May 14, 2008

War on Terror Update

September 11 planners receive military arraignment date

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda leader who masterminded the September 11 terror atrocities, in which 2,973 people were murdered, tentatively is scheduled to appear on June 5th before a Guantanamo Bay war court judge.

The chief judge for the Guantanamo tribunals, Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann, notified military defense lawyers of the tentative arraignment date for Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees. The five Muslim men all face execution if convicted.

* * *
Here's a link to Reuters' version of events.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (2 votes cast)


Gun Rights Update

What's going on: Georgia's Republican governor on Wednesday signed legislation enacted by the GOP-controlled state legislature that expands gun rights in that state by allowing qualified gun owners to carry concealed firearms: (1) in restaurants that serve alcohol, (2) aboard public transportation, and (3) in public parks. The NRA says the new GOP state law "represents the most comprehensive pro-gun reform measure to be enacted in nearly 20 years."

Winners: Public safety in Georgia. Gun owners. Gun manufacturers. Gun rights activists. Republicans.

Losers: Criminals in and around Georgia. Left-wing Democrats. The liberal media. Left-wing academics.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (6 votes cast)


What we leave behind

A family immigrating to Canada from the Philippines, leaves their 23-month-old son behind at Vancouver Airport.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia - An immigrant family accidentally left a 23-month boy in the Vancouver airport and learned he was missing only when contacted during the next leg of the trip.

Jun Parreno, the boy's father, told The Vancouver Sun the mix-up occurred Monday as he, his wife and two grandparents of the child, J.M., were scrambling between their arrival in Canada and a connecting flight to Winnipeg on Air Canada.

Running late after having to unpack and repack all their luggage, "we had 10 minutes before boarding," said Parreno, who was emigrating with his family from the Philippines. "We were running for the gate."

He said he thought his son was with the three other adults, who were running to the gate ahead of him, and they thought the little boy was with him.

A very dangerous thing when caring for children- Assume things.

Fortunately there was a happy ending.

Instead, in a scenario similar to the movie "Home Alone," the toddler was wandering alone between a security checkpoint and the flight gates, said Angela Mah, an Air Canada representative.

*****

The parents were put into telephone contact with the little boy, and Parreno was put on another Air Canada plane to return to Vancouver to get him after the family's flight arrived in Winnipeg with the airline covering the cost of the two additional flights, she said.

Parreno had tears in his eyes when he returned to Winnipeg holding his son.

"I am relieved everything is OK ... but I was shocked," he said. "The staff at Air Canada took good care of him."

Air Canada cared better for your son than you did Mr. Parreno. If this happened in the US, you and your family may find yourselves being deported only days after immigrated here.

  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 0/5 (0 votes cast)


Barack Obama, fairy tale king!

How do you know the left has gone too far with with their idolatry of the Obamamessiah?

When this picture accompanies an endorsement of him for President.

Rising from the sea like a mythical merman, with his loyal white steed behind him, the Left presents Barack Obama, fairy tale king!!

Christ Almighty. Do lefties really not see how ridiculous they have become with the Obama-mania? Seriously.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

  • Currently 4.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)


It's. Just. That. Simple.

Wow.

I am almost dumbfounded.

The Boston Globe has managed to convey almost everything that's wrong with themselves -- and Massachusetts in general -- in a single editorial.

A bit of context, first: Newton, Massachusetts is a very wealthy suburb of Boston. And "Proposition 2 1/2" is one of the few successes of the forces of sanity in the Bay State. An initiative passed by the voters (the politicians hate it, and would have never passed it on their own), the measure states that no community can raise property taxes more than 2.5% in a year without a special vote by the people.

OK, that's all the info you need for the story. And to prove it, I'm only going to use only information from the editorial to make my points.

In the year 2001, Newton's mayor proposed renovating Newton North High School. The price tag he hung on this plan was $39 million. Remember that number, it will come back frequently.

