Irish Christmas music on the pennywhistel.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
More dirt on Elmer
The Cooler has some of the goods on Elmer Gantry:
The Cooler has obtained documents that show Mike Huckabee received $378,000 in consulting fees during 2006, while he was still governor of Arkansas.
Most noteworthy, $35,000 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure.
He also received speaking fees and honoraria from churches while Governor.
It is certainly calls into question whether or not it is appropriate for a Governor to be taking a consulting fee from interest groups, as Huckabee did, when issues surrounding that interest group could come across his desk.
The consulting money was funneled through an organization called 12 stops, a group created in 2004 to handle Gov. Huckabee's book deals. With all the attention Senator Obama received for running a separate PAC and potentially funnelling money from maxed out donors through that PAC, it calls into question whether Huckabee may have done the same.
You can view a full list of Huckabee "donors" here.
My fellow conservatives, my fellow Republicans, my fellow Christians. Do not put your trust in this man. He is deceitful and dishonorable and will let you down in a major way.
There is a real conservative in this race and he is Fred Thompson. Back him and you will not be disappointed.
Elmer Gantry wants to talk to Rush
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — The best-talking Republican politician in America has a message for the best-talking conservative voice in the country: Let's talk to one another.
Mike Huckabee, taking questions from reporters after a town hall meeting here, responded to the torrent of criticism that Rush Limbaugh unleashed during his broadcast yesterday by turning the other cheek — and then heaping on the praise.
"I love Rush Limbaugh; I've always loved his show," Huckabee assured. "I think he’s been great for the conservative movement."
The former Arkansas governor conceded that he hadn't sought Limbaugh out to set the record straight — but that he would like to.
"I don’t have his number," Huckabee explained. "If you have it, Jonathan, why don’t you give it to me. I’d love to talk to him."
"Maybe put it on the Web that if he’ll call me, I’d love to visit with him."
OK Elmer, Rush's number is 800-282-2882. Go ahead and give him a call. They even move liberals to the head of the line so you won't have to wait too long to get on the air.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
The Great White Dhimmi North
From Front Page Magazine:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have begun proceedings against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone. They are responding to complaints from the Canadian Islamic Congress about an excerpt from the book that was published in the Canadian journal Maclean’s. “The article,” the CIC claims, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt,” and was “flagrantly Islamophobic.”
To be sure, the article was pretty strong stuff. Here’s a bit of it: “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Even worse, it goes on to say: “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.”
“A Muslim continent”! “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes”! No wonder the CIC was upset. And not just the CIC: writer Jim Henley, whose articles have appeared in The New Republic and The American Spectator Online, quoted the “mosquitoes” line and called Steyn a “racist.” There were just two problems: The “Muslim continent” statement is not only factual, it’s stated in words no one can characterize as inflammatory. (Also, it’s been said by Libya’s strongman Muammar Qaddafi). Second, “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” was not Steyn’s phrase. He was quoting Mullah Krekar, a jihadist who currently resides in Norway, although officials have been trying for years to get him out of the country..
And that sums up the problem with the Canadian human rights commissions’ action against Steyn: he was simply reporting on contemporary European reality. It was not Mark Steyn, but Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne who said at the United Nations in 1974: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” Those who want to silence Steyn want to suppress facts and limit free speech.
It was not Steyn who said that “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor,” and that “the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology.” That was Al-Jazeera’s Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, who is widely hailed as a moderate reformer in the West. Did Steyn say that Muslims “will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it”? Nope. That one comes from a Saudi Sheikh, Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-‘Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is putting itself in the peculiar position of penalizing those non-Muslims who report on such statements, as if it is somehow an act encouraging “hatred and contempt” to reveal the unpleasant reality that comprises mainstream Islamic rhetoric today. There is no indication that the CHRC has done a thing to investigate the possibility that some Muslims in Canada might hold the views of Mullah Krekar, Qaddafi, Boumédienne, Qaradhawi and Sheikh Muhammad. When the CIC’s President Mohamed Elmasry said in 2004 that all Israelis over age eighteen were legitimate targets, the CHRC took no action. But Elmasry, you see, is part of a protected victim class.
Actions like the one against Steyn threaten the foundation of free society. Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people -- whoever they may be -- must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Canada is a different case -- but wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. That is no less so in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
"If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America. . . " That may well be a major reason why the modern left doesn't really have a problem with limiting free speech.
Hollywood will not make a true pro-US movie
From The Washington Times:
Conservative officials who served in the Reagan administration are upset by the left-wing slant of the new movie about the covert action program that helped Afghan guerrillas defeat the Soviet army during the 1980s.
