Realmscapes

The Audacity of Democrats

"We're prepared to come back into session the week of December 8th to help the auto industry, but only if they present a viable plan that gives us, the Congress, the confidence that taxpayers, the autoworkers, will be well served."

--Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV)

"It is all about accountability. Until we can see a plan where the auto industry is held accountable and a plan for viability..."

--Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House (D-CA)

Well there you have it. The two Dem leaders on Capitol Hill telling the Big 3 American Automakers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) that they have to prove responsibility and "accountability" to the very party that over-regulated them these last decades to the point of non-competitiveness with Toyota, Honda, et al., and thus bankruptcy.

If anyone is bankrupt in this country it is the Democrat Party.

A-M-E-N

From Jed Babbin's "If You Want 2012, Earn It" at HumanEvents.com:

"The lesson of 2008 is that it’s not enough to sound like a conservative. Whoever wants the Republican nomination in 2012 is going to have to earn it by taking conservative actions, not just repeating conservative words.

For the next four years, presidential aspirants will have to prove their dedication to conservative principles by casting votes and signing vetoes, by taking political risks and helping fellow conservatives reorganize all across the nation.

The “moderate” wing of the Republican Party isn’t dead. Too many of them are still in Congress, among current and former governors and in the unelected Party leadership. Some can even be found among the conservative media. They will do their best to contain, confuse and prevent a conservative from gaining the nomination.

And they will do their best to becloud the forces that led to McCain’s defeat. Yes, the media and some pollsters contributed to McCain’s loss by promoting Obama and predicting his election by inflated margins. But pollsters and media bias were not the decisive factors in McCain’s loss. George Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama were.

The decisive factor is that the Republican Party drifted to the left, to big government, in irresolute prosecution of the war, and into the biggest economic crisis in living memory. The truth that Democrats caused the financial mess -- protecting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, forcing banks to issue loans to unqualified borrowers by passing the Community Reinvestment Act -- was overshadowed because the Bush Administration didn’t foresee or prevent the crash. 

American voters lost confidence in George Bush. John McCain was the wrong choice to regain that trust because he is not an ideological conservative and chose to run a moderate campaign divorced from the issues in the front of voters’ minds. What else could explain the exit polls showing minority Catholics voting in tremendous numbers for pro-abortion Barack Obama?"

The 2008 Presidential Election: Afterthoughts

The Republican ticket lost for what I observe to be several reasons that I hope two years in Leftland will remedy:

Partisanship wins elections, Senator McCain and President Bush:
I can wholly appreciate the want to be honourable and a want to hold America's sacred offices in such high regard. But politics is a battlefield, with sides like any other. The current RNC committee and the GOP in DC is completely missing that for the last ten years at least and it is a grave mistake. For the McCain campaign it was also costly, literally...to the tune of $600 million in campaign funds to $83 million. Senator McCain assumed that Obama would be honourable and keep his word on public financing. Obama wasn't. Obama wiped out McCain's overexposed political flank. Surprise.

History will not say that Obama won on bi-partisanship and record-breaking voter turnout.

As of this post, there are around 116 million votes counted. That is less than in 2004 (122 million) and considerably less than the projected record number (133 million). That simply means that more Democrat voters were enthusiastic for their candidate. This is still a center-right nation, just not last night in the national elections. If you need proof of this, look at the same-sex marriage questions that won in Florida and California.

It cannot be overstated that the conservative base made a big impact by either not showing up or not voting for who is otherwise a moderate candidate (McCain). Forget what the Republican elitists say about appealing to moderates and Independents. Nearly two-thirds of "moderates" vote for Democrat candidates anyway. Tell me what about Obama's campaign was bi-partisan? He appealed to his liberal base on a clear platform of higher taxes, restricting capitalism, the environment, pro-choice, less American world leadership, ant-Bush rhetoric, and government expansion. And he won.

Here is the key: The polls over the last two weeks showed Obama getting between 20%-21% of the conservative vote! That is a ***HUGE*** statement to the Republican leadership that the base wants candidates who will represent our ideology carried so well by President Reagan. Thus the base is showing that it is willing to roll the dice on two of the most liberal Senators in Washington politics to force the hand of their leadership.

