Pelosi's request

(from the Washington Times)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday asked the Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation into whether Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, President Bush's former counsel, should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, demanded that the department pursue misdemeanor charges against Miss Miers for refusing to testify to Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors in 2006 and against Mr. Bolten for failing to turn over White House documents related to the dismissals, the Associated Press reports.

The Democrat-led House voted two weeks ago to hold Mr. Bolten and Miss Miers in contempt for failing to cooperate with committee investigations.

"There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a president unilaterally instructs them to do so," Mrs. Pelosi wrote Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

She added: "Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a president to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents."

Earth to Nancy------executive privilege HAS been asserted you moron:

"The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege," Mukasey wrote, quoting Justice policy.

"Accordingly," Mukasey concluded, "the department has determined that the noncompliance by Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas did not constitute a crime."

This is your speaker of the house and the democratic leadership that remains the gift that keeps on giving.

What You Won't Read in The New York Times or The Washington Post-----
-----unless it's buried in the backpages.

Unlike our own congress that can't seem to pass a "movement", the Iraqi parliament has recently passed some some critical legislation, including benchmarks set forth by our democratic friends in the house.

Political deal-making cheers Baghdad watchers

By David R. SandsMarch 1, 2008

Politics has broken out in Baghdad.

Long derided as dysfunctional, Iraq's parliament in recent weeks has passed a package of laws on the budget, elections and sectarian reconciliation that have given cautious hope to U.S. officials and private analysts that the gains from President Bush's military surge are finally being matched by a political surge as well.

Daniel Serwer, a specialist on post-conflict societies, recently led a delegation from the Washington-based U.S. Institute of Peace to Baghdad to assess the political scene and interview the major Iraqi players inside the Green Zone.

"The popular image is that things are completely deadlocked in Baghdad," he said. "That's not what we found at all."

Instead, he said, the delegation found Iraqi politicians cutting deals, making compromises and forming alliances based more on power and votes that on religious or ethnic bonds.

(isn't this embarrassing that a new democracy in Iraq can accomplish what our own congress has long forgotten how to do?)

"There's a lot of floundering, a lot of thinking and rethinking, a lot of new voices emerging," he said. "But it's a good deal less polarized than we anticipated."

Mr. Bush and his fiercest critics on Iraq have long agreed that the tactical gains of the U.S. military surge will matter only if they are followed by political gains among the country's feuding ethnic and sectarian camps.

Even top U.S. officials conceded last fall the early political returns were meager, with the Iraqi parliament failing to act on a string of political "benchmarks" set by Washington, and failing at times even to obtain a quorum to conduct basic business.

In a typical comment, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on his campaign Web site faults the military surge in Iraq for failing to produce political change......LINK

When Tim Russert asked both Clinton and Obama in their last debate how the new Russian President will effect U.S and world politics, Obama had this blank stare on his face while Hillary actually bailed him out by fielding the question and fumbling Dmitry Medvedev's name. Obama had no clue who Putin's successor was going to be. This is just a taste of the transparency that will come out in the general election that will expose a youthful and inexperienced Barak Obama. And this is the best the liberal media and their pundits can produce to run this nation?

With the record snowfalls across the nation this winter ------- can some one ask Al Gore to leave his jet engine running to thaw out the runways?

McCain vs. Obama on Iraq --------- Round One

Republican front-runner and probable nominee John McCain took a shot over the bow of Barak Obama's position on the war on terrorism and the central front of the battle in Iraq. The Washington Post has dispatched two of their writers to frame what will be one of the major, (and most critical) platforms ahead in the general election:

Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview

By Michael D. Shear and Shailagh MurrayWashington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page A01

TYLER, Tex., Feb. 27 -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, signaling that a general-election brawl between the colleagues would center in part on who has the foreign policy experience to lead a country at war.

Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.

The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."

"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."

McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.

Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months........LINK

My first question is:

How many times has John McCain made extensive trips to Iraq and the middle east in the past five years?

How many times has Mr. Obama?

While John McCain understands how the chain of command works and will rely on his commanders on the ground to prosecute a victory with no appearance or resolve to withdraw to signify surrender and defeat, Mr. Obama would drop a bomb on our allies (Pakistan) with out their permission sparking a delicate situation that could jeopardize the stability of a nation with nuclear weapons.

My speculation: if an entire nation (Iraq) has spurned and turned on al Qaeda because of their brutal tactics of blowing up innocent civilians in the name of their jihad, how long will it take Pakistanis to become sick of their "cancer" as well?

Because of the success in Iraq by General Petraeus and the surge, while divisions of our troops have begun to come home with a "mission accomplished" victory proudly labeled on these warriors, does the Taliban and their al Qaeda brethren understand that a few divisions of Marines are heading to the hot spots in Afghanistan to finish the job that NATO forces were incapable of or refused to do?

While one Presidential candidate, (John McCain) has the vision to foresee a total marginalization of terrorist activities throughout the region by the use of military strength first, and then diplomatic reconciliation----the other candidate, (Barak Obama) with virtually no foreign policy experience or the resolve to finish off a weakened and leaderless faction of a scattered and battered enemy, has positioned himself to cater to the anti-war radical left who would rather surrender to our enemies abroad.

While most of Europe is standing/sitting on the sidelines watching the U.S. do the "dirty work" they are incapable of, a grateful and sacrificial nation once again rises to the task of providing other nations to achieve the freedom and individual liberty from the tyranny and oppression of a sick and disillusioned society that preys on the weak-------which is this battle against world-wide terrorism.

Surrender is not an option, and John McCain clearly knows this.

Barak Obama or John McCain? The choice should be crystal clear.

McCain Sets The Goalpost Higher on Rhetoric

John McCain reputiated a popular conservative radio host yesterday claiming his campaign will not engage in the inuendo and name calling:

McCain Repudiates ‘Hussein Obama’ Remarks
CINCINNATI, Ohio—A conservative radio talk show host who helped introduce Senator John McCain before a rally here Tuesday used Senator Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, three times, while disparaging him, prompting Mr. McCain to apologize and repudiate the comments afterward.............LINK

What Mr. Cunningham has forgotten, (just like the Coutlers, Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Ingrahms), is this election is not about them, or their egos, or their ratings. John McCain has chosen to rise above the rhetoric and innuendos and would rather attack Mr. Obama on policy and principal......sounds Presidential to me.

The fact that Cunningham spends his valuable time introducing John McCain and then later (on Hannity and Combs) threatens to endorse Hillary Clinton speaks volumes about his own credibility.

East of Eden posted a similar story about how the conservative talk show "supporters" stand by the party.

Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air has posted the video and commentary on this subject.

Update 2: Allah now has video of Cunningham's tirade at Hannity and Combs.

Breaking News-----Captain's Quarters Closing

Ed Morrissey moving to Hot Air

Looks like the folks at Hot Air are welcoming Ed with open arms

Is Limbaugh Better or Worse Than the NYT? Or, Just More of the Same?
by East of Eden

“I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here.” ..........Captain Renault, Casablanca

My mother, Lord bless her, was looking forward to listening to Rush this morning. What, she asked, would he say about the despicable New York Times article.