"Charlie Wilson's War," out Friday, is based on a book about former Rep. Charles Wilson, Texas Democrat, known widely on Capitol Hill during his tenure as "Good Time Charlie" and who helped fund the semi-secret war that ultimately helped fell the Soviet Union.
The Reagan-era officials said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Bin Laden, the officials said, never got CIA funding or weapons, and was not directly involved in Islamist extremist activities until years after the Afghan operation ended after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989.
That anti-American aspect of the film, namely that the Afghan operation ultimately caused the September 11 attacks, reportedly was altered after protests from Mr. Wilson and his former fiancee, Joanne Herring.
The movie also erred by showing Mr. Wilson and his CIA collaborator, Gust Avrakotos, as enthusiastic backers of supplying advanced U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan rebels.
Fred Ikle, the undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said the CIA initially fought against sending Stingers, while Mr. Wilson was lukewarm on the matter. Both later supported the plan once rebels began downing Soviet gunships with them
"Senior people in the Reagan administration, the president, [CIA Director] Bill Casey, [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger and their aides deserve credit for the successful Afghan covert action program, not just Charlie Wilson," Mr. Ikle said in an interview.
The officials blamed the anti-Reagan slant of the film on the movie's screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, the Hollywood liberal who regularly attacked conservatives on his television drama "The West Wing," also known as "The Left Wing" because of its liberal bias.
The lie that America itself somehow "created" al Qaeda and caused 9/11 by funding Osama bin Laden has been out there for some time. Those of us who were paying attention at the time (one of the benefits of being an old fart is that you remember lots of stuff from the past) know what utter BS that is.
When escorting Americans who were either reporting on the war or aiding Afghans fighting the Soviets Afghan guides had to be careful to avoid the areas controlled by those loyal to bin Laden because they would routinely kill Americas and those who worked with them. Bin Laden took nothing from the US and gave nothing to the US.
Although it was the US Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which finally tipped the scales and resulted in the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan bin Laden likes to take credit for the defeat of the USSR there. He also likes to say that the defeat in Afghanistan is the one event which brought down the USSR.
The truth is more complex. Afghanistan was one factor in the Soviet government's loss of legitimacy at home but more important were the refusal of Ronald Reagan to back off from his determination to change the US policy of containment of communism to one of aggressively rolling back communism. With the support of Margaret Thatcher (who was invaluable in keeping or NATO allies in line) Reagan deployed theater nuclear weapons in Europe which, along with the Enhanced Radiation Weapon (neutron bomb) made it impossible for the USSR to maintain a credible threat of invasion of Western Europe.
This along with Reagan's refusal to back off of SDI deactivated the most important weapon in the Soviet arsenal, the power to intimidate the West into granting concessions.
Add to this the clandestine funding and other support that Pope John-Paul II gave to the Solidarity movement in Poland, which drove the final wedge between the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact "allies" and you see what finally brought down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire.
To claim that the defeat of one of the most evil powers to ever plague the earth was somehow responsible for the attacks of 9/11 takes Bush Derangement Syndrome and general America Hatred (two symptoms of the same mental illness known as left-liberalism) to new and previously undreamed of heights.
It is to be hoped that Charlie Wilson's War will die a quick death at the box office, but with Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman to draw an audience that is unlikely to happen.
Reluctantly posting about Jamie Spears
NEW YORK (AP) - Nickelodeon is considering a special for its young audience about sex and love following the news that 16-year-old "Zoey 101" star Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant.
The television network has made no announcement about the future of "Zoey 101," its popular program aimed primarily at youngsters aged 9- 14. Filming for the show's fourth and final season has finished, and episodes are scheduled to begin airing in February.
For the special, Nickelodeon said it's talking with Linda Ellerbee, the veteran newswoman who has stepped in frequently in the past with shows on talking to children about difficult issues in the news. She's done shows about same-sex parents, AIDS, the Columbine shooting and President Clinton's impeachment scandal.
"I think it's important that something be done," Ellerbee told The Associated Press on Thursday. "But I think it's important that it be done in a measured way, and not just to feed the beast of news stories.
A Nickelodeon spokesman, Dan Martinsen, confirmed the discussions but said no decision had been made.
Spears, the younger sister of pop star Britney Spears, told the OK! celebrity magazine this week that she was pregnant. The father is her 19-year-old boyfriend, Casey Aldridge. She said she plans to raise the baby in her home state of Louisiana.
Nickelodeon has made no comment beyond a supportive statement for its star: "We respect Jamie Lynn's decision to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation. We know this is a very difficult time for her and her family, and our primary concern right now is for Jamie Lynn's well being."
The company has received a mixed response so far from its viewers, and the news has launched a public discussion about how parents should deal with it.