Conservatives are tired of elected Republican representatives and (prospective) Presidents who do not defend themselves or their base against leftist attacks from the media or in DC. Conservatives have indicated based on polls and turnout that they want leadership like that shown in Governors Palin and Jindal. The strategy is to get the conservative base back under the tent and then do our best to convince Independents to join us.

Governor Palin was misused
Conservatives nation-wide praised the selection of Governor Palin. McCain even surged ahead in the polls. Do NOT believe what the polls say about support of Sarah Palin wavering. What the polls are reflecting was the eventual realisation by the base that the McCain camp turned her into a mini-McCain in the first two weeks. They made her fit a template instead of allowing her to be herself. Eventually they allowed this, or more of it anyway, but by then there was alleged infighting between the advisor teams and Palin was allowed to flounder--no doubt as a way to "teach her a lesson".

Pulling her out of Michigan was a mistake. The upper Great Lakes states are a Democrat vulnerability waiting to be exploited.

Bottomline: Conservatives still love Sarah Palin, and we would love even more to see what she could do at the head of a ticket.

Senator McCain did not clarify the issues
This criticism goes with the first point. One has to be willing to be partisan if they are going to convince the electorate to vote for them.

CHARACTER - It wasn't enough just to drop names like "Ayers" and "Rezko". Most voters have no context. What Senator McCain needed to do, but was unwilling to do, is show how a man's ideology is shaped by the company he keeps. He needed to explain who these people were and their backgrounds and connections to people like Saul Alinsky. In a Presidential election character IS an issue, but the McCain camp soured the electorate by mishandling the presentation of the issue. Like Miyagi says, "Right side: okay; left side: okay; walk in middle *squish* just like grape." McCain walked in the middle on Obama's character.

Jeremiah Wright AND Father Pfleger (along with the above personas) are proof that it is Barack Obama and the Democrat party who are divisive and anti-American. There is not ONE person in this country, with at least an average reasoning intelligence, who does not know that one's character can be judged based on his associations and heroes--and should be when it comes to the office of President of the United States. Polls proved this during the Democrat primary.

The American people know the difference between racism and calling a politcal opponent on their poor choice of associates. I am sure that Senator McCain could have found someone prominent and respected from the black community to stand with him on this. Someone who could sincerely ask the questions: "Do you really want the likes of Jeremiah Wright to represent the black community? Do you really think that he and Louis Farakhan and liberal Democrat leaders want unity between black and white Americans?"

I love America and I love the great progress this country has made to ensure that ALL Americans have a fair shot at the American Dream. I understand that race is a sensitive and potentially nuclear political issue in a U.S. Presidential election. But the black community deserves so much better than the Democrat party gives them and Senator McCain could have used this election to passively open some eyes. Point out the way liberal Democrats have treated Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condaleeza Rice and I guarantee you that there will be some enlightenment.

ECONOMY - Senator McCain unwilling to be partisan also meant he handicapped himself on the economy issue. He needed to point to the electorate that Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were key reasons why the economy tanked in August and September. Their links to the subprime crisis are exceptionally easy to find and draw a line to.

Also, the vast majority Americans disapproved of the bailout package. Instead of suspending his campaign, Senator McCain should have allowed President Bush to call both candidates to Washington (as he did anyway) and then seized on the opportunity to take a stand with the rest of America and reject the bail out proposals. For all the times that Senator McCain said that he stood in marked contrast to Senator Obama, this would have shown that he did. Voters most definitely would have noticed.

ABORTION, NATIONAL SECURITY, SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS - These were issues that the McCain camp allowed the media and the Democrats to bury. All three of these could--and should--have been part of the electoral landscape despite the dominance of the economy. (Immigration as well, but that is a non-issue with Senator McCain.)

Senator McCain should not have disconnected himself from President Bush
Despite what is shown in the polls and the media, at the end of the day, association with President Bush did NOT mean a loss of the election. For a President so unpopular, he still managed to win re-election in 2004. He did that with the evangelical Christian vote--a large part of the conservative base that Senator McCain failed to directly address despite that he had the perfect rallying point: Governor Palin.

