The Problematic Election (Part 2)

Yesterday I looked at this problematic election from the standpoint of the Democrats. Today, I turn to the Republicans.

Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate

Calling John McCain a “strong” candidate is, as are all things in 2008, relative. He is strong because he is the anti-Republican candidate in an anti-Republican year.

The year 2008 is a very bad year for Republicans. Some of that is the peril of being the party in power. Republicans held Congress for 12 years from 1994 to 2006. They have held the presidency for the past 8 years and 20 out of the past 28. There is a certain fatigue that comes with that, especially when times get difficult and the public is looking for someone to blame.

Add to that the fact that many Republicans got comfortable with power and forgot the fiscal responsibility that put them into power in the first place. President Bush’s low approval ratings and the unpopular war have also contributed to Republicans' problems with the electorate.

The Republican base is divided and disillusioned. The frustration that Republicans feel shows up in the paucity of donations to candidates for the fall. Normally, a Republican candidate can count on a large advantage in contributions. This year, John McCain will probably accept public financing while Barack Obama, flush with cash, will not (despite his promise to do so).

The Republican base has been frustrated by the big spending ways of Republicans in Congress. That frustration extends to President Bush because he failed to restrain it. President Bush has faithfully defended the country from attack in the post-911 world. For that, Republicans, as well as all Americans, owe him a debt of gratitude. However, President Bush did his part to divide the base. His nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court and his support for the amnesty bill caused great frustration and raised mistrust. The conservative base desperately needs someone with a clear conservative voice to unite them. Unfortunately, John McCain is not that man.

Most conservative Republicans are apathetic toward McCain, at best. His support for amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy) and campaign finance reform(?) (McCain-Feingold) are just part of his problem. He has jumped on the global warming bandwagon and supports cap-and-trade which has great potential to hurt the economy. His support for stem cell research makes many pro-lifers uneasy. McCain is far from the ideal candidate for Republicans. Still, by and large, conservative Republicans will vote for McCain because they simply have no choice. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said it well:

“What I hear from people is, 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, John McCain was not my third choice. However, I would rather have a third-rate fireman than a first-class arsonist.' And they view Obama as a first-class arsonist."

That will be in many conservatives’ minds this fall and will compel them to vote McCain, despite their misgivings.

As weak as McCain appears to be from a Republican standpoint, those very things make him a strong candidate in an anti-Republican year, especially against Barack Obama. His “maverick” reputation helps him with an electorate that, for whatever reason, does not want to vote Republican. Also, when compared to the radical views of Obama, McCain looks like a right-winger.

To McCain’s credit, he is a true patriot and will never sell out America. He will have a credible foreign policy especially when compared to Barack Obama’s Carter-ism (“Trust but don’t verify because they might not like you if you do”).

To paraphrase Dick Morris; “In the Democrats you have a candidate that can’t win and a party that can’t lose. In the Republicans, you have a candidate that can’t lose and a party that can’t win.” Morris sees it as a toss-up but thinks that the election will not be close either way.

I agree and disagree with Morris on this problematic election. I do not believe the election will be especially close but I think the winner will be John McCain. I have a difficult time believing that the general public will turn the reins of the US government over to such an inexperienced empty-suit as Barack Obama. Despite his lofty rhetoric and having the mainstream media as his cheerleaders, Obama will have to deal with reality before the election and that is where he will fail. He will have to hang meat on the sketchy skeleton that he is constantly talking about and
the American public will not like it.

At least that is the way I see it. I certainly hope I am right.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

The Problematic Election (Part 1)

The Presidential election of 2008 is unique for a number of reasons. First, in Barack Obama, we have the first ever African-American candidate nominated by a major party. In John McCain, we have the oldest person ever nominated by a major party. Hillary Clinton ran an historic campaign and became the first woman to almost win the nomination by a major party. There are a lot of firsts and a lot of history being made in this election.

However, the election of 2008 is problematic for at least two reasons that we will examine over the next two posts.

Problem #1: For the Democrats, a Strong Party and a Weak Candidate

Entering the Fall elections, the Democrat party overall is sitting in the catbird’s seat. For various reasons—low public approval ratings for Republicans, high profile scandals, an unpopular President, an unpopular war, a questionable economy, high gasoline prices—the public as a whole would rather vote Democrat this Fall. As much as I might think that much of Republican unpopularity is driven by a hostile, pro-Democrat media, the facts on the ground are undeniable…this is a Democrat year.