"This is a great opportunity for parents at this moment to talk to their kids about this—more important, to listen to their kids about this," Ellerbee said.
The reason that I'm taking any note of this now is that I've been hearing commentators say stuff the past few days like "this was the only way Jamie Lynn could "out-slut" her older sister".
Now I don't know Jamie Lynn Spears, if fact I didn't even know she existed until this story broke, but the fact that we haven't heard a constant stream of stories about her antics would seem to be proof positive that she isn't cut from the same cloth as her older sister.
The fact is that the kid had sex without taking precautions and got knocked up. This is a good reason (along with the moral issues) why teenagers shouldn't be sexually active. They lack the maturity to take responsibility about things like pregnancy and STD prevention.
However we have all "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" so I am not going to throw stones.
I am also going to offer a few words in Ms. Spears defense. Please take note of the fact that she did not just "pee on the stick" then head down to the abortion mill to have the child chopped into pieces and sucked into a jar. She could have done this and no one would have ever been the wiser. Instead she chose to take responsibility, let her child live and tell the truth about what had happened. She did this in spite of the fact that it could cause Nickelodeon to cancel the last season of her series. Something which would cause her considerable loss of income.
As Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul has observed being obedient to God is not about drinking, dancing or wearing makeup. It is, rather, about doing the right thing even when it costs you money. So far Jamie Lynn Spears has done the right thing. Until that changes I urge people to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Saturday morning cartoon and commercial
Grampy appeared in many cartoons with Betty Boop but this is his only solo appearence. I guess that the cartoon's producers, Max and Dave Fleischer, didn't get the memo that as non-Christians, they were Jewish, they were supposed to be deeply offended by any mention of Christmas.
It's not too late to sponsor a toy with Toys for Tots.
Why Tancredo likes Mitt
From The American Spectator:
Rep. Tom Tancredo yesterday afternoon endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney after one of Tancredo's senior advisers, Bay Buchanan, pressed him to make the endorsement.
Buchanan is a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As well, rumors were swirling in the media pool covering the press conference that Romney had made a personal commitment to assist Tancredo should he choose to run for office again in the near future.
Romney has flip-flopped on the immigration issue, the one issue that Tancredo drove during his long-shot presidential bid, and a number of advisers to Tancredo on the immigration issue had been pressing him over the past three days to endorse former Sen. Fred Thompson, whose illegal immigration policies are more in line with Tancredo's.
In fact several months ago, according to an influential anti-immigration-reform adviser to Tancredo, as well as other conservatives, Tancredo was prepared to endorse Thompson if he came out in support of Tancredo's specific anti-illegal-immigration policy proposals. But Thompson was not yet in the presidential race, and Tancredo instead decided to push forward with his own campaign.
"We're all scratching our heads a little on this one," says the immigration adviser. "It isn't the one we would have had him made, but Bay is extremely influential with him and clearly her advice carried more sway than our opinion did."
A member of Tancredo's campaign says that while Buchanan's opinion might have had greater influence than others, Tancredo's main criterion was electability. "Romney has made the better showing thus far, and Tom wants to have a influence in the Republican Party beyond Iowa," says the adviser. "Romney was just the smarter pick."
I have run across some people who are very bitter about Tancredo's endorsement of Mitt. They feel that he should have backed Thompson as the only true conservative in the race. They have taken this to mean that Tom is a complete hypocrite who never really believed his anti-illegal immigration rhetoric.
I disagree.
Tancredo has made a pragmatic decision to back the most conservative candidate he believes can win. He has obviously noticed the same things about Fred's unwillingness to sacrifice his self-perceived dignity by climbing down into the sewer with the other candidates and engaging in the no-holds-barred knife fight which the voters require of a candidate to prove that "he really wants it" that I have. Tancredo obviously feels that Romney has the best chance of winning as is on board to help him.
There is also the possibility that Tancredo has been offered the VP spot in a Romney administration. This would be a good thing because it would ensure that the border control position would be well represented in the Romney cabinet. This would gain Romney much needed votes from the border security wing of the GOP.
Tonight's Music
This is the first day of winter and this is the best winter video I have ever seen. This is Enya's On My Way Home. This is from her CD The Memory of Trees
Friday, December 21, 2007
Trashing Hillary
From NRO:
Well, the most disgusting, craven, shameless political ad of the election season has just come out in time for Christmas — and, no, it’s not from Mike Huckabee. It’s from Hillary Clinton.
Huckabee’s ad has gotten all of the attention because of its alleged “floating cross” masquerading as a bookshelf (or vice versa) and its overall 700 Club Christmas Special feel. But you know what? There’s no public policy involved in his ad. Sure, there’s a dose of Christian identity politics — more than a dose according to some — but no one following the race is particularly stunned to find out that Mike Huckabee is a committed Christian. His ads say he’s a “Christian leader” and that his faith “defines” him.