Also, President Bush was in control of one of the best economies from 2002 thru the Spring of 2008. How could Senator McCain allow people to forget that? The subprime crisis has never been shown to be a crisis! A problem? Certainly. But a severe market correction had to happen--that is the nature of capitalism and the fall does (and did) bottom out. Voters needed to be reassured of the peaks and valleys of a capitalist system, and Senator McCain killed a vital economic argument by distancing himself from President Bush. Stating that he had been part of one of the most prosperous economies since the 80s through Bush's tax cuts would have allowed for some voter correction on the garbage being spewed out of the media and DC.

Saying "I did vote with President Bush the vast majority of the time on economic issues because he was right and economy prospered as a result", could only have helped Senator McCain in a way similar to Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot when that character used the American flag to turn a panicked rout into the victory it always was.

Distinctions

"We have not been willing to put our priorities properly. We have not been willing to say ... "Hey Russia, we won't expand NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia, right next to your borders, if you cooperate with us on Iran." ...

I think Iran and Israel are a hell of a lot more important than expanding NATO to Russia's borders. Why should we? What do we need it for? So let [Russia] invade Georgia. It's right next to them. Would we tolerate a foreign--a Russian army in Mexico? Which is more important to us Georgia or Israel, frankly?"   --Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

I am so tired of Democrats blurring the lines between good guys and bad guys. (And yes I am going to pick on them because they are the ones constantly doing the blurring--all the way back to the Civil War.) Frankly any American politican who can find similarities between Russia's motives and those of NATO's--while taking a passe attitude towards the sovereignty of said NATO allies--needs to be kicked out of office on the sheer basis of either their ignorance or arrogance.

NATO is a defensive coalition NOT an invading force--so hell yeah it should be supported and strengthened! Remember...

Russia is the (former) communist nation.
Russia is the one who plundered eastern Europe.
Russia is the one who decided to make a power play resulting in the Cold War.
Russia is the one who has hurt its own cause by invading Georgia and threatening Ukraine.
Russia is the one working with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba to develop those countries' nuclear programs and/or military arsenals.

Russia is the country that needs to prove to the world that it is one of the good guys, not NATO members. 

This is what happens when a world allows too many shades of grey to saturate the spectrum of its politcal ideology.

Smoke and Mirrors

Polls have to be one of the most misleading barometers of public opinion in American culture. Too often they are used to create news on a slow news day, or to swing elections. And in the case of the latter, they have often been inaccurate when predicting Democrat victory for the White House.

As of today, RealClearPolitics.com now has Arizona, North Dakota, and Georgia as "toss-ups"--South Dakota, Arkansas, and West Virginia are now leaning away from McCain. I am sorry, but that is complete bunk.

A reading of the top ten National Polls reveals that the game is up... there is no concencus on how far ahead Obama is. Look at the ranges:

Obama +13 - CBS News
Obama +10 - Gallup (Traditional)
Obama +9 - ABC News/Wash Post
Obama +7 - Diageo/Hotline
Obama +7 - Marist
Obama +6 - Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby
Obama +5 - Rasmussen Reports
Obama +4 - GWU/Battleground
Obama +3 - FOX News
Obama +2 - IBD/TIPP

Someone has to be wrong, and I will take this time to point out that the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate in 2004, predicting within a 0.6% of the actual result (or right around there). If you read the article above, you will discover that the CBS, ABC, and Gallup polls are historically three of the most inaccurate of all the polls. Why they continue to be cited in any serious election debate is beyond me.

The reason I tend to smart away from taking polls seriouslly is simply because the data that the vast majority base their anaylsis on is inheritantly flawed. To "represent" the country, between 3%-6% more registered Democrats are polled that Republicans. While I do not deny that there are more registered Dems in the country, the majority of them--namely those with low income, or who are students--simply do not vote. Their lifestyles just do not make time for it, and the DNC knows it.