Well, the plans for renovating kept getting revised and tweaked and upgraded and adjusted and modified. In 2007, the plans called for not a renovation, but a whole new school, at the price of $154 million -- almost FOUR TIMES as much as the original estimate the people had been sold six years prior.

But that wasn't the final number. We ain't anywhere near a final number yet. The latest figures put the price tag at almost $200 million.

(I'm going to cheat here. I heard one radio report on this that put that number at $195 million, and I'm going to use it, because it makes my math that much more elegant.)

$195 million. Almost a fifth of a billion dollars. And more relevantly, FIVE TIMES the original selling price.

Alternately, take in the original estimate of $39 million. Add in the "revised" number from just a year ago of $154 million. Add 'em together, and you STILL are short of the current figures.

So, what is the solution the city government is proposing, and the Globe endorsing? Keep forking over money, people of Newton. We'll let you know when we've taken enough. Until next year, when we'll want more.

And, naturally, the city leaders are resorting to the traditional approach for shaking down the voters: threatening the city services that the people hold near and dear:

Mayor David Cohen and the Board of Aldermen would still need to cut library hours, police and school staffing, and services for the elderly...

It's political blackmail at its most primal. When it's time to cut the budget, don't look for waste or fraud or padded payrolls or worthless bureaucrats. Make the first cuts the ones that will give the people the most pain. Cuts in school staffing will NEVER be in bureaucrats, but in those that will directly affect the students most. Elderly services are also threatened, because the elderly tend to vote in greater numbers. Threats to cut police and fire are also common, because they go right for the jugular -- people's sense of physical security.

That's how things are done in Massachusetts.

To be fair, that's how it's done in politics in most places. But in Massachusetts, they're a hell of a lot more blatant about it. In Newton, they sell the voters on a $39 million project, then proceed to run it up to FIVE TIMES that without ever even offering the voters a little K-Y to ease the discomfort.

And that's just fine with the Boston Globe. Indeed, they seem to think that it should not even be questioned. Just keep giving your money to the government, don't ask questions, and shut up or we'll call you hateful and intolerant and ignorant and selfish and all sorts of other bad things.

With a few notable exceptions, of course. We mustn't ask the institutions that inflicted blessed the nation with people like the Clintons, the Obamas, the Kennedys, and the like to pay "their" fair share.

That's only for the plebians. The Beautiful People, the Enlightened Elite, make their contributions through far more important ways.

Personally, if I lived in Newton (insert huge guffaw here), I'd be bucking for either some criminal investigations into that school funding mess -- or a tree that looked like it could hold up some nooses.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (15 votes cast)


The Next Right

Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy explains why The Next Right, the latest effort by Patrick Ruffini, Jon Henke and Soren Dayton, is so desperately needed. Patrick Ruffini explains what the project hopes to accomplish.

If you're looking for pure-play opinion and link bait on sundry topics from Ann Coulter to Jimmy Carter/Hamas, you won't find it here. What you will find is in-depth (often unabashedly technical) writing about the election, the polls, the strategy, and the issues. Our analysis will track truth and stay true to the numbers. But it will self-consciously serve a greater purpose -- educating YOU to be your own political strategist and start doing something -- whether that's blogging about your local Congressional race or Democratic corruption in your state, organizing fundraising drives, and maybe even managing races or running for office yourself. Only a revival of civic engagement at the grassroots level will create a conservative future we want: one that is pork-free and robust in the defense of our country and its values. We can't call a switchboard and wait for Washington to fix the mess. We have to do it ourselves, from the ground up, in every state.
[...]
We don't think this alone will solve the activism gap. Anyone who tells you that they alone have the answer is fooling you. This is not "the Daily Kos of the right." What we're hoping to do is create momentum and an intellectual framework for action -- because action ultimately starts with narratives and ideas. We want grassroots conservatives and libertarians to start believing that they can make a difference again -- a sense all too many have lost.
Only you - and not some well-funded 527 -- can bring the movement into the future. Only when grassroots conservative have a direct stake in the future of the party are we effective. The Next Right is about creating a vision for a 21st century Republican Party and conservative movement.
Check it out and join the movement.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (3 votes cast)


Burning Love

I wonder if the letters were from Elivs Presley.