I’m not thrilled by the explosion of Christian piety in Republican politics, particularly with Huckabee’s version of it, but nobody’s fooled by it either.
Now look at Clinton’s ad. Gussied up a bit like Martha Stewart, a chipper Hillary sits on her couch, arranging all of her Christmas presents to put under the tree. “Carol of the Bells” is playing on a harpsichord in the background. She’s trying to find the right cards to put on the right packages. One is labeled “Universal Health Care,” another is “Alternative Energy,” another is “Middle Class Tax Breaks.” And then the supposedly hilarious kicker. Wringing her hands and furrowing her brow with maternal angst, she exclaims, “Where did I put universal pre-K?”
And then, scanning the giant pile of presents — all for you, the voter, of course — a warm smile comes over her face and she says, “Ah, there it is!” She tucks the card under the ribbon, the music fades away, and the screen turns oddly black with a ghostly and gothic “Happy Holidays” message. (In fact, there’s something about the harpsichord music that gives the whole thing a Vincent Price spookiness.)
Of course, pandering is nothing new in American politics. “If there had been any formidable body of cannibals in the country,” H.L. Mencken complained of Harry Truman’s 1948 presidential campaign, “he would have promised to provide them with free missionaries fattened at the taxpayers’ expense.”
But if you take Hillary’s ad remotely as seriously as many are taking Huckabee’s, you’re left with a disturbing glimpse of not just Hillary’s politics but her vision of government. Her programs, which would cost billions and billions of dollars by even the most generous accounting, are simply “gifts” for the American people. No sacrifice, no cost, no strings attached at all — save the price of your vote.
The implication is that the only thing standing between you and Hillary’s trinkets is a president who doesn’t want you to have ’em. This is monarchical thinking; good ruler throws loaves of bread to the peons and asks for nothing but love in return.
The truth, as Clinton knows very well, is that it’s not so easy. To govern is to choose. “Give” the people X and it will come at the expense of Y. Indeed, until recently, Clinton’s whole schtick has been to emphasize that change is hard work, requiring sacrifice and compromise. She’d lecture Iowa audiences that real change comes from fighting for it. Now that she’s on the ropes, it’s all yours for the asking.
It’s a profound commentary on the state of our political culture that Huckabee’s ad is the controversial one. Huckabee promises nothing, Hillary everything.
The contrast between the Candidate of God and the Candidate of Goodies should remind everyone of P. J. O’Rourke’s timeless book Parliament of Whores.
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat,” wrote the indispensable O’Rourke.
“God” he explained, is “a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. ... God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.”
P. J. continues: “Santa Claus is another matter. ... He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of a quid pro quo.”
“Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one,” O’Rourke concluded. “There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
P.J.’s right. But you won’t be hearing that from Hillary this holiday season.
Three observations:
1. The Huckabee video Christmas card. I know that it is a campaign season and that "everything is political", but can't a frakin' Baptist frakin' preacher wish everyone a frakin' merry frakin' Christmas without everyone having a frakin' cow?
2. If Mrs. Bill Clintons commitment to "alternate energy" meant a true commitment to liquefied coal as a motor fuel to replace petroleum I would vote for her in spite of everything I hate about her.
3. God knows that Fred Thompson has his faults, and they are brobdingnagian,. but he is still the only real conservative in the race. I beg, on bended knee, that all my conservative readers get behind him and push.
Elmer Gantry is not "our guy"
From The Wall Street Journal:
As pigs in pokes go, the Democratic Party bought itself a big one in 1988. Michael Dukakis was relatively unknown, but he was also the last man standing. Only too late did his party, along with the rest of the country, realize Mr. Dukakis was a typecast liberal--a furlougher of felons, and a guy who looked mighty awkward in a tank.
This is what happens when a party takes a flyer, and it could be Republicans' turn with Mike Huckabee. The former Baptist minister and governor of Arkansas is surging in Iowa, and is tied with Rudy Giuliani in national polls. He's selling his party on a simple message: He's not those other guys, with their flip-flops and different faiths, and dicey social positions. As to what Mr. Huckabee is--that's as unknown to most voters as the Almighty himself.
Mr. Huckabee is starting to get a look-see by the press, though whether the nation will have time to absorb the findings before the primaries is just as unknown. The small amount that has been unearthed so far ought to have primary voters nervous. It isn't just that Mr. Huckabee is far from a traditional conservative; he's a potential ethical time bomb.
On policy, Mr. Huckabee's tenure in Arkansas has shown him to be ambivalent about tax increases, variously supporting sales tax hikes, cigarette and gasoline taxes and Internet taxes. Spending increased 65% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.