There are two intangibles in this particular race that further make the polls--and especially during this election cycle--more or less useless. The first is the infamous "Bradley Effect", an X factor that pretty much has people supporting a black candidate in a poll so as not to appear racist, yet in reality does not support that candidate's policy views and thus votes against the candidate on Election Day.

The second intangible unique to this election, and which very very few are talking about, is the "Hillary Effect". If this Y factor rears its head on Tuesday, the Obama campaign may be in for a very long night. Over the last weeks I have been keeping track of various weblogs of people who supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Her supporters have been irate ever since the nomination was sealed that Obama team played the race card, allegedly bullied voters at the Iowa and NC caucuses, and the way the media dropped her like an ivy prep drops last year's beauty queen for this year's. Some of these voters (mostly women) have been conducting a grassroots drive to defeat Obama so that Hillary has a shot in 2012.

Forget Arizona and Arkansas. If the weblogs prove accurate, it may in fact be Obama who is unpleasantly shocked as he watches not only all the battleground states go to McCain, but also Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Maine, Wisconsin, or New Jersey. I am not predicting any of these states will end up red. All I am pointing out is that Clinton won--or did very well--in all those states, and a "Hillary Effect" in those states combined with the other intangibles not caught by polling (e.g. "Joe the Plumber", recent gaffes about Obama's "tax cuts", voters angry at the media), could prove to be too much for the Obama camp to overcome on Election Day.

The absolution that is History waits.

Flawed

The Obama campaign provided The New York Times with a trailer from the taped portion of the ad that will be featured primetime. The footage is described as...

"...heavy in strings, flags, presidential imagery and some Americana filmed by Davis Guggenheim, whose father was the campaign documentarian of Robert F. Kennedy. As the screen flashes scenes of suburban lawns, a freight train and Mr. Obama seated at a kitchen table with a group of white, apparently working-class voters, Mr. Obama says: “We’ve seen over the last eight years how decisions by a president can have a profound effect on the course of history and on American lives; much that’s wrong with our country goes back even farther than that.”

Did you get that last line?

"...much that’s wrong with our country goes back even farther than that.”

Why would anyone want to run for President of the United States when they believe its Constitution to be flawed--indeed the very culture and ideology of the country is "wrong". Probably one that is only running because he sees a giftwrapped opportunity to seize broad authority to single-handedly "fix" what is "broken".

Obama's "change" will be about far more than just policy. It will be about hitting reset on American history and its sacred institutions and foundational beliefs. It will be about reducing America's influence in the world in the (false) hope that we can all sing "Kum Bye Yah" before each session of the U.N.

And don't forget how it is being specifically pointed out that he is sitting with "white...working-class" Americans. Tell me again which party is obsessed with focusing on race and divisive politics?

It is too bad that many of the Americans who vote for this man for the sake of making history will come to regret that choice should history be made on November 4.

The Politcal Toll of Liberalism

I will start by saying that I respect anyone who has served in the U.S. Military with honour and integrity, even if their views oppose my own. If there are any Americans who have certainly earned the right to hold a reasonable view, it is a military veteran.

Having said that, anyone who believes that General Powell did not know he was going to vote for Obama since (at least) the day of his nomination is naive. I will not go so far as to say that General Powell is supporting Obama for racial reasons; I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is too intelligent a man to base an endorsement on such a non-issue. But I 100% believe--despite what he says--that the former Chief of Staff withheld his endorsement until a time it could be of some significant use to Senator Obama.

Heading into today, Obama has been falling in all the major polls to the point that the race is (as of this writing) considered a dead heat. As "Joe the Plumber" continues to seriously hurt Senator Obama, in swoops General Colin Powell employing his own "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force against middle-class America. What this will do to the polls in the coming weeks one can only guess.

This endorsement frustrates me--not because it comes against my team, but because it is so exclusively political, as in anti-Bush political. Maybe the left-moderate Republican Powell is miffed that Senator McCain bypassed him for the young conservative governor, Sarah Palin. But I believe there is far more truth to the notion that General Powell feels betrayed that two Bush presidents refused to listen to him when it came to warring in the Middle East. (And this is not to suggest that the valid points he brought up against both wars were not worth considering.)