However, despite their potential strength, the Democrats have nominated an extremely weak candidate. Barack Obama has zero experience. He is from the extreme left of a left-wing party. His primary supporters are the radical fringe of that party. Despite all the change rhetoric and positive media attention, his constituency remains primarily African-Americans and affluent white radicals. He has made practically no headway with middle-class whites (the “Reagan Democrats”) which form the core of the Democrat Party and which the Democrats must have to win the presidency. He won the nomination by a close 15 round decision through his superior organization in the caucus states coupled with terrible strategic blunders on the part of the Clinton campaign. Practically every time Obama faced Clinton in states with large numbers of the Democratic core constituency, he lost.

Add to that the non-race to become Obama’s VP. Early speculation had Obama seeking an experienced politician that could deliver an important state. Two immediate suggestions were Ted Strickland and Ed Rendell, both popular governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania, respectively. Since both were Clinton supporters, it was thought that the selection of either would unify the party as well as deliver an important state. But, Strickland stepped out very quickly, disavowing any interest in being Obama’s running mate. This week, Ed Rendell also disclaimed interest saying that he had been “his own boss” since he was 31.

It is not hard to discern why either governor would decline the second seat on the ticket. Obama is, by no means, a shoo-in to win. Neither governor, both cagy politicians, wants to hitch their wagon to a horse that might not win and alienate the Clintons at the same time.

Obama’s choice of a VP is very important for him because of the scarcity of his experience and his limited appeal. That the obvious choices are removing themselves is trouble for his campaign.

Democrats will likely strengthen their control over Congress this Fall. Some speculate that in the Senate they could even reach the magical, filibuster-proof number of 60. A mainstream Democrat nominee for President would cruise to victory in such an environment and greatly add to Democrat control of the government. However, in 2008, nothing is easy. The Democrats nominated a very problematic candidate who could suffer a landslide loss in a Democrat year.

Tomorrow…Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate

--Submitted by B. Bryant

It's the Economy, Stupid !!

The maligned Bush administration can brag, and rightly so, about the economic growth, job creation and affordable oil prices produced for six years under a Republican Congress. Since the Democrats have gained control of both Houses of Congress, economic turmoil and oil shortages have loomed. While it is convenient for the, now empowered, Democrats to blame the president, I have seen no legislation from the Congress intent on improving the energy shortage, jobless rate or the slow economic growth.

Despite all of President Bush’s shortcomings, he has championed policies consistent with economic growth and he has had strong results. The U.S. economic growth and jobless rate under President Bush have been the best of all major industrialized nations, dwarfing the growth and job creation of the European Union and Japan.

What we can expect from a Democratic Congress and, potentially, a Democratic President next year are polices geared toward high taxes and wealth redistribution, which are certain to produce anemic growth and job creation. They will saddle the economy, already burdened with Medicare, social security and other entitlements, with an increased burden of new social programs including universal health care.

Ronald Reagan’s policies of low taxes created strong economic growth and job creation for twenty-five years. It has been proven that tax reductions in all tax brackets produce the best returns for the economy. We need to lower taxes, reduce spending and unburden the economy in order to ensure economic prosperity for us and for our children.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Hyp-O-crite, Economics Version

B.O.H. has shifted his focus to the economy (albeit just to point out how much more debt he'll add to the USA coffers), while McCain continues to focus on Iraq and national security. So what are the headlines today?

The Free & Liberal Press is claiming that the focus of the presidential campaign has shifted to the economy. Funny how the press goes along in this game, isn't it?

Anyway, let's just point out some obvious hyp-O-crisies.
-- The nation's spending and revenue (Tax) budgets and policies are enacted through Congress.
-- Congress is currently controlled - in both Houses -by the Party of SuperDelegates
-- B.H.O. is blaming Republican President GW Bush for the economic woes of this country.

Huh? Let's look at the facts.
What economic atrocities have Bush and the Republicans wrought on the USA?
-- GW Bush wants to increase oil drilling in the USA, which would ultimately increase oil supply. (Economics for Dummies note: increasing demand without increasing supply will lead to an increase in price. If you increase supply, you either reduce price, or maintain price while satisfying increased demand.)
-- GW Bush wants to reduce taxes, which would provide American families with more funds to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- GW Bush called for a one-time tax rebate to try to stimulate the economy immediately.

What have the SuperDelegate representatives recommended?
-- B.H.O. wants to increase taxes on the upper-middle class incomes (as well as the upper-class incomes, which would include his wife's, I suppose), thus decreasing the amount of funds available for these families to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- B.H.O. wants to institute a tax on oil companies. (Economics for Dummies note: a tax imposed on a business will ultimately be passed on to its customers. So, by instituting an additional tax on oil companies, B.H.O. will be increasing gas prices even more.)
-- The Party of the SuperDelegates has tried to stimulate the economy by passing the... ummm... by recommending passage of... uh..er... Well, they must be thinking about doing something, right?