He's so lackluster on education reform that he recently received an endorsement from the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association--the first ever of a GOP candidate. The union cited Mr. Huckabee's opposition to school vouchers. Mr. Huckabee is a fan of greater subsidies for farmers and "clean energy." He's proven himself a political neophyte on foreign policy, joining Democrats to skewer President Bush and glorify the "diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy" line.
Most of this is out there, thoroughly documented, and even now slowly filtering its way to voters. Of more concern is what has not yet been discovered about Mr. Huckabee's time as Arkansas lieutenant governor and governor, in particular on ethical issues. There are signs that Mr. Huckabee's background--borne of the same Arkansas establishment that produced Bill Clinton--is ripe to provide the sort of pop-up political scandal that could derail a general election campaign.
In Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was investigated by the state ethics committee at least 14 times. Most of the complaints centered on what appears to be a serial disregard for government rules about gifts and outside financial compensation. He reported $112,000 worth of gifts in one year alone, nearly double his $67,000 salary.
Five of the 14 investigations resulted in admonishments: Two for failing to report gifts (one was later overturned), the other three for some $80,000 that Mr. Huckabee and his wife received but failed to initially report. One of these admonishments involved a $23,500 payment to Mr. Huckabee from an opaque organization called Action America that he helped found in 1994 while lieutenant governor, and that was designed to coordinate his speeches and supplement his income.
Mr. Huckabee caused an uproar when he used a $60,000 account intended to maintain the governor's mansion for personal expenses, including restaurant meals, dry cleaning and boat supplies. He also faced a lawsuit over his assertion that $70,000 worth of furniture donated to the mansion was his to keep. Sprinkled among all this are complaints about the misuse of state planes and campaign funds, mistakes on financial disclosure forms, and fights over documents related to ethics investigations.
Any one of these episodes individually may appear penny ante, but they add up to a disturbing pattern. People I've spoken with who worked with Mr. Huckabee in Arkansas dispute the idea that he is "corrupt." They instead ascribe his ethical mishaps to a "blind spot" rooted in his beginnings as a Baptist minister and a Southern culture of gift-giving; they suggest he never made the mental transition to public office.
Some will also argue Mr. Huckabee is no more ethically challenged than Mr. Giuliani, who is getting pounded with questions about Judith Nathan's security detail and Giuliani Partner clients. The difference is that Hizzoner is a celebrity whose past bones were long ago picked clean by the media crows. Even the Nathan flap is an extension of news that made the rounds five years ago.
Do we really want to hand the party's chances in 2008 of a candidate whose only recomendation is that he is more ethical than Julie Annie?
The obscure governor from Arkansas is, in contrast, a deep sea for media diving. Most recent have been stories about his pardons and commutations, as well as the news that R.J. Reynolds contributed to Action America. Mr. Huckabee--who now wants a national smoking ban in public places--responded that he never knew he accepted tobacco money, which has inspired a former adviser to claim Mr. Huckabee is being "less than truthful." What's next?
Elmer pardoned more convicted felons than all the governors of all the surronding states combined. He gave all the signs of someone who wanted to play God by handing out mercy from his throne.
The GOP is still reeling from its financial scandals, which helped Democrats tag the party with a "culture of corruption" in last year's congressional races. A Huckabee nomination would also neutralize one of the biggest weapons against nominee Hillary Clinton--her own ethically tortured past. If the subject came up at all, it would be a race to the Arkansas bottom. A matchup with Barack Obama could be worse, since the "politics of hope" senator has so far avoided scandal and could bludgeon Mr. Huckabee on his past.
Democrats know it. Here's an interesting statistic: Since the beginning of 2007, the Democratic National Committee has released 102 direct attacks on Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani has warranted 78; John McCain 68; Fred Thompson 21. Mike Huckabee? Four. The most recent of these landed back in March. GOP voters may not have examined Mr. Huckabee's record, but the left has--and they love what they see.
So far, GOP voters do, too. Most appear attracted to Mr. Huckabee's image as a "sincere" and "genuine" guy. The former governor may be both of those, but he's also got a past. Voters are going to want to look before they leap.
Huckabee is not a true conservative. In fact he isn't really a good fake conservative. He holds conservative positions on a few issues like abortion and homosexual marriage but he is a liberal in all other areas. Just like Giuliani is conservative on tax and national security but is liberal on everything else. Neither of them would make a good nominee for the party and both should be rejected.
slimy dick explains it all
From Front Page Magazine:
In the New York Times/CBS poll of Dec. 11, Hillary was overwhelmingly rated as the most likely of the Democratic candidates to defeat the Republicans in the 2008 general election.