Also potentially to blame for General Powell's moderate views has to be his time spent in Vietnam and the liberal-stoked political backlash on the home front. In the decades following, veterans from this conflict (of whom my father is also one) seem to be increasingly moderating themselves or becoming Democrats. Ditto Gulf War vets, and even Iraq War veterans. It's not that I do not believe them to be neccessarily disillusioned with their service to their country. I am convinced that these veterans are tired of being unfairly disliked and having their noble service and sacrifice spit on in the media, TV, and film. Who can blame them?

President Bush has become the left's favourite punching bag. And in their severe, almost fanatical, criticism of the man, many such as General Powell have come to see an oppurtunity to finally have their service respected. Thus, General Powell has much to gain from supporting Obama as the Illinois Senator continues to try and win a Presidency on the coattails of a media-labelled unpopular President. Don't forget that it was Secretary of State Powell who got up before the United Nations to support the intelligence of WMDs in Iraq. A speech he is on record as calling a "blot" on his resumee of public service.

That being the case, his timing is pretty disingenuous to the family and party that helped elevate him to a position where his endorsement of a candidate could tip political scales (no doubt he considered this). It's not as if the former State Sec needed to take a clear moral high ground against the McCain ticket. By publicly endorsing Barack Obama, General Colin Powell is simply looking to balance his account, possibly at the expense of the American way of life, in order to save face with the Washington elite. The sad thing is that a military hero with such a proud military legacy should never be in a position to need to get out a dodge.

That is the despicable, maddening nature of the Left in this great country. They force you to apologise for doing what is right.

Two Excellent Articles

Both are from the Wall Street Journal:

This one gives a list of policy expectations of a country under a Democrat Supermajority...

And this one gives an anatomy of the U.S. polling system, and how the polls can be as partisan as elections...

The Race Card in 2008

Politically speaking, I am angry. Because I am a conservative, a Lutheran Christian, and a Republican, I am thus--by default--a racist, and potentially a fanatical threat. That's it--no other questions asked.

To anyone who knows me, that is a LOL kind of joke. Unfortunately though, that is how the leading media liberals in print and broadcasters on cable TV are portraying frustrated and angry conservative Republicans at recent McCain/Palin rallies. Democrat Representatives in Congress are taking that view as well. Assuming what is reported is true, no one on that side considers that a handful of liberal activists might have infiltrated the rallies or that it was simply made up by an Obama-supporting broadcaster.

Just me protecting my side? Perhaps. Thankfully there are still major media types willing to expose the farce, but the damage is usually already done to the regular American citizen who gets ten minutes of news on the radio, and everything else at the company water cooler. But also look at the history of the Democrat Party when it comes to race in this country--a history often that is conveniently allowed to be buried and ignored by those calling themselves "journalists" and "experts".

If the Democrat Party was so supportive of the black community in this country, why did it slander Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, a known conservative, during his confirmation hearings in the 90's? Why does the liberal community lampoon Secretary of State Rice? Or try and talk down comedian-actor Bill Cosby? Would these same people happily vote for a Michael Steele or a Lynn Swann? (And yes, that would be the HOF receiver from the famous Steelers dynasty in the 70s.) Why do liberal Democrats continue to hold back or malign anyone who attains success outside the liberal ideology?

But the race-baiting doesn't end there. There is an indirect notion being purported that a vote against Barack Obama translates to racism. Based on this logic, could I not technically acuse those Americans of racism? How else is someone to interpret it when so many black Americans say they are voting for Obama simply because he is a "fellow brotha" and for no other reason.

A vote must be cast on knowledge and sense. I will disagree with you, but if you think socialism is the way to go, then vote for the candidate that supports that view. That is a far better vote in the spirit of the democratic process than ANY vote--yay OR nay--cast based solely on race. 

Words

How does the opposition try and attain the socialism they want for the country so that they can empower themselves? Through subtlety.

Here is SECTION I (short title) of the bailout bill that failed to pass in the House yesterday (formatting is mine):

"Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Section 2, Purposes:  Provides authority to the Treasury Secretary to restore liquidity and stability to the US financial system and to ensure the economic well-being of Americans."