So, to summarize... GW Bush and the Republicans want to try to reduce oil prices, reduce taxes, and put more money back into the pockets of the citizens of this great country. B.H.O. and the Party of SuperDelegates want to increase taxes, increase oil and gas prices, and figure that inaction is the best political action this year.

Which party is imposing their economic will on the country?

(Hint: The Party of the SuperDelegates has been in control of Congress during these challenging economic times. What have they done for you?)

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

What Kind of Gone?

Hillary is GONE. Barring a long shot selection (over Michelle's dead body) as BHO's running mate, Hillary will be sidelined for a few weeks. Expect two things, a lukewarm supporter of B.H.O. AND a prime time, 'bring down the house of kooks' speech at the Dem convention. Both are intended by her to position Mrs. Bill Clinton for her ultimate goal and another run at it in 2012.

Be that as it may, there are many people happy to be rid of her, and a few even happier than me. Let's see...Dick Morris, Gennifer Flowers, Billy Dale, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey. The #1 person, happy to be rid of Hillary Clinton is, posthumously, Barbara Olson.

Mrs. Olson was killed on the hijacked plane flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She was the wife of the former solicitor general Ted Olson. (Ted Olson also won for Bush/Cheney, the 2000 Florida Recount Case at the Supreme Court).

Barbara Olson wrote two books on the Clintons. "Hell to Pay" about Hillary Clinton and "The Final Days" about the abuse of power exhibited in the last days of the Clinton administration. The book was released after Mrs. Olson's death. It chronicles the unbelievable abuses of power and the destructive laws enacted during Bill Clinton's last months of power.

For anyone who isn't happy that Mrs. Bill Clinton was upset by B.H.O., please read this book. You may kiss Mr. Obama's feet.

In her words (from The Final Days: The Last Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House):

"My Research found Hillary involved in one form or another in virtually every White House scandal - even if just masterminding the defense and counterattacks as in the Lewinsky affair. In fact, Hillary was the consistent, stable and reliable guiding organizational hand for the entire Clinton presidency"

And...

"Many of those who studied her career, as I did, concluded that that was precisely where her ambition was planning to take her as early as the 1992 presidential campaign. The only questions were how she would use her husband's presidency to realize that goal, and how he would help her get there"

And...

"When Hillary was running for the Senate, she went to great lengths to portray herself as an active, involved partner in her husband's presidency. She claimed eight years worth of experience on the issues and ran her Senate race on the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, regaling reporters with the thorough detailed discussions she had with 'her husband.' But now, in matters of huge importance involving her husband and her brother, she claimed to know absolutely nothing at all. The first-rate scholar, veteran lawyer, graduate of Yale Law School, and eight year resident of the White House, with her own office in the West Wing, had only lately even learned about the president's constitutional power to pardon"

--------------------------

Mrs. Clinton has grown more appealing through this election cycle. Her hard edges were coached away and the contrast with the inexperienced and left-wing Obama gave her some inroads to many folks who wrote her off years ago as a "left-wing hate America" type. She is still the same Mrs. Clinton that defended the black panthers and hobnobbed with commies most of her life. The same one that masterminded the character assassinations of all of Bill's enemies. The same "I'm no Tammy Wynette" country girl that, to quote Ann Coulter, "foisted that horny hick on America on "60 Minutes' in 1992.

I hope she is gone. Like all scary movies, we expect a resurrection or two of the bad guy. Chris Cagle has a new country hit called 'What Kinda Gone." Like me, he ponders the different kinds of gone.

What Kinda Gone
Chris Cagle

"There's gone for good and there's good and gone
and there's gone with the long before it

I wish she'd been just a little more clear

well there's gone for the day and gone for the night
and gone for the rest of your dog gone life

is it whiskey night or just a couple beers

I mean what kind of gone are we talkin bout

What kinda gone are we talkin' 'bout
What kinda gone are we talkin' 'bout here"


Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Hill's Out! Now What's Her Game?

Hillary Clinton put her campaign on hold today and endorsed Barack Obama for President. So ended the candidacy of the "inevitable nominee."

She thanked her supporters and forced us to endure several minutes of a monologue where she spoke as if her life's mission was to help those left behind by the current President. I doubt even her strongest supporters truly believed that. Political ambition and power are what motivate the Clintons. That attribute in them is exceeded only by their narcissisim.