Asked, regardless of how they were voting, which candidate was most likely to defeat the GOP, 63 percent of Democratic primary voters said Hillary Clinton was the most likely to win in November, while only 14 percent chose Obama and 10 percent selected Edwards.
Good news for Hillary? Yes, for now. But it could indicate a potential for disaster should she stumble in the early primaries and caucuses.
A lot of voters are backing Hillary because they see her as a winner and they are hungry to throw the Republicans out of the White House. When Mrs. Clinton touts her experience (and Mr. Clinton does it for her), the voters don’t necessarily hear government experience. A lot focus on her campaign experience instead. The team that survived Gennifer Flowers and the draft and the Contract With America and Monica and carpet-bagging in New York state can, presumably, weather any storm. Hillary has a carefully cultivated impression of invincibility that serves as one of her principal attractions to Democratic primary voters.
But what will happen if she loses in Iowa or in New Hampshire? The latest average of the past five polls in Iowa, compiled by www.realclearpolitics.com, shows Obama in the lead, 30-26. If the Illinois senator wins in Iowa, it could send Hillary to defeat in New Hampshire, where her lead in the past five polls averaged only 3 points.
Since so much of her vote is based on her presumed ability to win elections, her loss of the winner image might set in motion a domino effect of cascading defeats in the primaries far more dramatic than is typical in presidential elections. The more her current vote share is based on the presumption of invincibility, the more a defeat — or several in a row — could hurt.
Those who live by their reputation for winning also can die from losing.
Much of Hillary’s presumed superiority to Obama in their ability to beat a Republican candidate stems from a politically correct racism. Democratic primary voters — while denying any prejudice themselves, of course — may worry about whether an African-American can win a national election. They may be reluctant to try to break the color barrier when a continuation of Republican rule would ensue from failure. But an Obama win in lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire could dispel this lingering doubt and boost his chances disproportionately.
For her part, defeats in the early going could also undermine Hillary’s reputation for strength, a key asset for any woman seeking public office. If she shows weakness at the ballot box, it could translate into a perception of weakness in her persona, which might cost her even more votes in the subsequent primaries. Already, Hillary is flirting with disaster by maintaining so heavy a reliance on her husband. The more a wife needs her husband to boost her to victory or to handle her opponents, the more voters will impute weakness to her and wonder if she can stand alone as president.
Of course, Hillary has a real potential for a comeback. Bill’s characterization of an Obama victory as a “roll of the dice” may not do a lot to boost his wife’s chances now, when people expect Hillary to win. But if Obama prevails in the first few primaries, he will acquire a place in the sun at the cost of being in the spotlight. There, his inexperience will be widely debated and the ensuing dialogue might drive voters back to Hillary. It is hard to believe that voters, on sober second thought, would abandon Hillary and vote for a man whom they had never heard of until very recently.
Unless they finally see through Hillary, of course.
Slimy dick throws that bit about "seeing through" Hillary in at the last so that conservatives, who make up his current audience, will think he is one of them in opposing the Clinton Machine. And to be fair he does oppose Hillary. Because it was Hillary that got him kicked out of his place of special access to, and power over, Bill.
What slimy dick really craves it to be restored to his former place at the side of Bill, but that's not going to happen, so he takes his potshots.
He is usefull because he knows them better than anyone else and is almost always on target but do not make the mistake of assuming that he is anything more than an ally of convenience.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Bill, the mill stone around Hillary's neck
Another observation from David Limbaugh:
It would be bad enough if only cynical sexists accused her of glomming on to Bill for power. But there will be no Hillary presidency apart from Bill. He can't stay out of her business. He can't stand it if someone else has center stage, especially his wife, who he will have put in office.
Hillary promotes the myth that she shared a co-presidency with Bill, but her role has been greatly exaggerated. He didn't need her except to handle bimbo eruptions, feign surprise at his infidelity and stand by her man in the face of impeachment by "the vast right wing conspiracy." But I bet he only allowed her in on policy decisions, like health care, to pacify her.
We'll never know the full extent of her involvement, but we can be fairly sure she was in no way a co-president. He was the man.
Some things never change. He is still the man, and if she becomes president, the next Clinton presidency will feature markedly different dynamics from the first. The Constitution will say she's sole president, but Bill's constitution will say otherwise. Unless she is weaker than many assume and totally dependent upon him, she will surely find his irrepressibility and narcissism a powerful and distracting annoyance.
Can you envision the anarchy that could ensue on Pennsylvania Avenue? Other than "24's" fictional President Logan, did any other U.S. president have to enlist the Secret Service to sequester his spouse?