Well, it didn’t take long, and I suppose it was foreseeable.

First, I consider myself a conservative. Second, I support McCain. Third, I am increasingly impatient with checklist conservatives – Laura Ingraham insists that Romney is a “conservative’s conservative,” but neglects to mention that this is, under any interpretation, a recent development. The likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh clearly hoping that Fred Thompson’s campaign might catch fire, chastising McCain for McCain-Feingold, and neglecting to mention that Thompson was a co-sponsor. (When someone – clearly not a ditto head – asked Limbaugh about this oversight, he sputtered.) But that is old history now. If they think that while Mitt Romney was busy checking all the boxes and returning his application to Talk Radio, Inc., and while John McCain was fighting for legislation to stop the re-institution of the fairness doctrine, that this makes Romney the “true conservative,” then they are just disingenuous.

(It is really tedious to hear them trot out McCain-Feingold, misrepresent what it does, claim that it is the greatest assault ever on free speech, and then chide McCain for using “class warfare rhetoric.” Who could have guessed that conservative talk radio is like the most liberal college campus with its own speech code? What next? Asking someone if you can slash their marginal tax rates before you can date their daughter?)

So be it. Some other day we will argue about how conservatism gets defined.

There are only two questions about the NYT story that need to be asked:

1) Was there sufficient evidence to go forward with it?
2) Do you believe John McCain or the NYT?

My answer to the first is “not by a long shot,” and I believe McCain without a doubt. If this story doesn’t make you think Rathergate, I don’t know what would.

It is thus extremely disappointing that Bill Kristol gave the NYT a pass without answering the simple question – should this story have been published? Similarly, Mort Kondracke thinks the story has legs, but apparently isn’t willing say whether there’s any reason to believe the NYT. And when Alan Colmes says it’s legitimate to ask the question whether McCain did anything inappropriate on behalf of a lobbyist or David Gregory claims that the real story is whether McCain is a hypocrite, this is typical of the worst in liberal character assassination: throw enough out there often enough and maybe people will get confused and believe some part of it. (Or as I heard another in this infinite supply of strategists----that he’s running around with lobbyists and doing favors for them.) But it is simply wrong to raise questions of hypocrisy or inappropriateness unless you have some evidence.

And so now we come to Mr. Limbaugh. Exactly what did he tell us? That he predicted that as soon as the NYT and the drive by media “forced” McCain on the Republicans – as soon as the drive by media picked the Republican nominee for president – that they would turn on McCain. And the only question to be asked was whether John McCain would learn that the NYT and Chris Matthews were “snakes” and whether McCain would come to learn who is real friends were.

Well, there’s a lot here, but we have to start somewhere. So, first – who is it that Limbaugh is actually suggesting are McCain’s real friends? Is Limbaugh asking us to believe that Limbaugh is one of McCain’s real friends? “John, you may not be able trust the NYT, but I’m your friend (just check off these boxes and say what I tell you to say.)” How is McCain supposed to choose between “friends” like these? The NYT who first endorses and then convicts by innuendo? Or Limbaugh who said that he can see no policy differences between Hillary Clinton and John McCain? Who’s more guilty of sloppy reporting … the NYT relying on two unnamed sources? Or Limbaugh, who is apparently unable to tell the difference between Clinton’s and McCain’s positions on the following issues – the war in Iraq, taxes, Second Amendment rights, right to life, health care?

A little more disturbing is Limbaugh’s view that we out here – without him – would be doing impersonations of Capt. Louis Renault. Limbaugh thinks that he has uncovered some great truth that the liberal media would in the end not support a Republican for president. It is as though we out here in ditto-land heard about the endorsement of McCain by the NYT and thought – “Oh, migosh, do you think it’s possible? The NYT might endorse McCain over a Democrat?” And then we read the NYT story, and Limbaugh thinks – were it not for him – we would all be running around saying “I’m shocked, shocked to find out that the NYT is liberal !! I’m shocked, shocked to find out that the NYT would publish a scurrilous piece about a Republican.”

The NYT might endorse a Republican in a presidential general election? We don’t need Rush Limbaugh to answer that. John Wayne from the Searchers will do: “That’ll be the day.”

Limbaugh, however, is too enlightened to be outraged. Why should he be outraged? This is nothing new; it happens all the time with the drive-bys. Why should I be outraged? he asks, rhetorically. What did you expect? This is what they always do. So, by Limbaugh’s Logic, we should not be outraged when Democrats try to raise taxes? After all, this is nothing new. Don’t be outraged when liberals misrepresent a judicial nominee’s record. After all, this is nothing new. Thus, from Limbaugh’s Logic, we infer Limbaugh’s Counsel – only be outraged if you’re surprised.

We have saved the best for last, of course. Limbaugh claims that the liberal, drive by media “picked” the Republican nominee. Now, he’s been saying this for weeks. And the more Romney seemed to lose, the more he seemed to say it. (Indeed, this morning Limbaugh almost seemed to empathize with Romney staffers who lamented that the NYT could not have run this story before New Hampshire or Florida.) Despite his having said it so many times, it’s still hard to figure out what he means.

“The drive-bys picked McCain, forced him on the Republican party.” What could this mean? In a conspiracy greater than anything the left ever imagined about Florida or Ohio, Matthews and Russert and Gregory were stuffing ballot boxes from New Hampshire to Florida to California? Can you imagine? Maureen Dowd went to one of those Americas she’s only read about and voted for McCain. Twice! Is this what Limbaugh means?

Maybe he means that McCain is the clear favorite of Tom Brokaw and Anderson Cooper. (The day after Super Tuesday, Limbaugh played a comment by Brokaw: “The conservative coalition is fractured.” Limbaugh’s response was the more nuanced, “No, they are just going different directions.”) Well, it may be true that Brokaw favors McCain and implies as much in public. But how is that forcing McCain on the Republican Party? Are we supposed to think this: We Republican voters aren’t swayed by Mr. Limbaugh’s daily rants against McCain, but just let Great Tom say the name “McCain” and like Pavlov’s dogs, we start looking for a McCain lever to pull?

Is that what Limbaugh thinks? We can resist the entreaties of Coulter and Ingraham, of Hannity and Limbaugh, but just let a Matt Lauer say, “Ooo, boy, that McCain’s got integrity,” and we are jello in the hands of the drive-bys?

Maybe he means that since the drive-bys wanted McCain, they gave disproportionately favorable coverage to McCain and ignored the grand conservative, Romney. And who would have guessed that the drive-bys would have the epic literary sense to let McCain plummet to single digits in the polls, carry his own bags through airports, throwing everyone off the track of their real choice, before rescuing the McCain candidacy from oblivion. And I’m sure if we asked Limbaugh to go through it slowly for us, he could and would. He could tell us exactly which Matthews show, exactly which report by Russert on the Nightly News, and exactly which E. J. Dionne column pushed McCain over the top in the Republican presidential primary contest. Sounds kind of silly doesn’t it?