When she got around to speaking nicely of Obama and endorsing him, it looked like she was chewing on green persimmons. Do not be fooled by the nice words; there is still bad blood between these two, their families, and their camps. It was a bruising campaign and neither camp is ready to forgive and forget.

This leaves the question open as to what the Clintons' [the plural was on purpose] intentions are now. There is little doubt that Hillary would like to be on the ticket as Obama's VP. There is also no doubt that Obama does not want her but can he hold her off? It is a testimony to the weakness of Obama that we wonder if Hillary can force herself onto the ticket.

Many Democrats see the combo ticket as the "dream team." I'm sure Obama sees it as a dream also...a nightmare. If elected, he could never trust her and Bill and, be sure, Bill comes with the package. They would be continually scheming behind his back rather than being the team players that the VP role requires. It is hard to see such a ticket coming together after such a difficult fight.

Much has been made of how Ronald Reagan took George H. W. Bush as his running mate after a tough campaign but it was not nearly as nasty as the Clinton-Obama slugfest. The Clinton team felt it was "their turn" and they have great anger at the Obama camp and the major media who were in the tank for him. It is hard to see this couple kissing and making up for the good of the Democrat party.

If Hillary does not get on the ticket, and I think that will be the case, what then will she do? It is hard to see her and Bill swallowing their pride and going on the stump for Obama. My guess is they will do the absolute minimum of support for Obama, continue to promote themselves, and hope for an Obama loss so she can run in 2012.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush came together in 1980 because they truly believed that the most important thing was for the Republicans to win. For the Clintons, the most important thing is that they win with party loyalty and what's best for the country coming in last.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

And heeeeeeeeere's Obama!

In case you've been living in a foreign country, or if you swore off all news stories until the Democrats decide to take real action against the weakening dollar and hair-raising oil prices... B H Obama will claim the Superdelegate Party (formerly known as the "Democratic Party") nomination for President tonight.

Finally.

Five tidbits that you should be aware of, as we start the five month journey to the Presidential Election of 2008:

1. B H Obama has served a portion of one term in the US Senate, of which he has spent 2 years campaigning for the presidential nomination. Analysis: Inexperienced.
2. B H Obama's wife, Michelle, became proud of her country - for the first time in her life - after her husband won some primaries in 2008. Analysis: Unpatriotic.
3. B H Obama's "former" pastor and spiritual guide has been labelled as anti-American and prejudiced for many years. B H Obama "resigned" from his church a couple of weeks ago, after another religious leader, speaking at his "former" church, let loose another rant against whites and females. Analysis: Dangerous, and yet spineless.
4. B H Obama has avoided all factual-based discussions and debates. In fact, B H Obama has not participated in a debate since he was asked tough questions - for the first time - by ABC during the Pennsylvania debate in April. Which he lost. Analysis: Overly sensitive, and is weak on solution details.
5. B H Obama takes umbrage with the press for asking any tough questions about his positions or past. For evidence, see the March 3, 2008 press conference. (My favorite quote: "Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We're running late." God Bless America if he wins the election and has to answer, say, nine questions about policies. He may launch missiles at the press corps.) Analysis: Overly sensitive, arrogant, and will walk if the going gets tough. Although his press conferences will provide a level of comedy we haven't seen in a long time.

Meet the nominee from the Superdelegate Party, B H Obama.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

With Friends Like This...

...who needs Democrats?

Obviously, Scott McClellan (former White House press secretary) yearns for attention. In his forthcoming book, according to reports, McClellan rips into the Bush Administration for deceiving the American people, and engaging in never-ending campaigning. I only have three things to say about this before I put this topic where it belongs (in the deeply discounted bin at your local Barnes & Noble, along with It Takes a Village and The Audacity of Hope):

1. McClellan is trying to portray himself as the victim of the Administration's deception because it's politically expedient to do so. What's really coming through is that McClellan is a spineless jellyfish who wants to play a part in what he perceives as a Democratically-controlled government. Good luck finding a job with Pelosi and her crew.
2. Unfortunately, our government and representatives have been engaging in continuous campaigning for more than a decade. Have we all forgotten about the first Clinton term, when the entire 4-year period appeared to be driven by a thought process centered on "so what will get me re-elected in 1996?" (OK, most of us would like to forget about those years, but...) To take a jab at the Bush Administration for this is absurd; for the liberal press to jump all over it, especially given their roles in the evolution of 24 x 7 x 365 campaigning, is comical.
3. If President Bush and his staff were this God-awful for the country, why did McClellan follow Bush to Washington, and accept a promotion to Press Secretary? Why would he stay as long as he did, if he truly believed all of this drivel that he's claiming in his Al Franken-esque novel? And why would he slink away from Washington for nearly two years, without saying a word about how "wronged" he was? Oh, wait... to sell books and make more money. I get it now.

