Security benefits for illegals. However, in 2006 and 2007, he joined with Ted Kennedy to support Senate bills that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegals. In 2006, Mr. McCain denounced in a floor speech and cast the deciding vote against an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have denied Social Security benefits to illegals who work under a Social Security number obtained through identity fraud." (Editorial, "McCain vs. McCain," The Washington Times, 1/25/08)
- National Review: McCain's Immigration Proposal Amounts To Amnesty. "Supporters of the McCain/Kennedy proposal deny that it is an amnesty, pointing to the fact that payment of a (modest) fine is one of the prerequisites of legalization. But since the goal of an illegal immigrant is to work in the United States, anything that legalizes his presence is a reward; the putative fine is little more than a retroactive smuggling fee paid to the U.S. government." (Editorial, "Hope Over Experience," National Review, 5/17/05)
Leadership? McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform:
Sen. McCain Took The Lead With Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) On Campaign Finance Reform, Which Many Conservatives Said Violated The First Amendment. "Another issue where Mr. McCain has clashed with conservatives was over campaign finance reform, also called the McCain-Feingold bill, which instituted a series of regulations that limit the ability of independent groups not associated with the Democratic or Republican parties to participate in the political process. These regulations, which violate the First Amendment, bar the use of corporate or union money to pay for broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention or within 60 days of a general election. ... McCain's advocacy of the legislation has created a bitter political divide between the senator and the National Right to Life Committee, which views it as a hindrance to its ability to get its message out." (Editorial, "McCain vs. McCain," The Washington Times, 1/25/08)
- Former Speaker Newt Gingrich: McCain-Feingold A "Dangerous Modern-Day Assault On The First Amendment." "The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law enacted in 2002 is an equally dangerous modern-day assault on the First Amendment. It could more accurately be called the McCain-Feingold censorship law because it stifles political speech, protects incumbent politicians and consolidates power in Washington. This law is of the Congress, by the Congress, and for the Congress, because it protects members of Congress by silencing opposing points of view." (Newt Gingrich, Op-Ed, "Blacking Out Speech," National Review, 6/1/06)
Leadership? McCain-Lieberman Climate Change Legislation:
Sen. McCain Took The Lead With Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) On Environmental Legislation, Which Many Conservatives Say Will Hurt The Economy. "Mr. McCain also differs with free-market conservatives on numerous environmental issues. He opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska and has joined with Sen. Joe Lieberman to cosponsor legislation that would require that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010 - a measure sure to result in substantial increases in electricity and gasoline costs." (Editorial, "McCain vs. McCain," The Washington Times, 1/25/08)
- John Locke Foundation's Roy Cordato: McCain-Lieberman "Would Dramatically Raise The Tax On All Carbon-Based Fuels." "What is not widely understood is that [McCain] is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas. ... Higher energy costs will, among other things, raise the cost of manufacturing big-ticket items in American factories. And higher gas prices will likely raise demand for those classes of automobiles that tend to be manufactured overseas." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)
If John McCain wishes to run for president he needs to be honest enough to seek the nomination of the Democrat Party!
Steve Scully: This is a political question in terms of how he gets the nomination, but just from what you have seen, how much support do you think he has among the base of the Republican Party?
Roberta McCain: I don’t think he has any. I don’t know what the base of the Repub–maybe I don’t know enough about it, but I’ve not seen any help whatsoever.
Scully: So can he then go on and become the nominee of this party?
McCain: Yes, I think holding their nose they’re going to have to take him.
Scully: Can you explain?
McCain: Well, everything they’ve done and said. … Now I’m really popping off, but he worked like a dog to get Bush re-elected. …He’s backed Bush in everything except Rumsfeld. Have you heard other senators and congressmen backing Bush over eight years? Find me it–give me a name. I’ve not seen any public recognition of the work that he’s done for the Republican party.
Mrs. McCain, I know you love your son and want to see him become president, but just because he manages to do the right thing once in a blue moon does not mean that we owe him the presidency.
And your son may not get any help from the Republican base but he is getting plenty of help from the McCain base - the left-wing mainstream media, Democrats and independents (otherwise known as liberals who lack the courage to admit that they are liberals).
Friday, January 25, 2008
This is Steve McDonald's rendition of Scotland the Brave accompanied by photograps of Scotland. This is found on his CD Sons of Somerled .
Hark when the night is falling
Hear! hear the pipes are calling,
Loudly and proudly calling,
Down thro' the glen.
There where the hills are sleeping,
Now feel the blood a-leaping,
High as the spirits
of the old Highland men.
Towering in gallant fame,
Scotland my mountain hame,
High may your proud
standard gloriously wave,
Land of my high endeavour,
Land of the shining rivers,
Land of my heart for ever,
Scotland the brave.
High in the misty Highlands,
Out by the purple islands,
Brave are the hearts that beat
Beneath Scottish skies.
Wild are the winds to meet you,
Staunch are the friends that greet you,
Kind as the love that shines
from fair maidens' eyes.
Far off in sunlit places,
Sad are the Scottish faces,
Yearning to feel the kiss
Of sweet Scottish rain.
Where tropic skies are beaming,
Love sets the heart a-dreaming,
Longing and dreaming for the homeland again.
(CNN) — If Hillary Clinton and John McCain become their party's presidential nominees, the general election race is likely to be a love-fest.
At least according to Bill Clinton.
Campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Friday, the former president brushed aside suggestions his wife would prove to be a divisive nominee for the Democratic Party, pointing out how she has successfully worked with Republicans in the Senate — including one of the current GOP presidential candidates.
"She and John McCain are very close," Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
To any Republican out there who is considering voting for John McCain:
THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD HAS JUST ENDORSED HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE DEMOCRAT NOMINATION AND JOHN McCAIN FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!
Do you fraking want your Republican nominee to be chosen for you by the fraking New fraking York fraking Times?
Do you believe that the ultra left-wing editorial board of the New York Times would endorse John McCain if he were anything but a leftist? Do you believe that the left-wing editorial board of the New York Times would endorse John McCain if they believed that he would do anything to help the Republican Party - a party which they hate and wish to see destroyed?
If you ever had any shread of doubt that John McCain was not "one of us" it should be gone now. Just like Mike Huckabee's endorsment by the NEA (the worst enemy America's children have other than NAMBLA) proves that he is utterly unfit to be our president the New York Times endorsment of John McCain should prove to you that he is in no way fit to be our president.
Look at it like this. The editorial board of the far left New York Times looked at the Democrat field and found Hillary Clinton to be the best that they saw. They then looked at the Republican field and using the same standards (left wing standards) chose John McCain.
That is right John McCain is seen by the hard-left socialists who run the New York Times as being the same kind of person as Hillary Clinton.
Is this the man you want to vote for?