Maybe he means this. There are of course true conservatives who voted. (And despite evidence to the contrary, Limbaugh, Hannity and others still insist that had Huckabee just gotten out of the race, all those true conservative votes would have gone to Romney.) You know the ones. The 3.6% of the electorate that matters. And then we have all the others. You know the type. Moderates. Republican riff raff. Conservatives who are only somewhat conservative….yeah, you know the type – Republican trailer trash. I can barely say it…jello molds – you know, Republican liberals. And worse…people from the wrong side of the tracks. Yeah, you know the ones. Independents. What are they doing voting in our election? So, ok, all these jello molds voted in way disproportionate numbers. (And darn that Guiliani for that silly strategy; he could have been in New Hampshire taking votes from McCain.) But what did the drive-bys have to do with this? Did Paul Krugman go to the local McCain headquarters and offer to drive Republican riff raff and trailer trash to the polls?

But then what does Limbaugh mean? Well, relying on the same sort of evidence that Limbaugh relies on, here’s a stab at what he might mean. Since we didn’t vote for the “very conservative” candidates in the race, since we didn’t follow Rush’s “non-recommendation” recommendation, we must have somehow been not exactly misled, but shall we say, possessed, by the drive-bys. Yes, the devil made us do it.

But Limbaugh can’t be as bad as this sort of NYT yellow journalism. Innuendo. Tsk-tsking. Instead Limbaugh insists that this is now a struggle between the NYT and McCain, and one of them must lose. And Limbaugh’s analogy for this struggle – yes, Gary Hart. During the Florida election, Limbaugh approvingly read George Will’s column, describing McCain’s comments about Romney and time tables “Clintonesque.” But let us not suggest that Limbaugh comparing this situation in any way to the case of Gary Hart and Donna Rice is Clintonesque. Instead, let’s just say it’s “NY Timesesque.” Because that’s what it is. It is exactly what liberals do. Let’s just throw it all out there and see if any of it will stick.

Limbaugh’s distaste for McCain certainly appears visceral. And until he gives some plausible explanation, some evidence for his great narrative of this Republican primary season – that the liberal media “picked” McCain, that they forced McCain on the Republican party – he would seem no better than the NYT.

East of Eden

(editors note: East of Eden is a guest poster here at RovinsWorld that prefers to remain anonymous. Respectfully, I will honor this request. Additionally, the only editing I preformed in this piece was to format the text-----no other changes were made)

Should Experience Count?

As Barak Obama appears to have gained the "front-runner" status in the Democratic race for POTUS, should we look to see how much experience Senator Obama has in his run for "hope and change"? Curt at Flopping Aces manages to frame the Obama Phenoma in a Nutshell, (with a little help from (of all people) Chris Matthews:

Former Austin mayor and current Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson, a prominent Barack Obama supporter, is completely stumped when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asks him to list Sen. Obama’s legislative accomplishments.

Classic! Here is Chris Matthews, the same man who gets all jiggly in his pants when he thinks of Obama, asking the State Senator of Texas, Kirk Watson, what some of Obama’s accomplishments are:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?”

State Sen. Watson: “I am. Yes, I am.”

Matthews: “Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments tonight if you can.”

State Sen. Watson: “Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now.”

Matthews: “No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You’ve supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir.”

State Sen. Watson: “Well, I’m not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments.”

Matthews: “Can you name any? Can you name anything he’s accomplished as a Congressman?”

State Sen. Watson: “No, I’m not going to be able to do that tonight.”

Matthews: “Well, that is a problem isn’t it?”

Curt has video and much more..........

(editors note: I'll be adding more commetary here after work)

National Security vs Democrats Funded by Trial Lawyers

The Democrats (and Republicans) took a recess from their toils with out passing a FISA measure that would have passed in the house and already had passed in the Senate. The measure would have provided immunity for telecom companies who provide vital information to our intelligence community when they monitor terrorist activities around the world. Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has the embarrassing answer (via Robert Novak) to why this important legislation has not become law:

Robert Novak pulls together the politics of the Democratic refusal to call the Senate's bipartisan FISA reform bill to the House floor last week. Instead of taking a vote that Blue Dog Democrats has assured her would pass on that bill, Pelosi tried embarrassing the White House by voting for a 21-day extension to the current reform bill -- and that failed, with some Blue Dogs opposing it along with the Republicans, as well as some hard-Left Representatives that oppose FISA reform outright.......... Link

What else has Nancy Pelosi and her band of far left wing nutbags have in store for our national security? President Bush and the White House have called Pelosi on the carpet with this partisan plan that could put our nation’s security in jeopardy. When the reason for the motives behind the Democratic Party's agenda, it's best to just "follow the money".

Bush 41 endorses John McCain-----biased liberal media ask typical dumb questions.

George H.W. Bush stood shoulder to shoulder with John McCain on Monday, offering an endorsement to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Mathematically, statistically, symbolically and politically, McCain is just inches from winning the nomination, and the former president’s endorsement offers a signal that the Republican powerhouse family is coalescing around the candidate. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has already endorsed McCain for president.

“I did not come here to tell any other candidate what to do, a very wise man once said influence is something you always have until you actually try to exert it,” Bush said from the Houston Hobby Airport in Texas, where he was joined by his wife, Barbara.

“Now is the right time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad base coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall. His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt, but most importantly he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment,” said the former president...........Link

Directly following McCain's comments he open question up to the reporters. Dumb and divisive, but McCain handled them well.

The Media and The Respect of Authority
The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

This morning (Feb 13th, 2008) most of the "tabloid tv news media" focused their attention on a couple of incidents where authorities stepped over the line. With both stories armed with video, the first one shows an officer literally dumping a paraplegic out of his wheel-chair onto the ground to initiate a search. The other story shows an officer wrestling a skateboard away from its 14 year old owner who was obviously skateboarding in a restricted area. The video also shows the kid refusing to release the skateboard when the officer grabbed hold of it.

While both of these incidents depict situations where authorities have crossed the line in performing their duties, I have to ask-----when was the last time you saw a video or news report that specifically showed the amount of disrespect the public displays for our authorities that have sworn to "protect and serve"? Has a portion of civil disobedience also "crossed the line"? Does the level of respect for most of those who put their lives on the line daily really deserve to be put in the same light as a few who made the wrong judgment in their actions? I would submit that for every officer that may have abused his or her authority; there are thousands who go about performing their daily jobs in a commendable and exemplary fashion. People are human and at times make mistakes when going about their daily lives. Most of these people also try to learn from their mistakes while attempting to not repeat them.

Even the vile narration written daily by the new media, (blogosphere), and at times the mainstream media, reflects the loss of an unwritten rule of respect we used to show for our leadership. The Colorado college paper that last year printed and published “Fuck Bush” on their front page is a perfect example of the gutter journalism our society has decided to tolerate. From the President of the United States on down to local leaders, the decay of the respect for authority at most all levels has become acceptable to the reader. While there are many in our government that may differentiate from each others ideologies, what are we teaching the generation behind us when it comes to respecting authority?