The only upside from all of this - I get to look forward to seeing the hypocrites, namely Reid and Pelosi, make total fools out of themselves.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Doomed to Repeat It (LINK)

How quickly will the press get this one buried? Obama managed to tell a lie like Bill Clinton and show knowledge of world history like....well 'pick your favorite democrat'. All in one statement.

By claiming that his uncle (I am assuming the white side of his family - who he has disowned for all practical purposes) helped to liberate Auschwitz, which was liberated by the Red Army, he proved he can match Hillary lie for lie. His weakness in foreign policy just got more obvious. While most of us were studying history, Obama and the current flock of democrats were ignoring it.

He later said he 'mis-spoke.' Count me out. First, he wants to sit down with the worlds most dangerous leaders, giving them a badly needed stage and some attention - and now he shows a lack of knowledge of the best example in history of the failure of appeasement. And he wants to run my country? I don't think so.

I don't expect that many people know the subtleties of WWII and when and where what was liberated, I am not naive. The government schools have their own agenda and it is not history. But I'll say what many have said to this point...Is this guy the best we can do?? A country of 200 million eligible candidates and we have a schmuck who won't wear a flag pin, attended anti-American churches for twenty years, has two years of national experience and has a wife who hit middle age before she could find something about her country to be proud of? This is the best?

Let's hope Johnny Mack turns up the heat and buries this guy in a McGovern-like landslide.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Despite the media-engendered, Kennedy-esque aura around him...despite his support from the legions of left-wing radicals in the Democrat Party...despite the phalanx of young college kids willing to serve as his foot soldiers and the masses of African Americans who have made his candidacy their own cause, Barack Hussein Obama is damaged property. Nothing shows that more than his pathetic performance in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries where the primary electorate was working class white folks, the people that any Democrat must have to win the presidency. Obama has failed miserably to reach this vital demographic and his failure goes beyond those two states. His performance in that demographic was similar in Ohio and Pennsylvania; once again, states the Democrats must have.

There are many reasons offered as to why Obama cannot connect to working class whites. There is the elitism factor, the Wright factor, the Michelle factor, the Hillary factor, and...for those kool-aid drinkers who see no flaws in their candidate...the racist factor. To these supporters, racism prevents these working class whites from voting Obama (as they are clinging to their guns and religion, but I digress...). However, Obama's performance in Iowa and in the early western state caucuses brings this assertion into great question.

The real answer is simple...it is all of the above in combination (except perhaps the racist part) and none of them individually. Obama has been exposed. He came into the campaign as a veritable tabula rasa, a blank slate. This coupled with a pleasing personality, lofty-sounding rhetoric, and a careful and slick but undefined message, enabled millions of people to see him as the personification of their hopes and dreams. As any good actor knows, a skillfully-handled, underdefined persona allows the viewing public to project themselves (their hopes, dreams, fears, etc.) onto the actor such that he or she is seen to be the exact person that exists in the mind of the observer. The actor cannot help but be admired because he is them. The same happened to Barack Obama. All people...rich, poor, white, black, brown...saw themselves and their hopes in Obama. He was both their everyman and their savior.

What happened? Simply, the blanks on Obama's slate began to be filled in. His twenty-year association with Jeremiah Wright, a preacher of radical leftist, anti-American, and possibly racist views, called into question the belief by some that Obama was the "post-racial" candidate. His statements in liberal San Francisco that working class persons were "clinging to their guns and religion" demonstrated elitist views that, while welcome in San Francisco, were anathama to middle class America. Michelle Obama's comments that she was proud of her country for the first time and that America in 2008 was a "downright mean country," were poorly received in most of the country where America is still seen as a land of opportunity. Lastly, Hillary Clinton's continued presence has given many in the Democrat electorate something that, while unattractive, looks much better than Obama. Obama's position is unenviable.

Will Obama lose? Probably, but nothing is certain in such an anti-Republican year. While McCain holds little attraction to the large majority of conservative Republicans, he is the perfect candidate for them in such a bad year. The question is not whether he can win or not but what will a McCain victory do for the future of the Republican party. That is an entry for another day.