Fire officials say a small brush fire Monday evening in Port St. Lucie likely started when a teenage girl went into the woods to burn love letters.

St. Lucie Fire District Deputy Chief Tom Whitley said the quarter-acre fire in the vacant lot at 2266 SW Natema Road did not damage any structures, and firefighters quickly were able to get it under control. The fire investigator later determined it started when the teen wanted to destroy some love letters and set them on fire.

These days I would think these correspondecne would be done by email. I did write love letters to Leonita, but I didn't have a email account in 1988-89. These days all one needs to do to destroy most unwanted mail is hit the delete button. I suppose the teen could have printed any love emails.

On a serious note, Southeast Florida has a brushfire problem at present. A St. Lucie County air medic and his family being just one story of people who have lost their homes. The local media has been giving large amounts of print space and air time to the fires. Why do people then go outside to burn things?

Hat tip- South Florida Daily Blog

  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 0/5 (0 votes cast)


Little Baby Reagan Stephenson

John Stephenson of Stop the ACLU and his wife just had their first baby on May 12, a little girl they named Reagan Dailene. She's just beautiful. Please stop by if you get the chance and send them congratulations.

  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 0/5 (0 votes cast)


It's Official: We're Screwed

Well, in the face of constantly-rising gas prices in the United States (good lord! They're almost up to the levels Europe pays!), Congress has valiantly swung into action to the defense of the American consumer and done... well, nothing.

With great fanfare and much bloviating and boasting, Congress passed -- by huge, veto-proof margins -- a measure suspending additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stockpile of about 700 million barrels of oil. Currently, the government buys about 70,000 barrels a day and sells about the same, keeping the stock "fresh." (Why a product that's been sitting in the ground for millions of years has an apparent "shelf life" is something I don't quite understand, but that's what they do.)

For comparison, the United States uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day. That means that the Reserve has enough oil to keep the United States going for 33 days -- presuming we change nothing about our way of life AND we use nothing but the Reserve, two extremely unlikely events. A bit more relevant number is 0.33 percent -- that's how much more oil that is available for consumers with the cessation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve suspending its stock-rotation plan.

If that was all that Congress was planning on doing, I wouldn't be too upset. This move is pretty much nothing, and "doing nothing" is usually the wisest move for the government to make when it comes to messing around with the economy. But it's an election year, and since we can't feed Christians to lions any more (throwing them to the ACLU often leads to similar results, but is less entertaining) , the mob's blood lust must be sated somehow.

So the Democrats are going after Big Oil.

Maybe I'm just too simple, but I just can't wrap my head around the logic here. Someone please tell me where I'm wrong:

1) The biggest component right now in the skyrocketing price of gas is the skyrocketing price of crude oil.

2) The people who set the price of the oil -- the oil producing countries, mainly represented by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) -- are the ones who are making out like bandits in this whole mess.

3) Big Oil doesn't sell crude oil, it buys it and refines it into useful stuff. This means that a rise in crude oil prices doesn't directly translate into money in their pockets.

4) Big Oil's record profits are almost entirely based on their having consolidated. While the numbers of their profits have gone up, their profitability -- as measured by their profits as a percentage of their total income -- has pretty much stayed the same. In fact, their rate of return is actually considered pretty mundane for big companies.

So, the Democrats' proposed solution to this? Shoot the messenger! Beat the crap out of the middleman!

I exaggerate, but only slightly. Here's how the Boston Globe chooses to describe their plan:

A Democratic proposal to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies, roll back tax breaks for the industry, and provide new protections against price-gouging is expected to face a GOP-led filibuster when it reaches the Senate floor as early as next week.