While dumping a disabled person from his wheelchair was despicable and required immediate discipline, I’m more worried about the generation of “skateboarders” that display their total lack of respect for authority and the mentality that they don’t have to display that respect when confronted. The frustration in the officers’ demeanor reflected this new and dangerous level our society has accepted as “normal dissention”. As a son of a United States Marine who fought at Guadalcanal, there was certainly a different level of respect that was demanded when addressing my elders or any authoritative figure. Most questions or request were followed by a “yes sir” or on rare occasions “no sir”, but there were few other options acceptable in the conversation. Even explanations were short and to the point. A derogatory remark was usually met with immediate discipline or repercussion. As I grew up, this level of respect was met with admiration and mutual respect from my peers and authorities alike. Even the occasional infraction where discipline was required, I know there were times where the level of discipline was reduced or diminished because of my upbringing. My concern is the breakdown in the level of discipline we tolerate in our society today, and what the ramifications will be tomorrow.

Dateline 2152

It's being reported that the great-grandson of an early 1990's President, William Jefferson Clinton, has rallied a community of 30 to revive a liberal institution called the Democratic Party that disintegrated in 2008 when President Clinton's wife attempted to steal a nomination by claiming the suffrage of white women took precedence over the will of a growing black electorate. Historians wrote that during one of the final debates between Mrs. Clinton and a young upstart, Barak Obama, Clinton pull out from under her podium a meat cleaver and a stick of salami. The audience was aghast as Clinton whacked the "member" into two pieces and declared "this race is over". Her opponent fell over and died instantly of a heart attack, and Clinton was hauled away to a newly constructed sanatorium called the Kennedy-Kerry Convalescent Home for Wayward Liberals. The Democratic Party never recovered and was replaced by the current party called Centrocrats.

(Side note: it was reported that the Convalescent Home was fully funded by the global-warming scam artist Albert Gore who died in prison years later for bilking millions from what historians called the scandal of the century.)

In other news------as temperatures dropped into the minus 20’s for the eleventh consecutive month, the fence at the Canadian border is breaking down and the Alaskan Polar Bears that migrated south in the first part of the century due to overpopulation are finding their way across and exterminating entire townships along the border. While many scientists thought it would be generations before the carnivores would tire of Canadian meat, it seem this is not the case.

Hillary's Firewall May Be Crumbling

The Hillary and Bill Show may get a rude cancellation notice soon if Mrs. Clinton does not firm up her "firewall" according to party insiders that have spoken with the New York Times anonymously:

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment.

“The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

“They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.” LINK (open candid assessments can be hazardous to one's health)

Mrs. Clintons message on her health care program is finally out in the open to the laymen’s who realize this is just another socialized taxpayer funded government program that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. But promising the world to their electorate is nothing new to the Democratic Party when it comes to buying votes. The idea of fiscal responsibility just never occurs to them. What Mrs. Clinton does not understand is it's her message that is failing while her competitor continues to ride his message of "hope and change" with little or no substance. Barak Obama has (at this point) the distinct advantage of not having to articulate his message as the national press offers no challenges to Obama to define any of his policies. As long as the media allows Obama to skate on his thin ice of mirages, Hillary's firewall remains vulnerable.

Obama's Plight Could Get Rocky
Sooner or later his "hope and change" will require some substance and clarity.

There will come a time soon where Mr. Obama will have to articulate on his proclamations of "hope and change". So far, Obama has managed to ride his dog and pony show wowing his audience with his smooth rhetoric and charismatic delivery. Avoiding specifics of his plan to convert "hope and change" into a new way business is conducted in Washington seems to sit well with his followers. How long Obama's parade can last is another question.

Still looming is how the actual Democratic nomination process will play out in months ahead leading up to their convention in Denver, (August 25th - 28th). With Obama's sweep of primaries this past weekend and his potential victories ahead that could propel him enough to receive the label of "front-runner", what the "Clinton Machine" does to slow this momentum will be under a microscope of "journalist" and pundits. The change of campaign managers by Mrs. Clinton could be a sign of desperation or just an infusion of new blood which is desperately needed.

There are few choices the Clintons, (Hillary and Bill) can make when it comes to attacking Obama's perceived policies without alienating a strong portion of her own base. Both candidates are competing over who can promise to bring the most amount of troops home while calling on little or no advice from our commanders on the ground. Clinton has promised troop withdrawals with in sixty days after her coronation and Obama's plan is to remove two divisions a month until there are no longer combat troops on the ground. Both plans are folly and potentially could undo the substantial progress General Petraeus and our fighting military have accomplished in bringing real stability to the region. While al Qaeda and the foreign insurgents are in total disarray and getting forced into tighter corners of Iraq, an un-necessary and premature pull-out for the sake of the anti-war vote could create years of devastation for the Iraqi people and a fragile region just when we are in a brink of a solid victory over the radical jihad that has sworn to exterminate the west. And these two claim they are better suited to protecting our national security than John McCain? In their dreams.

While the Democratic pundits are attempting to call Mike Huckabee a fracturing function of the Republican Party, it seems looking in the mirror at their own potential meltdowns would be better advice. Just like the college and pro football seasons that just concluded, no one can predict with certainty who will come out on top. And the second half has just begun.

Media Bias ------ Part 673892

Saturdays primary race results were published this morning, (Sunday) with the "who's surprised" bias our mainstream media presents with their left wing liberal agenda. They, (the MSM) no longer even attempt to show a semblance of balance while the Democratic Party heads for a long drawn out battle to choose their nominee. While Hillary Clinton was swept in this weekends primarys, according to our MSM it is John McCain that "deserved" the ugly side of their stories:


Obama Sweeps Clinton in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington

By Eric Pianin
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept to solid victories over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state yesterday, an impressive showing that left the two Democrats in a virtual tie for national delegates but with Obama gaining momentum.

On the Republican side, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee delivered two humiliating defeats to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the Kansas Republican presidential caucuses and the Louisiana primary, but barely lost to McCain in Washington state, according to an Associated Press projection.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/02/clinton_obama_resume_tough_del.html?hpid=topnews

Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 10, 2008

Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him.

The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead. Still, the results were expected to do little to settle the muddle in the delegate race that resulted after the wave of contests last Tuesday in which the two candidates split up states from coast to coast.

In Republican contests on Saturday, Mike Huckabee won in Kansas, an embarrassing setback for Senator John McCain as he tries to rally the party around him as the nominee. The candidates were battling in Louisiana and Washington, where the results were too close to call. The Associated Press called the Louisiana race for Mr. Huckabee and the Washington race for Mr. McCain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10primary.html?hp

MSNBC

The Democratic race moved into a new, post-Super Tuesday phase as McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting. He lost the Kansas caucuses to Mike Huckabee, gaining less than 24 percent of the vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23068044/

CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Many voters in Saturday's Republican contests showed they're not yet ready to support Sen. John McCain as their party's nominee while Sen. Barack Obama cut into Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for Democratic delegates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/09/feb.9.contests/index.html

LA TIMES

The Democrat sweeps Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins. Huckabee takes Kansas and Louisiana.

By Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 10, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama narrowed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the fight for Democratic presidential delegates Saturday, sweeping three states, while Sen. John McCain hit a detour on his march to the Republican nomination.Obama won Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, and McCain won a tight race in Washington.

Clinton and Obama remain locked in a showdown that might not be settled until the August convention in Denver, and each sought to make the case on the trail Saturday that each is better situated to defeat McCain.

The results show that despite McCain's commanding lead for the Republican nomination, social conservatives are still willing to back someone else. And they reflect the continuing divide within the party.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-vote10feb10,0,7024993.story

So, while Hillary gets swept in all three states, it's John McCain that is humiliated, embarrassing, and flunked while his party is continuing to be divided.

Can some one (any of these news outlets) please explain to me why Hillary Clinton was not embarrassed and humiliated while she flunked every test this weekend? And whose party will be more divided when the Democrats gather in Denver this spring?

(Note to media outlets: You all flunked this weekend......again)

Update: Even while Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is a confirmed conservative, at least his post remains balanced enough to keep his bias in check. Something our dear media friends have no intention of doing.

A Class Act



"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been about me," he said. "I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I now have to stand aside."...........Mitt Romney

Text of Romney's speech:

Mitt wrote this speech the night before his address at CPAC. In my opinion, it was one of his finest.

The Crucifiction of John McCain

It's the Last Day to witness the CRUCIFICTION OF JOHN McCAIN by the "puritan conservatives". Be sure to step up to the cross and heave a spit on the old man that some here are claiming Hillary is more conservative than McCain------what a load of horse manure.

With the Superbowl taking over the media frenzy and silencing the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et all, maybe rational heads will come down from their "Pontius Pilot" thrones and realize there is NO POLL showing that Romney can defeat Hillary or Obama, (in fact he is losing by double digits to both of them in most polls), while the same polls show McCain defeating either Democrat by 9-15 points. Take McCain and the points and re-focus on the BIG GAME, which is defeating the Democratic nominee.

Or do "conservatives" really want to gamble with putting Hillary and Bill back on the throne?

Latest Gallop national tracking poll: McCain 37% Romney 22%

Disclaimer: Yes, I do have many issues with McCain of great concern that does not please me as much as others here. Neither of the two remaining viable candidates fit into the mold of the pure principals of conservatism. The "my party has left me" faction have valid points. But fracturing the party to the point that allows another eight years of a Clinton Dynasty would be the ultimate sin. Eight years of higher taxes, entitlements ballooning, and maybe up to three liberal Supreme Court justices appointed ------- roll the dice------but please remember, everything's in the pot, including your children and grandchildren's future.

Oh, and I like the Giants + the points.

Update: Lorie Byrd at Wizbang focus's on our MAIN PRIORITY HERE.

Political Football Analysis:

This nation is currently split down the middle ideologically. Both the left and the right have their factions that many consider extreme. The far (radical) left may be 30 to 40 percent of the Democratic Party. While the remaining sixty percent is considered centrist to moderate they tend to allow the radical left to have a strong (controlling) voice in determining democratic policy and agendas. Only in this past election cycle did the rise of blue dog democrats make a difference in party control. But even while the blue dogs were getting elected, their voice was getting drowned out by the radical left. To which direction the party is moving at this point is anyone’s guess. To a conservative's perspective the final two Democratic candidates are considered too far to the left on policy. To the radical left Clinton is too much of a centrist for their liking. Obama is, well, for all of his "dreams of change", Obama has yet to articulate on what his exact policies would be, which so far have gotten him as close to a nomination as he will get. TAKE CLINTON AND THE POINTS

The Republican Party has a "fractured" consensus also. I think the best way to frame the conservative party is to point out that "ultra-conservatives" (to be fair, the "radical right), today consider George W. Bush as a liberal republican on many issues, with spending and immigration on the forefront. The struggle within the party to get back to the conservative principals of a limited government, closed borders, a strong military defense, and a market driven economy is at the heart of the ultra-rights agenda. Any movement to the left of these policies is met with a strong resistance and (I think) a voice that leads to the divisions within the party, justified or not. I've heard over the past few months many conservatives saying "my party has left me out in the cold". The final two choices in the Republican Party aren't all that pleasing to the radical right. Mitt Romney is the party's Obama with many of his issues undefined or recently changed . Romney reminds me of the Clinton's tactic to say what ever the group in front of him needs to hear. Few of Romney's policies seem to be concrete or "ground in stone", even though we want to believe them.

And then we have John McCain. McCain's past history (record) is there for all to see. No one in either party can dispute where McCain stands on national defense or foreign policy. It's in "concrete". His pro-life stance is also unquestionable. While the latest Alito kerfuffle has come to light, McCain will not appoint liberal judges. While McCain has said he will attempt to restrain entitlement spending, his record in the Senate over the years does not show where he has a record of "no's" to confirm this. On immigration McCain got a rude awakening last year when a majority of this nation told their representatives they would run them out of office if the McCain-Kennedy-Bush legislation came to fruition. He now realizes that the first priority is to close the borders and then reconcile with those who are here illegally. Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards argued that this issue would be divisive for the Republican Party and would harm the party during the election cycle. (I still disagree with his assessment). With the economy now at the forefront of issues concerning this nation, (thanks in part to the liberal media-driven agenda), McCain is seen as weaker than Romney on this, but it would serve McCain well to surround himself with a number of staunch fiscal conservatives that understand market driven policies are best at correcting/uprighting the economy. (And I believe the "hedge-funders" should pay dearly for their unchecked greed) A "bail-out" for the idiot home purchasers will have to be in another post. TAKE McCAIN AND THE POINTS

NEXT UP -------- THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS

McCain Defeats Romney

In the Florida primary last night many conservatives were stunned to see John McCain win convincingly over Mitt Romney. Two of my favorite bloggers, Captain's Quarters and Flopping Aces had over 90% of their commenters almost in tears with the disdain they are showing for McCain.

This was my response:

Let's see here.......two out of sixty-three comments here are facing reality while the rest are stunned and in denial over the events that took place in Florida. What scares me the most are the "conservatives" here that proclaim they will sit out if MAC is the Repub nominee. In the words of the one we are supposed to despise the most, "GIVE ME A BREAK"

Get a grip folks.......John McCain will defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. John McCain is a conservative. (And he has flaws we can deal with). For those of you that plan to sit out the general election if McCain is the candidate------you we're worthless going in. And you are not focused on the big picture, which is defeating the democratic nominee.