As for Obama, if he loses he has no one to blame but himself. The blank slate approach was wise because an otherwise filled-out slate in his case was unelectable. Now, the real Barack is being seen and much of the public is getting buyer's remorse. The super-delegates fear to vote for him but also fear not to because of his delegate lead. Hillary has seen the weaknesses and hangs around like a circling buzzard over a wounded and dying animal. The only difference...the wounded animal has the Democrat nomination all wrapped up.

Barack Obama, we hardly knew ye and thank God for that.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

I had not considered the end

For anyone that knows me better than a little, they know that Ted Kennedy has become something of a arch-enemy to me. As he lay in intensive care and takes in the remaining minutes of the Celtics victory over the Cavs, it is not the time to critique a litany of his faults, sins and bad political ideas. This probably won't be the end for Teddy. For a guy who is eighty pounds overweight, drinks and eats more than two to three normal folk and hasn't let any of that slow down his libido...he has a churchillian-like ability to outlive much healthier men. Even so, age is catching up on the liberal icon and senior senator from Massachusetts.

Around 1971 or 2, I received a letter from Senator Kennedy thanking me for my contribution to an ecology event organized by my school. It was a thrill to receive it and I kept it for many years (I am not sure what happened to it). At the time, I had no knowledge of Chappaquiddick, Abortion (Roe vs. Wade was still a couple years away), his Harvard cheating scandal (et. al.) and I had no prognosticating ability to see this loud-mouthed hypocrite attack the characters of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

When Ted finally passes on, he will be immortalized in a funeral fit for a king. He will be eulogized by Caroline Kennedy, Harry Reid, George McGovern, Sargent Shriver, Mike Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and droves of Republicans, who will commend him on the passion of his ideas and his fighting spirit.

To me, he is just the guy that made it 'okay' for Catholics to be pro-abortion. He was the horsepower for thirty years for the great society - a war on poverty that has left the poor - poorer, unwed and without values. At this point, I still maintain hope that those thousands of rosaries that Rose Kennedy said for her children will take hold and he will become a champion of freedom, life and Catholicism.

In the meantime, we wait and wonder the outcome of this setback for the seventy-six year old senator. And we wonder which Kennedy will slip into his Senate seat for the next thirty years. The people of MA will have it no other way.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost, Senator Obama

It's May 12, 2008. The writing is - and has been, for months now - on the wall. Superdelegate-nominee Barack Obama and his pack of media elites are headed to a showdown with the Republican (popular vote) nominee, John McCain. The problem on the Superdelegate side is that Hillary Clinton either can't read, or steadfastly refuses to read, the writing on the wall.

For months, the Superdelegate Party built up Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee, propping her up as the "most electable" candidate out there. Then the Superdelegate Party fell out of love with Hillary, and started a dalliance with Obama that blossomed into full-fledged love and lust. (Sidebar: Poor Hillary was publicly scorned and shamed yet again. Once again, she's refused to kowtow to public demands - "leave that cheating husband of yours, for the sake of Chelsea and yourself!" turned into "drop out of the race for the sake of all Superdelegates!". At least she's consistent.)

To quote Obama's "former" pastor, the chickens have come home to roost.

Hillary's perceived support from within the establishment continues to give her hope that she can somehow swipe the election from the Superdelegate powers-that-be. She's refusing to see the facts that the establishment has turned its back on her. And yet, as establishment spent so much time building her up as "the best candidate to beat back the Republicans", she truly believes it's best that she continues on. She drank the kool-aid, fellas; you forgot to send her the serum that will break the kool-aid's hold on her!

Let's address this issue for the final time. Hillary, it's been nice knowing you, but your time is done. Your run is over. The time has come for the final throwdown. The country needs you to step down quickly, so we can all focus on what's really important here:

• Populace-sanctioned candidate versus Superdelegate-sanctioned candidate.
• Experience versus youth.
• 'Security through Strength' versus 'Peace through Appeasement'.
• A candidate that stands up to questioning versus a candidate that is offended by questioning.

McCain vs Obama. Bring it on.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Michelle vs. Michelle

hmmm...America's unhappiest millionaire




Obama's Bitter Half
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.

When last our worldviews collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.

In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.

Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."

Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.

Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?

In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."

But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:

[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'

"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.

"'But I am proud of you,' she said.

"'I know,' he replied."

We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.

Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

And the winner is... The SuperDelegates!

Today is the day that Indiana and North Carolina voters go to the polls. I say...it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. The ridiculous process used by the "Democrats" (Aristocrats?) is proving to be a total farce.