Apart from the "24," scenario I'm being quite serious about this. Bill Clinton is not constitutionally constructed to play second fiddle. Try as he might, he cannot help himself.
Even if he wouldn't vie for direct power -- which is unlikely, considering he's already lobbying for it with his ill-considered quip that Hillary would appoint him and Bush 41 as world ambassadors -- it's inconceivable he wouldn't always be trying to grab the headlines. And the media will always be ready to accommodate him.
So in the end, a Hillary presidency, in addition to the other woefully bad things about it, will be an internally chaotic, unstable mess. Unless she can muzzle Bill more on the campaign trail -- which could hurt her prospects as well -- voters are bound to consider these things if she wins the nomination and they more soberly contemplate an actual Clinton co-presidency.
She's already declining in the polls, in part due to the perception that she is unelectable in the general. The thought of a truly two-headed presidency, especially with these dual snapping turtles, will only add to that perception -- to Hillary's further detriment.
It is very hard to imagine the American people choosing to allow Bill Clinton back into the White House. But it could happen.
Pray very very hard for the future of the Republic.
More on RINO Elmer
From David Limbaugh:
At the risk of incurring a roundhouse kick from the great Chuck Norris, I must confess that I'm even more troubled by Mike Huckabee's direction than I was last week.
On "Meet the Press" in January 2007, Tim Russert asked Huckabee, "You said this: 'I have a hard time seeing (Sen. John McCain) being elected president, just because I think, at times, some of his views have alienated very important segments of the Republican Party. I'm not sure he can mend the fences with the evangelical wing of the party, the pro-life part of the party.' You stand by those words?"
Huckabee responded, "Well, sure, I said them. I, I have a lot of respect for Senator McCain. He's a great American hero. But I do think that there are going to be some challenges that he'll face, and some of them have to do with issues that really have alienated many conservatives."
Bingo -- except now these words could apply equally to Huckabee -- not concerning the pro-life issue but Huckabee's unfortunate piece in Foreign Affairs magazine, where he joined the Democratic amen chorus in indicting President Bush for his "arrogant bunker mentality."
Until now, Huckabee has been fairly Teflon, avoiding real damage with conservatives for some of the unappealing aspects of his record and policy agenda. But the Foreign Affairs article, "America's Priorities in the War on Terror," could be his "Howard Dean scream" moment -- assuming Republicans are listening with a modicum of objectivity.
For taken at face value, a number of his statements in the piece surely will, to paraphrase Huckabee, "alienate very important segments of the Republican Party." Why? Because they wrongly trash President Bush in the words of ill-meaning Democrats who have slandered Bush's foreign policy from the beginning for their own partisan ends.
Huckabee's most offending words appeared at the very outset of the article, which should remove any doubt they were central to his theme. He wrote, "The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised. American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."
Are we to assume that Mike Huckabee agrees with The New York Times, which, in its editorial "America the Indifferent," once called the United States "the stingiest (country) in the Group of Seven industrialized nations"?
I believe America is the most benevolent and generous nation in the history of the world, which is all the more remarkable considering it is the world's sole super power. But our decency and generosity, Huckabee's theory notwithstanding, has not caused us to be universally loved by other nations, which have various reasons for hating us, none of which has anything to do with our mythical lack of generosity, benevolence or decency.
Nor have we attempted to dominate others. After removing Saddam, did we confiscate Iraq's oil? We sure could use it, couldn't we? Did we make Iraq our imperial subject or did we help it establish its own constitution and republican government? Yes, plenty of critics say Bush has made Iraq an American satellite, but you should expect to find them on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, not at Huckabee HQ.
Huckabee's most objectionable criticism, though, is that Bush had an arrogant bunker mentality and should have changed his tone and reached out. But what readers seem to have missed is that Huckabee applied the criticism to Bush's domestic as well as his foreign policies -- "at home and abroad."
At once, Huckabee is validating the fraudulent Democratic critique that Bush conducted a "unilateral" foreign policy and, domestically, did not reach out across the aisle to Democrats, which he did on numerous occasions, only to be shot in the back by Ted Kennedy and company.
Everyone knows, though Democrats won't admit, that Bush has continually tried to reach out to other nations, as when he tried to build the coalition against Iraq. Many nations would not join -- not because Bush didn't plead with them but because they had their own corrupt or ignoble reasons for abstaining. Huckabee should join Republicans in condemning those recalcitrant nations rather than joining Democrats in opportunistically condemning Bush.
Republicans might overlook some of Huckabee's other anomalous policy positions, but his betrayal of President Bush, wrapped in a virtual endorsement of Jimmy Carter diplomacy, will require some real explaining.