Would I prefer Mitt Romney.? No, I preferred Fred Thompson, but the last man standing is who I will support. Let Hillary, Bill, and Obama continue to fracture their party to the point where they will be so weak that the eventual winner will be defeated. But I will not contribute to the same scenario as a Republican. Get some sleep and get over it.

It's Saturday

While the world’s economy attempts to document its balance sheets and a U.S. election cycle proceeds, no where in the "headlines" is there a peep about the progress in Iraq. The latest Hamas spanking by Israel is taking some of this news off the grid. This also takes the attention off of Iran, Korea, and Pakistan. But they all seem to wait patiently in line for their turn at the "what about me" ruckus. As the world shrinks with the technology of instant communication, it no longer takes months to hear about seven billion missing in a French bank-----more like three or four days. Any proclamation made by a politician or pundit can be disputed, reputed, disparaged or contradicted by simply googleing up a view that supports the particular argument. Whether the documentation is fact or fiction is irrelevant and immaterial. Knock one down as outright lies and five more pop up in less time than it takes to boil water. Or, as liberals love to do, (when they are losing an argument), just change the parameters or throw in a "but Bush is evil anyway". Topic-hopping is one of their favorite mantras. Meanwhile the economic stimulus package has taken on its own debate:

Economic Stimulus Package: Rebate or Welfare?

Congress and the White House have reached tentative agreement on a $150 billion economic stimulus package, but analysts on the political left and right differ on whether this deal will help boost the U.S. economy or whether it's just another swipe of the federal government's credit card. link

And now for some news:

Has any one noticed that you can't read a daily post at Michelle Malkins site with out at least one post beating up on the poor Mexican immigrants? Take a deep breath Michelle-----we know it's a problem. Try writing more about solutions. I would love to see her and John McCain in the same room attempting to have a conversation.

Same goes for the Hugh Hewitt/Mitt Romney site, except with Hugh it's balls to the wall for Romney or the world will come to an end. Maybe Hewitt's thinking along the lines of a second assistant to the press secretary. I haven't decided yet who despises McCain more, Hugh or Michelle.

One question for both these pundits------if John McCain ends up with the nomination, will you two offer the same modicum of support to defeat the other party? Is there a conservative bone left in your hearts if you have to change your tune? Or is it "toon? Whoops, that was three questions.

Back to the news:

It seems Mitt Romney will be losing one of his “golden eggs” soon on the campaign trail. The cost of his health care plan in Massachusetts is skyrocketing:

“According to recent reports, the cost of Massachusetts' health insurance mandate will rise 85 percent, or $400 million, in 2009. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), meanwhile, has been on the presidential campaign trail praising the program he put into place.” link

Also from CNS News there’s a report that John McCain is on even ground with the Democrats if he wins the Republican nomination:

CNSNews.com) - Though pollsters say that Americans currently have more favorable opinions of the Democratic Party, political analysts noted on Thursday that when it comes to presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is on even ground with the Democratic frontrunners: Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.). link

But in the same article Larry Sabato claims McCain still may have troubles ahead:

“Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, however, noted in a column published Thursday that McCain is not as popular among the Republican base, which could hurt his chances of being nominated.Sabato said while McCain won South Carolina's primary on Saturday, he received far fewer votes than he did eight years ago, when the Palmetto State's primary ended his White House run. "His mere third of the voters in South Carolina last Saturday means that, once again, he failed to carry Republicans or conservatives," he said.”

Just think, by this coming Wednesday we can all take some time out of the political “gamesmanship” and start talking about more important things-----like can the Giants beat the Patriots? Where’s my popcorn?

Update: It wouldn't be fair to post all this with out including Hillary. But, according to Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, Hillary doesn't care much about fairness:

Rules? The Clintons Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!

The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan and Florida of its delegates for violating scheduling rules for their primaries. It took 365 delegates off the table and forced candidates to stop campaigning in the two vital states. Now one of them -- just coincidentally, the one who somehow forgot to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot -- wants the delegates restored: LINK

United We Stand......Or Fall

Sister Toldjah writes a brilliant piece arguing the alternatives the Republican party has if the discontent over the remaining choices do not end up unified to defeat the Democratic nominee:

Reckless abandonment

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post asking readers of this blog what they would do if Senator John McCain ended up being the nominee for the party in the presidential race. The responses in the comments section were both passionate and divided. John McCain brings that out in conservatives, because so many conservatives despise McCain, while a not-so-insignificant amount of conservatives like the Arizona Senator.

Here is what I wrote in response to those who indicated they would sit out this election in protest, in an effort to teach the Republican party a lesson:

I, for one, am not going to chance Iraq turning into another Vietnam in order to attempt to teach this country any sort of lesson. If this were in peacetime, it’d be different, but it’s not.
Furthermore, the people doing the most "enduring" would be our troops and their families, both of whom have sacrificed so much for a goal that is achievable if only we are able to set aside our differences with whoever the Republican nominee is in order to make sure what we set out in Iraq to do from the get go has a chance at succeeding. If we don’t, our troops and their families won’t be the only ones "enduring" another Vietnam. The Iraqi people will be enduring it, too - and in a way no innocent person should have to suffer, especially not when the US has promised to stick around until they’re reasonably sure that Iraqi law enforcement will be able to prevent that from happening.

Our troops have sacrificed a lot more than most of us have for this war. I don’t think it’s asking too much to sacrifice our pride and vote for the person who will work hard to make sure that those same troops will have a Commander in Chief who will work to make sure that the goal is achieved in Iraq, then allowing our troops to return home from the mission with honor.


Please go read Sis's complete essay. Believe me, she makes more sense than Rush Limbaugh ever dreamed of.

Paul Krugman "Has a Dream"

Op-ed contributor and left wing liberal Paul Krugman (at the New York Times)made a feeble attempt at re-writing a bit of history in this Reagan hit piece:

"Historical narratives matter"

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

You see Krugman starts his narrative out by quoting Clinton, (the king of fairy tales), and then uses this premise as a factual statement. Then Krugman switch's gears and use Obama to set up his next BIG falsehood:

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

There's that class envy all liberals throw out there as an exclusive fairy tale. Now this is where Krugman does his best to re-write/fabricate historical facts that I will debunk, but Krugman helps out by claiming all this narrative is an idea that needs to be driven home.

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

And Mr. Krugman's socialist big government ideas work to perfection? Got it.

Fox News Does It Again! Shame on YOU--Fox!

Fox News (using their sources other than a direct one) reported that Fred Thompson will be dropping out after the South Carolina Primary.

The story is FALSE!

I wrote to Fox News:

This has happened TWICE now that the day before a state primary Fox News has reported "sources say the Fred Thompson will be dropping out of the race".

Fox News quoted Politico in this story (the morning of the Iowa Caucus) the Thompson would be dropping out WITHOUT asking Thompson's campaign manager or Thompson directly if the story was true.

THE STORY WAS FALSE!

Did Fox News ask Fred Thompson if he was dropping out after South Carolina? Does Fox News even consider the ramifications of reporting that a candidate would be dropping out of a race on the day before a state primary?