Here is the Preamble to the United States Constitution (again, formatting is mine):

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is how close the Democrat-led Congress--with support from President Bush and Republican leaders!!--came to putting socialist ideology into U.S. law books. That is frightening. What is more so is that this bill is not dead, and I doubt Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) will be foolish enough to be partisan again when a bill with similar language comes before the House again.

This bailout MUST be defeated again on the principle that such language in a law is 100% un-American. Contact your Congress representatives and tell them to reject any bailout with this kind of language.

Palin's Undelivered Speech

From Haaretz.com (archived in the case the page becomes inaccessible):

"In the speech which Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was to have delivered at a Monday rally protesting the UN appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she was to have said that the Iranian president "dreams of being an agent in a 'Final Solution' - the elimination of the Jewish people."

Her appearance in the rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza was cancelled in a flap between protest organizers and Hillary Clinton, who had also been scheduled to speak. Clinton aides were quoted as saying that they had been "blindsided" by the decision to invite Palin, which they called a partisan move. In the ensuing controversy, Clinton withdrew her participation, and Palin's invitation was rescinded.

The text of the speech follows:

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country - leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York - to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan - and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

(The rest of the speech can be read by clicking the link below.)

Economic Dunce

There is just no other way to describe Barack Obama after he blamed Bush economic policy for the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the subprime mortgage crisis in general. "Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

He gives no specifics as to what he would do...although I guess his assumption is that we will assume simply the opposite of the above...? Notice he got a dig in on the "evil" CEOs, but laid no blame at the feet of the American citizen?

Someone amongst his 300 advisers needs to tell him that the crisis happened because banks were irresponsible with their own investments and because people requested loans that should not have been requested.

McCain's Sex Education Ad

I am having another great conversation with Steve Ersinghaus re: the "infamous" McCain Sex-Ed ad. I very much enjoy the liberal vs conservative talks with Steve.

Double-Standards

It never ceases to amaze me how the Republicans and Democrats are portrayed when campaigns gets "tense" (read: nasty) down the stretch.

Take the recent McCain ad about the Illinois Senate sex-ed bill. The bill is fact. Furthermore, it is WORSE than the McCain ad could even get into! In addition to adding sex-ed to the curriculum for K-5, it strikes from the state law books the requirement to "teach honor and respect for monogamous, heterosexual marraige", "stress that pupils restrain from sexual intercourse" before marraige, or educate on the "possible emotional and psychological consequences" of premarital and/or adolescent sex.

Obama's campaign is accusing the McCain campaign of distorting the purpose of the law, and more generally Obama accused McCain of "lies, outrage and swift boat politics". (The irony of the last statement is that the swift boat veterans attack on John Kerry was TRUE!!)

So in other words, when Democrats put out these kinds of ads they are enlightening the electorate. When Republicans do it we are lying, distorting, and lowering ourselves to "negative, cynical" campaigning.

Or in other words, Obama is sinking in the polls (which all of a sudden don't mean anything to the mainstream media), his liberal voting record is being revealed, and his Vice Presidential running mate is making gaff after gaff like "Hillary might have been a better choice". Given his own flip-flops and gaffs, his inability to speak intelligently without teleprompters or platitudes (view any of his live debates), and that his own party is starting to see the gold plating wear off... no wonder Obama is turning his presidential bid into a "your mama" war.

P.S. To be fair, I thought that the RNC mishandled a recent comment by Joe Biden on Palin when he said she would be "a backward step for women". The RNC rep (a woman herself) responded, "Sarah Palin’s nomination as the Republican vice presidential nominee is an historic opportunity to break the highest glass ceiling." That is NOT why Gov Palin should be elected and it is NOT why she is so popular. Her #1 appeal is her genuine-ness and proven conservative Christian values. And that is why she should be elected. Otherwise we reduce this election to race and gender--that may be what the Democrat party is about, but that is not what America is ever about.