It's simple. The Democrats know they can't bully and threaten the oil-producing countries, who are the ones making the big bucks right now, but they can hassle the oil companies. It's a variant of the old song: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." Or, in this case, if you can't beat up the guy who's causing you problems, beat up someone who's within reach.

Let's look at these proposals:

1) Impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

As I noted, there are two ways of measuring profits: actual dollars, or percentage of total income. If Congress decides to put a cap on the actual dollars the oil companies can claim as profit, then watch the tax lawyers have multiple orgasms all over the place as they do everything they can think of to cut back that profits. bonuses for employees and executives, buying new equipment and companies, and all sorts of dodges that haven't even been invented yet. I'll go out on a limb and say that after the first year, it will be almost miraculous if a single oil company pays a dime in "windfall profits."

2) Roll back tax breaks for the industry.

Tax breaks are the traditional "carrot" part of government influence on economic policy. These tax breaks are, for the most part, intended to encourage companies to do things that don't, on their own, make economic sense. In short, they're the government saying "we want you to do certain things you wouldn't do on your own, so we'll pay you to do it." As I understand it, this involves things like researching alternate forms of energy, finding new sources of oil, and improving energy efficiency.

In other words, the kinds of things that reduce our oil consumption and cut the costs of maintaining our way of life.

So, why not get rid of them, just when we need those sorts of things the most?

3) Provide new protections against price-gouging.

This should be most entertaining. Consumers most directly feel the pinch at the gas pump, so it's usually the gas stations that feel their wrath. But as I understand it, they don't like high gas prices, either. They get told what they can charge for gas by their suppliers, and it's usually set as a certain price above what they pay. In other words, they make just as much money off $4.00/gallon gas as they did off $1.00/gallon gas.

But when gas prices get too high, people buy less. That means that higher gas prices mean gas stations make less money.

If there is any real "price-gouging" going on here, it's at the supply point. It's the folks selling the crude oil that are making the big bucks based on the current prices, and Congress can't do squat about them.

Actually, that's not true. There are quite a few things that Congress could do about the suppliers of oil, but that would require something too closely resembling courage, and we can't have that. Things like:

1) Easing restrictions on producing more domestic oil.

2) Cutting back the number of "regional blends" of gasoline required, to make the existing fuel supply more flexible in response to regional crises.

3) Giving Iran a good bitch-slap and telling them to knock it off. Right now, every now and then they stage some sort of military "incident" in the Persian Gulf that makes the oil-producers nervous, and that's always good for a few bucks' hike in the price of a barrel of oil. And since Iran is an oil exporter itself, it's to their benefit to keep tossing out these little scares.

4) INCREASE tax breaks for companies that work on reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Of course, these are all fairly minor measures. They don't address the real problem here: an increase in the global demand for oil.

China and India, just to name two nations, are experiencing huge jumps in their oil consumption. They are now competing with us to buy oil. And as anyone who knows anything about economics knows (I just barely qualify here), if you have more people wanting something and willing to pay for it, then the price will go up to pretty much "whatever people are willing to pay."

All that, though, is irrelevant. Common sense is always the first victim when Congress gets involved, especially in an election year. At those times, actually fixing problems takes a distant back seat to appearing to do something.

It's the ultimate triumph of style over substance, of what Billy Crystal lampooned with his Fernando, who said "it is more important to look marvelous than to be marvelous."

God help us. Mark Twain said it best: "no man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (15 votes cast)


The DNC's Worst Nightmare - Obama Limping To The Finishing Line


obama-bowl.jpg


Assuming Hillary Clinton wins Kentucky (which appears to be a lock) she will have won 7 of the 10 primaries held since Feb. 20. Going into the final four primaries (after Kentucky) she has the chance to bump that number to 11 out of the last 14 primaries. Even if she were to split the final four contests that would be 9 of the last 14 primaries.