What would happen if someone used UNSOURCED information and reported that Mr. Murdock and NewsCorp was going to sell off their News Division to CNN because Murdock was "dropping out" of the news business. Does Fox News believe that this story would require asking Mr. Murdock if this was true?

Shame on you Fox News for your actions on this day.

Julia Banderas reported this story with Bill Hemmer on Friday morning 01/18/08

Dammit! I'm Pissed!

Note to Fox News: Fred Thompson is going to win the South Carolina Primary and will win the Republican nomination and will be the next President of the United States-----and then he will drop out-----report that you morons.

Fred Thompson Taking On South Carolina

Fred has been taking his "Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down!" bus tour all over South Carolina talking directly to the people. The response has been amazing. Crowds are packing events with so many showing up the fire marshals have been forced to close them to entry. The excitement is electric. South Carolina knows the clear conservative choice has arrived.

Fred is fighting for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. He knows the Republican Presidential nominee needs to be firm on values, free markets, and a strong national defense. The nominee needs all three parts in order to win in November.

Fred's stand on the issues can be found here: Link

Thanks for the Memories.....Bill

Well, that was fast. For Bill anyway. Word got out that there was only going to be seating available for only 400 souls on Tuesday, so the "Clinton Faithful" started lining up at 11:30 am for a 7pm one hour speech. The temp outside yesterday hovered around 45 degrees with a 15mph wind chill that made it close to 30. Around 2pm the promoters came around and passed out cards with numbers ranging from 1-400. By 5pm there were over a thousand in line. Clinton spoke for one hour---(no question and answer period)---and was gone.

Of course this was big for north coast residents (especially the liberals) who have not had a President visit here since Lyndon Johnson was here for the dedication of the Lady Bird Johnson Grove, a state park that will be closed this summer by order of the Governor to help with the ailing economy (overspending by democrats) in California.

Clinton's stump was the basic reasons why Hillary should be the next POTUS----universal health care, free pre-school for every child, College for everybody who wants to go. Bill failed to mention who is supposed to pay for all of these expanded entitlements, but I'm sure the middle class taxpayer has no clue either.

I'll get a report from my friends Glenn and Mike who were working the sound systems for the event later today and may post their perspectives at RovinsWorld. Meanwhile, I'll leave ya with this quote from our local Times Standard paper to get the juices flowing:

"Perhaps most importantly, Bill Clinton said the next president will be tasked with restoring America's reputation as a leading force for world peace and prosperity. He condemned the current administration for entering a war in Iraq without letting United Nations' weapons inspectors finish their jobs, for walking away from climate change talks, for turning its back on the efforts to control nuclear weapons and for demanding to be the only country in the world exempted from the international criminal court on war crimes." link

Of course, Bill and Hillary will fix all of these "problems" with your vote. "Give me a break"

Also local reporting: The Eureka Reporter

Bill Clinton Visits Eureka Today

I'm really not sure what Bill Clinton is doing here in Humboldt County. From the Eureka Reporter:

Evidently the 2008 presidential campaign trail is taking a detour.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, husband to 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, will pay a visit to Humboldt County today, thrilling many North Coast residents who haven’t seen so much political action since former President Lyndon Johnson visited Humboldt County for the dedication of Lady Bird Johnson Grove near Orick........... link

While I would love to have a one on one conversation with our former Prez, I'm afraid it would be the same old rhetoric of "it's all about us".

It's Official

No Democratic Candidate Fit To Be POTUS

After last nights democrat debate with the remaining three candidates, it's become apparent that none of these people have the experience or resolve to run this nation.

editors note: I will fill in this post with quotes from last nights democrat debate that will prove these remaining morons are awol when it comes to becoming a leader of the free world.

George Soro's behind the funding for the Lancet Study-----Who's surprised?

From the Times Online:

"Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute."


New figures---- 151,000 Iraqi's killed since invasion instead of 655,000

GatewayPundit is reporting the anit-military anti-Bush billionare funded the now defunct study.

From the National Journal:

Queried in the Rose Garden on October 11, the day the Lancet article came out, Bush dismissed it. "I don't consider it a credible report," he replied. The Pentagon and top British government officials also rejected the study's findings.

Such skepticism would not prove to be the rule.

CBS News called the report a "new and stunning measure of the havoc the American invasion unleashed in Iraq." CNN began its report this way: "War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis, or more than 500 people a day, since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports." Within a week, the study had been featured in 25 news shows and 188 articles in U.S. newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

ALL FLAT OUT LIES SUPPLIED BY YOUR FAVORITE LIBERAL HACK--SOROS

How is it that a nation with 21st century technology when it comes to information and verification allowed this garbage to go unchecked and unchallenged by most of the mainstream media, while the skeptics remained silent or silenced by ridicule? Will we see these "institutional" news papers and online news media report that the people were lied to? Where will the admission of fabrication be recorded in historical events of our time? George Soros and his money should be banned from participating in any political function in this hemisphere. Better yet, just put his name on the terrorist watch list and exile the man to the mountains of Pakistan.

Update: Newsbusters has a full report with links.

Others Blogging:

Common Sense Political Thought

Pajamas Media has an excellent interview with Fred Thompson that is exclusive to the war on terrorism

Where RovinsWorld Stands

I received an email from a dear conservative friend (that will remain un-named on this post) yesterday that posed some good arguments for and against some presidential candidates. To respect his anonymity, (which is requested), I will only post portions of his perspectives. I responded to his email this morning and after reading what I wrote, I have decided to post my response here, cause it's my definition of what I see ahead. Please feel free to rebut, argue, or agree to any part of this prospective:

First, from "Mr. Doe":

(my question was to him, "do you ever read RovinsWorld or leave any comments?)

I read it all the time, including this morning. (I frequently skip the matters about college football; but I will note there are four Big 12 teams in the AP top 10.) But I didn't read it during the election results last night; I was watching the coverage. We found it fascinating. Hence, the brevity of my email.

As for comments, that generally doesn't occur to me. At least I haven't seen you saying stupid things, such as the remark by one of the three Romney cheerleaders, Hewitt, did this morning: he said that Romney is the frontrunner. Talk about blinded by your own spin. And I think Sean Hannity is an idiot. (I found myself agreeing more with Bill Clinton on the "fairy tale" instead of Hannity's "Romney is true conservative" nonsense.)

I think my mom was pulling for Obama, since she doesn't want HC to be nominated. We were both for McCain, of course. But I like that the race was so different than all of them told us, including the new media.

I heard a clip this evening on the Mike Gallagher radio show -- Brian Williams swooning over Obama, with his other NBC ersatz journalists oooing and aahhhing at his vapid hyperventilation. And of course Drudge had the story about Williams saying that covering Obama makes it hard to remain objective. Lordamercy, if they can't stay objective about an overrated and overhyped Obama, so much for them being objective about the war or the election or anything else that matters. (By the way, I despise everyone at NBC, except Lester Holt. I won't even mention those communists at MSNBC...despicable. And I think Scarborough has all the integrity of a carp. )

(Oh, the three Romney cheerleaders -- Rush, Hugh and Sean...at one time I would have included all of Townhall.com, but I see Medved now is supporting McCain.)