If someone had asked you to devise a nominating process that would guarantee that no one wins the nomination based on the vote of its citizens, this is the process you would design. Let's face it - if the Mainstream Media outlets disagree on delegate counts more than 2 weeks after the last primary, how transparent can the system be? (Check out the "official" delegate counts from AP and NBC. Seriously. They're different.)

Citizens of Indiana and North Carolina...your vote today will not help to select a candidate for November. Rather, it merely validates the SuperDelegate process. Remember this in November, when a SuperDelegate-chosen candidate faces off against a popular vote-chosen candidate. In my country, I trust the popular vote more than any "Super"Delegate vote.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Obama's Chickens

Obama's chickens have come home to roost; to paraphrase Obama's long time pastor and spiritual mentor.

Reverend Wright has been enjoying his 'fifteen minutes of fame,' at the expense, presumably, of Barack Obama. Wright's diatribes include swipes at the USA (naturally), Dick Cheney (double naturally), the Jews, the Italians and on and on and on. He is clearly the most visceral bigot on the talk show circuit today. He even claimed that blacks 'learn differently' than whites - a theory that we might expect from David Duke or Adolf Hitler. He believes the AIDs virus was started by whites to destroy the black race. Wow !!

None of this seems to have hurt Obama with his base...which is really the biggest concern here. There will always be nuts and paranoids, but their front-runner status in a major political party is a sign of the times.

From Myway.com


Wright has been Obama's pastor for more than 20 years. Wright brought Obama to Christianity, inspired the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope," officiated at his wedding and baptized his daughters. Wright also told reporters Monday that he prayed privately with the family right before Obama announced he was running for president, although he didn't appear with them publicly.

His Vote Counts More Than Mine? How Democratic of You!

She's done it again!

Written off by the press, begged to drop out by the Democrats in authority, and besmirched by the Obama campaign, Hillary Clinton wins another primary election and proves...

1. Obama can outspend his opposition, but he can't win the hearts (and votes) of certain voters;
2. This election is going all the way to the convention; and...
3. The Superdelegates will make the decision as to who represents the Democratic Party in 2008.

Now I don't know about you, but this Superdelegate thing has me confused. What is a Superdelegate, and how do they vote? According to newspapers and other media sources, I've collected a few bits and pieces:

Superdelegates...aren't these generally elected officials and other political wonks, rather than the general population?
Superdelegates...who each get a vote, equal to a delegate representing a state?
Superdelegates...people who do not need to vote in a manner that represents the USA population or the constituents they were elected to represent, but rather who can vote in a manner that could maximize their personal political stature and position?

I was confused, so I looked up superdelegate on dictionary.com:
a party leader or elected public official chosen as an uncommitted delegate to a national political convention

That piqued my interest. It didn't sound very democratic to me, but maybe my public policy and government knowledge has eroded over the years. I also decided to look up a few other words:

democratic
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.

elitism
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
------------------------------------

Superdelegates sure don't seem to meet the definition of democratic to me. So why is our country using an elitist approach to selecting a presidential candidate from one of the two major political parties?

I guess it's the only way to ensure that the Democratic Party can select someone that the political machine wants, rather than what the country wants.

So just remember... Ted Kennedy's vote counts more than yours or mine. Heck, Ted's vote counts more than the votes of the populations of Michigan and Florida combined. (He probably drinks more too, but we'll leave that for another day.)

And we call that the Democratic Party?!?

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

"Where are all the white people at?"

During the prepartion for a Barack Obama speech at Carnegie Mellon University, Michelle Obama was heard to complain that there were not enough white people sitting directly behind her husband's podium (and thus in the camera's view).

If we need someone in the White House to help this country get over race..it's not these two !!

Only the Carnegie Mellon Student newspaper, The Tartan, originally picked up the story. Drudge later linked to it.

While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.” “I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”

Note: The title of the blog entry was a quote reference from the movie Blazing Saddles - not that that makes it right :-)

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Farewell to a Grand Old Patriot

Charlton Heston.

Just to say his name is to evoke memories of the epic characters he played on the big screen. Moses...Ben Hur...El Cid...Andrew Jackson...He held an entire generation enraptured with this great acting, powerful screen presence, and chiseled good looks. In the days before cable, VHS, and DVD, I lived for the frequent network showing of The Ten Commandments, where Mr. Heston's Moses was probably his most iconic and memorable role.

Today we mourn the passing of not only a great actor but a great American. Charlton Heston loved his country. He was never embarrassed to say that nor was he afraid to take stands on issues that had the potential to hurt his acting career.

He was a supporter of civil rights for African Americans before it became politically popular to do so, marching with Dr. Martin Luther King and being present for his "I have a Dream" speech.