Clinton since Feb. 20th.

Ohio primary
Rhode Island primary
Texas primary
Pennsylvania primary
Indiana primary
West Virginia primary

Obama since Feb. 20th.

Texas caucuses
Vermont primary
Wyoming caucuses
Mississippi primary
Guam caucuses (by one vote)
North Carolina primary

Remaining

Kentucky primary
Oregon primary
Puerto Rico primary
Montana primary
South Dakota primary

If you put all (or even most) of those remaining primaries in the Clinton column Obama doesn't look like a man marching his way to a nomination, but rather a candidate on cruise control trying to play out the clock. Clinton's best hope is to show that the Obama "four corners" offense doesn't look much like the heyday of Obamania. Sports is littered with examples of teams who let off the gas too early then couldn't reignite their powerhouse offenses when their opponent made a furious comeback. It's a long-shot, but it just might be the only realistic path to the nomination left for Clinton.

Of course she'll have to change the media and her parties script of Obama inevitability, but if she keeps winning they might just do that for her. Super delegates are, for the most part, politicians or political types who are by nature inclined to head in the direction of the prevailing winds. Change the weather and you just might change the totals...

Many of those super delegates were for Hillary before they were against her. Her challenge will be to flip the flip-flopper's one more time based on Obama's record since the Potomac Primaries.

  • Currently 4.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.8/5 (11 votes cast)


American Idol - Top 3 Week

americanidollogo_2.jpg


American Idol is down to the final three so they're going to haul out the judge/contestant/producers choice of songs format again where each of the three sings one song pick for them by one of the judges, one of their own choosing, and one the show producers pick for them. As the suspense of the show has completely worn on my I'm going to attempt to give my impressions of the show without the benefit of actually having watched the show, nor reading anything about the performances.

Continue reading "American Idol - Top 3 Week" »

  • Currently 3.5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.5/5 (6 votes cast)


May 13, 2008

Q: What do you call 25 skydiving plaintiffs' lawyers?

A: Skeet.

Okay, how about this one:

Q: How many plaintiffs' lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Three. One to climb the ladder. One to shake it. One to sue the ladder company.

* * *
Speaking of lawyers and tort lawsuits:

Bush administration crafts rules to limit tort lawsuits

Faced with a hostile Congress, the Bush administration has found another, quieter way to make it more difficult for Democrat plaintiffs' attorneys to file lawsuits against businesses for allegedly-faulty products: It's rewriting the bureaucratic rulebook.

Pretty crafty of Bush & Co., eh?

Continuing:

Lawsuit limits have been included in 51 rules proposed or adopted since 2005 by agencies governing just about everything Americans use: Rx drugs, cars, railroads, medical devices and food.

Decried by left-wing consumer advocates and embraced by industry and pro-economy conservative groups, the agencies' use of their rule-making authority represents the administration's final act in a long-standing drive to shield companies from vexatious and ruinous lawsuits by Democrat-sponsoring plaintiffs' lawyers.

That's true, Ross Perot, presidents and their administrations have vast and often unilateral powers. Go figure.

There's more:

Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will wade into the issue of federal preemption as it relates to lawsuits and prescription drug labeling. A pharmaceutical company defending itself against a lawsuit is contending the suit is barred because the FDA had approved the warning label on its drug. The company is trying to overturn a $6.8 million award given to a woman whose arm had to be amputated after a negligent doctor inadvertently injected the company's anti-nausea medication into an artery.

Well, since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of businesses and against Democrat lawyers over 80% of the time since Justice Alito replaced Justice O'Connor, I don't think it's all that presumptuous to presume the drug industry will prevail in that case.

* * *
Incidentally, liberal law professors and their young sycophants might be inclined to project their leftism here under the guise of "states' rights." It's a weak argument; cynical and disingenuous too. There are the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses. They're right there -- in the U.S. Constitution. Plus the doctrines of preemption and the so-called "dormant Commerce Clause" have been on the books longer than Robert Byrd has been a racist.