And here's my response:

Seeing as how you didn't leave this comment in RovinsWld, I'll attempt to respond here to (maybe) explain where I stand/feel about this election:

First off, on the Dem side, my gut instinct is that Hillary can be defeated in the general election by McCain, Romney, or Rudy more so than an Obama with his "magical orah" that has even some Repubs swooning over this rookie. Matt, my good friend here on the property (who I rent from) has a son that has just turned 18. Clay told Matt the other day he thought Obama was "the man". This scares me. I know the youth vote has (since the 26th amendment in 71) been virtually non-existent in most elections and hopefully this trend will remain consistent thru this cycle. BUT, with the numbers Obama pulled out of the youth vote in Iowa, we can not discount this with out some concern. What scares me is if Obama wins the party there is a "perfect storm" scenario where if we end up with the weakest candidate on the Repub side and the Obama "madness" gathers/maintains it's momentum, AND the MSM continues it's swooning unchecked even by the new media, AND this possible sudden youth vote becomes relevant, this nation could end up with a George Stanley McGovern or worse.

The question is which Republican candidate can not only win the nomination, but which one can best unite the party enough to defeat his foe? At this moment (in the cycle) between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, Romney is the less divisive among the three. I say this because conservatives have some serious issues with McCain over #1) The Gang of 14. #2) McCain-Fiengold, #3) his immigration fiasco, and #4) his questionable tax policies. Not just one of these individually would be crucial, but ALL four together puts a burden on keeping the party cohesively together. Giuliani's social (pro-abortion) policies, his 2nd amendment stance, and his "personal baggage" that the media will hammer him with, (but not a Clinton), also does little to unite the party enough to gamble losing again to that "perfect storm". Now both of these fellers are unquestionably pro national defense and understand the threat from abroad more than anyone else in the race (both sides) BUT are the rest of their liabilities enough to lose the base while hanging onto the moderates and swing voters?

That leaves Romney and while he also has "issues' that may also not unite the base, he could also surround himself with the right people that could pull off a victory. I'm sure there is plenty more you can add to Romney's liabilities and I will wait fervently to hear them.

As you can see by my website, I have been dedicated to Fred for some months now, but I'm afraid his days are numbered. The media has already framed him as too slow and not enough pizazz for their liking. His money and help (which has dwindled down to zero) was invested in South Carolina long ago with the hopes that he could get there with the competition paired down enough to make a run at a "win" in the state. Unfortunately, there's still too many standing viably, (including the Huck-factor) that Fred did not anticipate. I still thought if Fred and Duncan Hunter could have gotten together earlier and made a run as the true conservatives, they may have had a chance.

Pollsters Take a Big Hit in New Hampshire

Pollsters are under scrutiny today following the New Hampshire Primary where the information passed on to the mainstream media turned out to be far from the reality of the actual results. While most of the information supplied by the pollsters was close to being correct in most of the races in both party's, the race between Obama and Clinton turned out to be a "egg on the faces of the pollsters". Let's look at some examples:

Poll favors Obama in New Hampshire------UPI

NEW YORK, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., went into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary with a 7-percentage-point poll lead, CBS News reported.Among 323 Democrat voters in the state, Obama had 35 percent over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who was at 28 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., logged 19 percent.

From the Political Wire (Jan. 6th):

Rasmussen Poll: Obama Expands Lead in New Hampshire

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey in New Hampshire shows Sen. Barack Obama leading with 39% of the vote, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 27% and John Edwards at 18%.The poll shows Obama picking up two points since yesterday.Among Republicans, the poll shows Sen. John McCain edging Mitt Romney, 32% to 30%, with Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul each earning 11% and Rudy Giuliani behind at 9%.

Peter A. Brown wrote on Saturday, January 5, in the Boston Herald:

Real N.H. poll will be Tues.

"then, numbers may not add up".........

"View the New Hampshire polls you see in the final hours before the voting occurs with a large grain of salt. It’s not because the pollsters doing the surveys aren’t good at their jobs.
It doesn’t mean they won’t turn out to be correct. But the very short window between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary makes it almost impossible to do the kind of quality polling that professionals would like, if given their druthers."

The bottom line is..........Pollsters screwed up, BIGTIME. And they will be under their own microscopes for quite a while. The blogosphere is all over the map on why the numbers were so far off on the Obama/Clinton numbers. Screams of "diebold", Clinton bussing the masses into New Hampshire, voter fraud, you name it, it's getting written. My take is the pollsters had little time to do proper polling procedures in the short time they had between Iowa and NH (5 days). What did they do? They simply sampled far too much emotion and very little real data.

Remember, even as late as the day after Obama's victory in Iowa, Clinton (in many polls) still had a 10 to 12 point lead:

"On the Democratic side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton maintains her front-runner status in the Granite State, with a 12 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is coming off a big win in Iowa last night, according to the latest Suffolk University/7News poll released early this morning." Link

But, when we look at what Rasmussen released on Jan. 6th showing Obama ahead by 12 points, we must ask Mr. Rasmussen how his company was so flawed in these calculations. Rassmussen may very well attempt to explain that their models were flawed because no one predicted the turnout would be almost double the amount of the previous (2004) primary. The youth vote was also completely unpredictable. I think it was the tears.......... :)

BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

Eric Prisbell at the Washington Post writes this story about tonight's BCS Championship Game:

Your Comments On...
Title Game Marks End To All but the Shouting

Rovin2b wrote:

Georgia, West Virginia, USC, Missouri, Kansas

LSU, OSU

When all is said and done, even with an LSU victory, all of these teams will end up with only two losses except for Kansas (12-1), and even with Kansas "soft schedule" they did beat a solid #3 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. Add one more team to the list above and you've got a hell of a setting for an eight team playoff. Most college football fans would love to see these remaining teams play each other for three more weeks. Of course, if OSU stomps LSU into the ground, all that goes out the window, and I guess the season has to end sometime.

1/7/2008 6:03:16 AM

UPDATE! Congrats to LSU! After being down 10-0 the Tigers came roaring back with thirty-one unanswered points. link

From Dana at CSPT via Gretchen

Dana's caption reads: "A real road sign from South Carolina says it all!"

Politico's Bias Shines Though in Iowa

Curt at Flopping Aces has a post up "congratulating" Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin for joining the world of fabrication:

The Politico Has Become The New AP

"The Politico has become a joke, a farce. The Politico ran a story prior to the Iowa Caucus that implied Fred was going to drop out if he didn't do well, they were wrong." LINK

The fireworks are all from this headline on Politico's frontpage website:

"Thompson may drop out, back McCain"

This was posted the morning of the Iowa Caucus and picked up by some national media.

editors note: this post will be updated and revised through-out the day while my emotions get in check------I'm still pissed!