RE: Obama's Healthcare

Steve Says:
"On the facts, McCain is not making a fair assessment. He’s slanting for political profit. That’s Dean Baker’s point. Note that 'democrat and liberal' don’t automatically make positions wrong. Indeed, Obama may have the better ideas."

Steve,

"Liberal" is a fair ideology classification; or show me a "conservative" who supports universal health care, higher taxes, isolationism, infinite welfare, same-sex marriage, more government, man-made global warming etc. I believe all these liberal ideas are wrong as does anyone who is a conservative; the Left believes the same about the Right, and that is fine :-)

RE: Dean Baker. Maine has one of the worse debts in the union in part because of its "Dirigo" health program. Dean's statement that Obama's plan would be an option is true, but only to the extent that insurance companies will be able to compete with the premium of government provided insurance.

Obama's Healthcare

RE: Steve Ersinghaus's post

I believe Senator McCain is making a fair and educated conclusion based on Obama's record and statements.

Obama is a Democrat with a liberal voting record who champions the universal health care systems of Canada, Europe, and China. The insurance may be optional (to start), but the program will still have to be paid for.

Note that children would be required to have Obama's plan. Also note that nearly all businesses that do not offer "quality" insurance to their employees or make a "meaningful contribution" would be required to set aside payroll for the national plan. Of course, Obama's government would determine what is "quality" and "meaningful".

Obama's stated plan pretty much mirrors health care in Maine, where the governor has made it near impossible for private insurers to operate, much less compete, against the state's subsidised health care program. Anthem, Aetna, and Cigna are the only independent providers that operate in Maine, and their premiums are through the roof for someone (or a family) who doesn't get coverage through their employers, due to all the state oversight and regulations.

On top of this, Obama's plan does not guarentee that illegal aliens would not be covered--a serious problem in this country that is a large part of the reason why medical costs and doctor fees are where they are.

At the root of the whole thing is this notion that health coverage is a right. And why does Obama believe it is his right to determine that American taxpayers must pay more taxes--on top of thir own health care premiums--for someone to have this supposed right? (There are certainly those with serious need, and I am not including them here.)

Universal health care is just an opportunity for liberalism to redistribute wealth, strike a blow against capitalism, and empower government.

On a sidenote: Americans are generous people. I have witnessed (or read of) several acts of charity when it comes to providing for those in need. But that is much more difficult when the government has its hand out.

Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani. PALIN.

What an outstanding night. I think the highlight of the night for me was when "conservative" New York Times colmnist, David Brooks, gave his liberal criticism to Romney's speech--specifically the look of complete "I don't even know what to do with that" stun-nage on his face and the "He drifted so far right, I’m sort of, my mind is boggling" words that fell out of his agape mouth. It was like the conversion of St Paul in reverse--he was completely blown away with the public verbalisation of truth and facts about liberalism. It was funny in a very pathetic way. (You can read more about his "conservative commentary" at newsbusters.com)

And Gov Palin... WOW! That was a Super Bowl Winning Performance that she gave last night! She was just stunning. I have posted her speech in full at the link at the bottom of this post, but here are the highlights from the speech that has the Democrat ticket looking up from the mat as I write this:

"And among the many things I owe [my parents] is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity."

... "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening."

... "With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers."

... "Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all."

... "I've noticed a pattern with our opponent. Maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions."

... "My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of 'personal discovery.' This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer."

... "For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds."

21st Century Democrats

Former National Chairman of the Democrat National Committee Don Fowler:
Hurricane is God's Favor to Democrats

Academy Award Filmmaker Michael Moore:
Hurricane Coming During GOP Convention 'Proof There Is a God in Heaven'

(And then there was Rev. Jesse Jackson's behaviour earlier this month.)

To ask these high profile liberal Democrats to apologise is not even worth it. You can't expect people to change who they are. I have a lot of good friends who are Democrats, and liberal.

Are these the kind of public servants that Democrats enjoy being associated with time and again?

The Inexperience Card

Well, that didn't take long. The first salvo from the opposition is that Governor Palin is too inexperienced to be a VP pick, thus that issue is no longer valid (in their eyes).