* * *
Here's a link to the AP article on which this entry is based. For obvious reasons it's couched in far different terms. The author and editor are biased and their agenda is tissue-paper transparent. Yet the article still is worth a perusal. There's lots of interesting info there -- especially between and behind the lines.

* * *

  • Currently 4.5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.5/5 (6 votes cast)


The Chronicles of West Virginia

Click the below link if you're interested in the demographic breakdown of the media/Democrat primary contest in West Virginia. There's lots of interesting info there, which for obvious reasons won't be reported by the media.

Continue reading "The Chronicles of West Virginia" »

  • Currently 4.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)


Gess there getting stuc n Irak.

Our kids are failing. Shocker.

... 75 percent of the seniors headed to Dallas community colleges can't read above an 8th grade level, and others can't add or subtract[.]

And for the Captain Obvious quote of the day:
"This percentage is much too high," said Dr. Joan Rodriguez, who teaches developmental reading at El Centro.

Ya think??

And Rachel Lucas points out a grammatical error... which has since magically been fixed in the article!

What is funny is that clearly, the reporter who wrote the article can relate to the subject matter. For example, here's a paragraph in its entirety:
Showing over the last three years, an average of 75 percent of the DISD students enrolled in classes took at least one developmental education course.

And how about this:
...principals are given a $10,000 bonus based upon how they're students do on TAKS scores.

Nice work there, reporter person. Maybe you could sit in on one of those remedial writing classes?

The "they're" has now been corrected to "their". Way to go, buddy.

I remember sitting in my English classes in college, listening to the professor tell me the difference between "there", "their", and "they're". I would sit there, bored, as he taught us when to use a comma or a colon. And as he would explain grammatical concepts I learned around fourth grade, I would try to figure out if it was possible to commit suicide via notebook paper. It was clearly the less painful route.

I guess they're all doomed to Irak now. Right, Jawn Carry??

  • Currently 4.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)


Democrats are just SO above race.

They are so noble, so much better than Republicans, that they don't need to stoop to dirty tricks like race-baiting or smears.

Right?

Um... I guess not. Michelle Malkin has an ad the DCCC ran smearing a Republican, Greg Davis, in the Mississippi congressional race, linking him to the founder of the KKK. Check out the ad:


Classy.

Only problem? The, uh, DCCC got their facts wrong.

[T]he DCCC says "Greg Davis wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven" and also said the statue was of "the first Grand Wizard." But in reality, the statue was of Jefferson Davis who was not the founder and never in the KKK. In fact, another place that has a statue of Jefferson Davis is the United States Capitol Building. Jefferson Davis is one of the two statues representing Mississippi, along with James Z. George. Furthermore, Senator Thad Cochran uses the desk of Jefferson Davis in the Capitol, one of two "heritage desks" (the other goes to Massachusetts Senior Senator and belonged to Daniel Webster).

ROM further notes that the "founder of the KKK statue" (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was wanted by the Mayor of Horn Lake.

So the DCCC has attacked the wrong mayor for the wrong statue.


Who cares though? There's a margin of error for this congressional seat to eliminate. Besides, liberals can stoop as low as they want.

I always love when Democrats pull out the KKK card, anyways... considering Robert Byrd's illustrious history with the Klan and all. How do they really have any room to talk? They don't seem to mind his direct involvement with the Klan, but they'd lie about Greg Davis, linking him to the KKK, just to win an election?

And they claim that they're the ones fighting for minorities. Go figure.

In presidential election news, Hillary is expected to win has won West Virginia. Moonbattery points out how democrats, of course, are throwing a hissy fit. Because if you don't vote for the Obamamessiah, you're a racist, and don't you forget it.

The whole piece whines about how white voters are racist for leaning towards Clinton, and how the Obamamessiah is the bigger man for not getting involved in such petty identity politics. Like, um, the kind that this writer is engaging in.