He was a supporter of the United States military. When first talking to the recruiter about joining the Naval submarine force, I was shown a video hosted by none other than Charlton Heston. Being a fan of both the Mr. Heston and the navy, my admiration for him grew even more. When naval deployments were long, Charlton Heston personally called families of deployed personnel with holiday greetings from their loved one.

Charlton Heston offered the prayer at the commissioning ceremony of the USS Chicago (SSN-721) in September, 1986. An officer friend of mine had the pleasure of accompanying Mr. Heston to the airport to pick up his mother. He spoke of his personal kindness and how Mr. Heston make himself totally accessible to the crew.

As the nation became more politically polarized between right and left, Charlton Heston once again made his voice heard. He had never hidden his conservative politics but the contemporary political environment made his political views the most public part of his persona, much to the consternation of a Hollywood that was growing ever more radical and militantly anti-American.

Mr. Heston, always a gun owner, was elected president of the National Rifle Association in a time of decline. In his acceptance speech, he lofted high a musket and uttered the words, "From by cold dead hands," earning him the immediate disdain of those who considered themselves to be the elites in our nation. Under his leadership and public image, the NRA grew in membership and influence while the left painted this great American as a right-wing loon.

In 2002, Mr. Heston announced to the world that he had Alzheimer's disease. He made this announcement with the same gravitas and grace which he had always shown on the screen and in his public life. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2003, the highest American civilian honor. It was a richly deserved award for him and capped a lifetime of living his beliefs and loving his country.

Charlton Heston...a real American. We will miss him greatly.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Obama X

The real Obama, according to his own writings in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams from My Father, is a race-obsessed, resentful young man...filled with conspiratorial thoughts.

His characterization of his white friends and his frustration with 'living with white rules' are disturbing.

While his mother was white and his father an African National, who abandoned Barack in his childhood, Obama clearly identifies with the black movement and the worst of it.

My personal belief is that systemic racism is dead in America. While there is a tiny minority of people that still harbor racist views against blacks (and vice versa), there is no longer any infrastructural or legal reasons keeping blacks from achieving all that whites, Asians and Indians achieve. Only race merchants like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (and now Barack Obama), who profit from racism keep it alive. They are helped by white liberals - plagued by white guilt.

As long as racism remains the scapegoat for black poverty and the breakdown of the black family, no progress can be made in solving poverty among blacks and others.

Study after study has shown that blacks and whites have the same statistical likelihood of success (in financial terms) as long as they are compared with like groups (not based on race). The groups are 'single parent raised,' 'high school dropout' 'high school graduate' and 'college graduate.'

America, the least racist country on earth, has removed all obstacles for all races to achieve marriage, high school and college graduation. We need to look beyond race and understand the isssues that are driving unwed births and high school dropout rates.

Let's start with the elements of LBJ's Great Society to find what incentives the 'war on poverty' has put in place to discourage marriage and employment. Social engineering has ruined the black family, not racism.

Obama has identified himself, in this 1995 book, as a person who cannot move beyond race. He will drive us to more programs and more ideas that will worsen poverty in America and will cause more black and white resentment.

In the words of Ann Coulter regarding this book "You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Father


Submitted by D. B. Jackson

A Winning Change in Strategy

In an apparent attempt to win back mainstream America, while capitalizing on the support she's garnered from political radio host Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton has declared that she will disassociate herself from MoveOn.org and run on a "platform that more accurately reflects Main Street USA" than her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

"I'm tired of being a pawn for George Soros and MoveOn.org. I tried to be a good soldier, but I see that I've just become a target for snipers again. This time, the snipers are people who claimed to be my supporters just a few months ago. The Democratic Party, the press, even my cleaning lady...everyone has lost their senses and now support a person who has officially spent more time running for President than he spent as a US Senator in Washington. It's gotten so bad that I'm almost on the verge of tears."

Obama countered Clinton's claim by stating, "We've all heard claims in the past that weren't true. As far as I've been told, this attempted character assassination by Senator Clinton is simply wrong. This is a situation where a losing candidate is unable to come to grips with reality, and is blaming her situation on the fact that I'm a minority candidate that has curried favor with the media. Her position couldn't be any further from the truth. For more information, please see my web page, which is proudly sponsored by MoveOn.org and hosted for free by ABC News."

Clinton now says that she supports the suppression of terrorism in the Middle East, reduced taxes, a stricter immigration program that includes secure borders, and free trade. She has also filed for divorce from Wild Bill Clinton.

John McCain was unavailable for comment, because he was conducting business on the Senate floor.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Happy AFD