I fail to see how there can be a comparison. First and foremost, she's a VP pick, Obama is running for The Office. BIG difference in my book. Palin would have the time to learn from McCain. Obama is going to learn from...Biden?

Magaret Thatcher was short on experience too when she became PM. BUT she surrounded hereself with good advisors. And that is a major piece of contention with the Dem ticket since both Obama and Biden have not made correct foreign policy decisions, and I am not confident in who Obama would choose for cabinet positions that deal with foreign policy.

It's all well and good to criticise McCain and Bush for not going to the gates of hell to capture OBL. What a lot of people don't realise ('cause the media doesn't reprt it) is that Afghanistan will not allow any coalition troops to operate in that country as the U.S. has in Iraq; and Pakistan is even more picky. There have been numerous leads only for the Afghan gov't to say "sorry, can't cross that mountain pass" or "sorry, that region is tense, so best to let us handle it with our own sub-standard tech..."

And it's not just lack of experience with Obama. It's also a complete lack of character AND his want to pursue socialist policies AND the complete arrogance and race-consciousness of him and his wife AND his close association with the likes of Rev Wright and William Ayers AND his downright scary voting record on abortion and criminal laws when he was a state senator.

The man gives a great speech every now and then but he hasn't proved he can run anything. Palin's critics say her 2 years as Alaska governor makes her too inexperienced to be VP, yet Obama's ~143 days on the floor of the U.S. Senate make him qualified to be President? Guess we'll find out.

Conservatism Winning in Europe

Congratulations to the Tories in England and Wales, and specifically Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London, for their country-wide landslide victory of the 2008 London and local elections!

A heartfelt and belated congrats to the Italian conservatives who also took control in their elections some weeks ago...

And lets not forget Sarkozy...

These Euro winners won on solid conservative principles, proving that optimistic attitudes and policies of conservatism will win when it isn't watered-down. I might also add that all of the winners are pro-America, something else that no doubt shocks the liberals both in the U.S. and Europe. (As an aside: the current Pope is also very pro-America.)

Now, if only our own Republican candidates would take some inspiration from our conservative European brothers and sisters and show some bold courage this November in our own mega-important Presidential Election Year.

2008 Election: South Carolina

The media is pushing John McCain John McCain John McCain. But keep in mind that Total # of Delegates is what matters at the end of the day.

Also keep in mind that the "winner" of a primary or causus does not ALWAYS get 100% of the delgates. This is the case in upcoming "focus" states like Florida (57 delegates), Missouri (58), Jersey (52), and NY (101), but not so for Cali (173), Tennessee (55), GA (72), Illinois (70), 'bama (48), and Minnesota (41).

So far neither McCain NOR Huckabee are winning the overall (and MOST important) delegate count. The main fact is that there are no clear front-runners in most of the above states, and a McCain or Huckabee win in Florida doesn't mean anything is lost; both Romney and Giuliani have highly-likely, big gains coming up in early-Feb states where one or the other is the UNREPORTED front-runner.

Keep in mind that Florida is a closed primary, meaning that McCain will not be able to count on the Independents; poll numbers are hovering around 20% for the top four candidates, which means thihngs are wide open there. Interestingly there is no poll data being widely reported for states like NY, Utah, GA, Illinois, Tennessee, and Missouri--ONLY states where McCain leads like CA and...Pennsylvania(?)... ...

Vote for the best Conservative candidate, FL!!

State	Date	Delegates		Romney	Huckabee	McCain	Thompson	Paul	Giuliani
Total	-	-		59	40	36	5	4	1
Unpledged RNC	-	0		-	-	-	-	-	-
Iowa	01/03	40		7	30	-	-	-	-
Wyoming	01/05	14 *		8	-	-	3	-	-
New Hampshire	01/08	12 *		4	1	7	-	-	-
Michigan	01/15	30 *		23	1	6	-	-	-
Nevada	01/19	34		17	3	4	2	4	1
South Carolina	01/19	24 *		-	5	19	-	-	-
1,191 Delegates Needed to Win (chart from RealClearPolitics.com)

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

An article on "Man-made Global Warming" that I wish to archive.