I have known so many Baptist preachers who were intelligent and well educated. Who could express themselves in a clear and compelling manner and who were rock solid conservatives in both the political and theological sense.
Why couldn't one of them be running for president?
Tancredo drops out
From USA Today:
DES MOINES — Rep. Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday and endorsed rival Mitt Romney.
The Colorado Republican made his exit from the race official on his 62nd birthday at a press conference here. He'll throw his support behind GOP candidate Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, he said.
Tancredo was the guy I most agreed with, but he never stood a chance. I'm glad he got his point across and I wish him well.
I wish he had thrown his support behind Fred, but I'll take Mitt over McCain, Giuliani or Huckabee.
A Holiday Nightmare
Hot Air had this posted with this commentary:
My jaw dropped when I watched this one the first time. Hillary’s Christmas ad says nothing at all about Christmas. The gifts make the connection, of course, but check out what the gifts are: universal health care, bring the troops home, etc. All of the gifts are funded in one way or another with your money. And she’s portraying herself as a thoughtful gift-giver by taking your money and giving it back to you in the form of expensive government programs, some or all of which you might not actually want or need. If that doesn’t typify liberal thinking, I don’t know what does.
No mention of Jesus or even the word "Christmas". Only a generic "Happy Holidays".
The scary thing, and I mean truly frightening, is that this is not a parody done by someone like Rush Limbaugh. This is what the Clinton machine (which determines the names of the family pets on the results of focus groups and polling) thinks will attract voters. A shopping list of hyper-expensive statist boondoggles.
If she or someone who thinks like her (Obama, Huckabee or Edwards) wins the election then America will not deserve to survive.
You know the one about the apple not falling far from the tree?
December 20, 2007 -- Owe, brother!
Hillary Rodham Clinton's youngest sibling is a deadbeat dad who owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support to his politically connected ex, The Post has learned.
In a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.
Including interest and various fees and expenses, the presidential candidate's brother now owes Boxer - the daughter of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) - more than $158,000, the source said.
The revelation that Rodham is delinquent with his payments won't be a welcome development for Hillary Clinton, coming as the too-close-to-call battle for the Democratic presidential nomination reaches a fevered pitch and with the first votes to be cast in Iowa in exactly two weeks.
Barbara Boxer has not endorsed a candidate in the race.
Nicole Boxer received judgments from a Washington judge ordering Rodham to pay up earlier this year, but the cash-strapped business consultant has yet to fork over the hefty sums.
"He has consistently been a deadbeat dad when it comes to paying child support and spousal support, despite the courts telling him over and over again that he must meet his obligations," a source close to Nicole Boxer said.
Rodham's lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo Carlberg, said she would "not comment on the veracity of any figures that are the subject of private and confidential settlement negotiations, as this is a personal, family matter and is under seal." She did say her client "fully intends to honor the judgment."
Nicole Boxer's lawyer could not be reached for comment.
Rodham, 53, married Boxer in the White House Rose Garden in 1994, when his brother-in-law, Bill Clinton, was president.
The couple had a son, Zachary, two years later, but the political union came to an end in 2000.
Fights over child support soon followed - at one point in 2002, Nicole charged that her ex hadn't paid anything in six months.
The latest support strife has been going on most of this past year, and Carlberg said her client has been trying to settle their differences in and out of court.
She said a Superior Court judge ruled against Rodham earlier this year.
"He strongly disagreed with the ruling, and so did I," she said. "We appealed the decision, and Mr. Rodham did not prevail."
That final ruling was in October.
Carlberg said she "sent a settlement letter to Ms. Boxer's attorney a few weeks ago for structured payment. As of today, we have not received a reply."
The Nicole Boxer source blasted Rodham's settlement offers as "just another dodge from meeting his obligations to his former wife and son while he lives in his fancy Washington town house" with his new wife, whom he married in 2005.
A former insurance salesman, prison guard and private eye, Rodham has been a headache for the former and possibly future first family before.
He and his brother Hugh embarrassed the Clintons in 1999 with a politically perilous plan to import hazelnuts from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
He also became a figure in the "Pardongate" scandal, when it was revealed that he lobbied Bill Clinton to pardon two embezzlers.
Rodham made headlines again shortly after his split from Nicole, when he was attacked at his family cottage in the Berkshires by a man who claimed he saw Rodham having sex with his girlfriend.
Rodham later testified that he "might have" smoked pot with the woman.
Considering what a white trash family she comes from it is no wonder that Hillary was attracted to a piece of Arkansas trailer trash like Bill. She probably felt like she had finally found her true home amid the sleaze of Hot Springs and Little Rock.
I can't believe that the nation is seriously considering electing another liberal sack of garbage from that sh!t-hole.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
Explore Christian Blogosphere