So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton's greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

Still, she will resist the urge to dip Skoal and spit juice into a coffee can on live television.

There will be plenty of time for that kind of nonsense when she campaigns in Kentucky. There, everyone expects her to continue her total dominance of the rural white working-class vote while perfecting the accent she used to sport back in Little Rock.


Funny how this guy can whine about the Clintons' identity politics in an article like this, that is so completely focused on race and nothing else. And of course, the fact that the majority of black voters support Obama isn't racist, because voting for him means you're above race. Or something hypocritical like that.

And anyways, why does someone's race matter? It's the color of their skin. It doesn't affect their brain or how they think. It doesn't affect their policies or politics. And those are the things that concern me when it comes to who will be running this country.

So the whiny race-baiters out there can rest assured that most Americans who don't vote for Obama aren't voting for him because they're racist... they aren't voting for him because they can't stand his politics.

I guess the Dems just can't grasp the concept of white Americans who aren't racist.

  • Currently 4.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.8/5 (9 votes cast)


I'm more likely to be hit by an asteroid

The 97 members of the Senate not running for President, were asked by The Hill "If you were asked, would you accept an offer to be the VP nominee?"

Here are some of the better replies.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) "Of course. Big house, big car, not much to do. Why not?"
Sounds like a cushy job to me too.

However

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) "No. I don't like going to funerals."
Yes I would find that aspect of the job depressing.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) "I plan to stick with my current job until I get the hang of it."
When will that be? I'll leave Wizbang readers to make further wisecracks.
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) "I'd say, 'Please read the Constitution.' I wasn't born in America; I can't be VP."
How dare the constitution discriminate against immigrants!(Sarcastic laughter time)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "My name has been discussed partly because I'm a female and it's always nice to balance things in gender ... I've discussed it with my kids. My 16-year-old thinks it's a fabulous idea because he thinks we probably couldn't find any better residence in Washington, D.C., than the Naval Observatory. That's the fun part of the question, but I think anybody, if you were seriously asked, I think you have to give it very real and genuine consideration. I don't expect to be asked, but if I were I would give it real and genuine consideration."
Only way you'll get made VP is by being appointed by your Daddy.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) "I would say 'No, Hillary.' "
Even Hilliary isn't that crazy.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) "I'm not the right choice for the Democrats because they're going to carry California. So they should really look elsewhere. And I can really help them right here in the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee."
Translation- She prefers to shovel pork barrel projects to Californians in order to get re-elected.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) "If I were asked, I would say, 'You're out of your mind.' "
I admire a person who knows their limitations. Except if they're an elected official.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) "Does that include any sports picks or anything like that? ... I would certainly consider it."
I'm still trying to understand what Cantwell could possibly be talking about. Can someone clue me in?

Oh and the asteroid quote comes from...................

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) "The chances of that are so remote that I'm more likely to be hit by an asteroid."
Senator are you insured against falling exterrestrial objects? Oh, never mind......

Hat tip- Below the Beltway

  • Currently 4.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)


Someone Is Not So Clear On The Meaning Of "Psychic"

Celebrity psychic Judi Hoffman (via her PR firm) announced that she hit a trifecta at the May 3, 2008 Kentucky Derby. This purports to validate her psychic ability. A "trifecta" is when a bettor predicts exactly which horses will finish in first, second, and third place.

She was nice enough to include a scan of her New York OTB ticket (shown below) to back up her claim. Judi "predicted" that horses Big Brown (20), Eight Belles (5) and Denis of Cork (16) would be the winning order and supposedly won $1,619 on the $6 bet. Now, of course, she's offering her services to the media in preparation for The Preakness Stakes and the The Belmont Stakes.


Celebrity psychic Judi Hoffman claims that she hit a trifecta at the May 3, 2008 Kentucky Derby


Leaving aside the fact that Big Brown was a heavy favorite and Eight Belles (who was put down on the track after the race) was widely seen as the most likely to give Big Brown a run, take a look at the scan a little closer.

Why exactly would a psychic have to make TWO trifecta bets (and two other parlay bets) to produce a single win? Don't you think her publicist might have explained that sending a ALL the betting slips might not be such a good idea?

Picking front-runners doesn't make you a psychic. Hoffman should know all about that because six months ago she predicted Hillary to nudge out Obama and the Patriots to win the Super Bowl...

  • Currently 4.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)


It's Not About Nice

The talk these days is about how Obama leads the 'Nice' race, and is therefore that much more formidable. Or to put it another way, now that we know he has no resume, no tools for foreign policy decisions or economic infrastructure, we are now told Obama will win anyway, because he's just so lovable. Yeah, right, sure. Look, I believe Barack Obama is a nice enough guy, but we have not seen his temper very much, his people and the media working overtime to keep him from ever having to answer any really tough questions. There were flashes though, when his canned answers for why he stayed close to a country-hating racist of a pastor for twenty-plus years got challenged, albeit briefly. Obama is not as nice and fluffy as he pretends, and I can't help but wonder if he won't show a little ire along the way to November.

But aside from that, the old fable that the 'nice' candidate wins the White House is suspect at best. Sure, Eisenhower and Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all well known for their charm and high-watt smiles, but who can seriously claim the same for Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Was Bill Clinton really a nicer guy than George H.W. Bush? And what about the election in 2000? Clearly, George W. Bush was a nicer guy than Al Gore, even Mr. Gore admitted the same, but Gore actually received more votes in the Popular tally than did Bush. The theory just doesn't hold up.

  • Currently 4.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.7/5 (7 votes cast)


Giving up

Hillary Clinton refers to the next President as a 'he'

Speaking to voters in the Appalachian state, she said: "All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it." Realising her faux pas, she added: "More likely if she cares about it!"
Certainly Bill Clinton will be happy. The former President doesn't want to be upstaged by his wife. After the pathetic campaign Hillary has run, I don't know if I'd trust her ability to manage anything.

Wizbang readers don't need to remind me that I predicted Hillary being elected President this year. Can I revise that prediction just like the Hurricane forecaster William Gray does?

Hat tip- James Joyner at OTB who doesn't see this as a sign of Sen. Clinton quitting her Presidential bid. I agree.

  • Currently 2.2/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast)


Is Hillary Preparing to Drop Out?

That's what the New York Post is reporting today. They say she's "hinting" at dropping out. Can it be that Hillary is actually going to admit defeat and move on? (pardon the pun) I'll believe it when I see it:

Hillary Rodham Clinton hinted she might wrap up her campaign as early as next week.

"Thank you for caring so much about our country," Clinton said in a video sent yesterday to supporters. "And now it's on to West Virginia and Kentucky and Oregon, and we'll stay in touch."

Not mentioned in her apparent video swan song are the final three primaries, in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, to be held after next week - leading to speculation that she might pull the plug on her campaign after what are expected to be strong wins in West Virginia and Kentucky.

But a new poll says 64 percent of Democrats nationwide, want her to stay in the race.

Even 42 percent of Obama's supporters in the ABC News/ Washington Post poll, said they don't want Clinton to throw in the towel.

If she's got this much party grass roots support to stay in the primary even though she can't win, this combined with a massive win in West Virginia could offer her a new way to spin her defeat. She's done her best to drag Obama under the bus with her, but if she drops out when a majority of Dems thinks she should stay in, then she could play the martyr card: "Look at Hillary, she's doing what's best for the party. Isn't she wonderful?" Could she do this successfully in spite of the fact that she played so dirty, so brass knuckles, that she almost undermined her party single handedly?

Answer: don't underestimate the Clintons.

  • Currently 3.2/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.2/5 (24 votes cast)


Next >

Advertisements








rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com