Fedora-pundit

2009-01-19T12:06:00.001-08:00

As I sit here looking out the window of my office watching helicopters fly low to the ground and policemen set up traffic cones in preparation for tomorrow's inauguration. I can't help but long for it all to be over. Not really because I didn't vote for The 'bama, but because this town is just insane and it does not need 4 million more people to come here and help make it more insane.

In fact I think it is very sad that one of Dubya's last acts in office was to declare this area a disaster zone. Of course it was really just so that FEMA money could be used to help cover the expenses; however I do not disagree with the label. The government is poised to spend over 150 million american dollars on this event. And I find the lack of critics of the extravagance to be very hypocritical.

AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend | NewsBusters.org

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede:

Joe rips the Drive-By's

2008-12-16T13:38:00.001-08:00

Joe makes a good point on this clip. The news people can find out anything they want, it's their job, but their lack of curiosity on the Blago matter is very telling.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Joe Scarborough rips the Tanning Bed Media

Test

2008-04-17T07:45:00.001-07:00

This is a test post

William F. Buckley Jr. Dies at 82

2008-02-28T06:32:00.001-08:00

RIP Bill Buckley, you will be missed.

William Buckley was often described as a witty man who loved a good argument or discussion. But also a man who was extremely friendly and displayed a love of life that was contagious. He had close friends on both sides of the political aisle and his intellect was renowned among them all. I can truly say that this is the kind of person that I want to be.

He is sometimes called the founder of Conservatism. But I think that's somewhat of a misnomer since conservatism is based on a way of life and what motivates people. It is not an intellectual philosophy that dictates how we act and think; it's rather the other way around. Bill Buckley was the first one to articulate conservatism and it's motivations as a complete intellectual platform. So I think the best description for him would be the Father of the Conservative Movement. I miss him already.

Rush Limbaugh shares his memories of Bill:

Bill Buckley is indescribable. He's irreplaceable. There will not be another one like him. And although that's true of all of us, once you take the time to learn about Buckley and his life and look at what all he did with it, he did not waste a moment, did not waste a moment. He was able to pursue, as he called it, his sybaritic delights, his pleasurable delights, such as sailing around the world numerous times, traveling the world with his work. He was prolific in output, but it was his intellect and it was his good humor that was literally inspiring to me.

Norman Podhoretz: WFB and his mighty pen.

An NOR Symposium on the life of WFB

John McCain: Bill was a great American

Redstates favorite WFB qutoes

I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.

We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.

I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies.

All that is good is not embodied in the law; and all that is evil is not proscribed by the law. A well-disciplined society needs few laws; but it needs strong mores.

ElBaradei's Real Agenda

2008-02-27T07:11:00.001-08:00

So really, what does it take to get fired from a UN job?

Mr. ElBaradei's report culminates a career of freelancing and fecklessness which has crippled the reputation of the organization he directs. He has used his Nobel Prize to cultivate an image of a technocratic lawyer interested in peace and justice and above politics. In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation.

Mr. ElBaradei assumed the directorship on Dec. 1, 1997. On his watch, but undetected by his agency, Iran constructed its covert enrichment facilities and, according to the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, engaged in covert nuclear-weapons design. India and Pakistan detonated nuclear devices. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear godfather, exported nuclear technology around the world.

In 2003, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi confessed to an undetected weapons effort. Mr. ElBaradei's response? He rebuked the U.S. and U.K. for bypassing him. When Israel recently destroyed what many believe was a secret (also undetected) nuclear facility in Syria, Mr. ElBaradei told the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh that it is "unlikely that this building was a nuclear facility," although his agency has not physically investigated the site.

If I had a performance record like this at my job I would be fired. Very fired. I mean this guy has basically turned his department in to giant buckets of fail.

Unless of course your agenda has more to do with thwarting the interests of America. And his actions make perfect sense if he believes that America is the cause of the worlds problems.

It amazes me how selfish this guy is and how feckless his bosses at the UN are. The fact that a performance like this and a self serving agenda by a director can go un-addressed and unpunished is amazing. This also begs questioning of the UN (not that I need much of a reason). For a world wide organization who's stated goal is to keep peace; why are they letting one person's personal agenda endanger millions. Do they really think that a Islamic extremist with a nuclear weapon won't be that bad? There is some SERIOUS disingenuousness going on here.

ElBaradei's Real Agenda - WSJ.com

Links

2008-02-26T08:18:00.001-08:00

Chilling Effect - WSJ.com - Global Warmists try to stifle debate

House Inaction Left America Open To Attack - Mitch McConnel

Bad Times::By Thomas Sowell - New York Times "journalism"

American Thinker: The Misnomer of Conservatism

2008-02-26T06:33:00.001-08:00

Rush talked about this article yesterday and it truly made me think.

Consider the silliness of words like "conservative" and "liberal," if we actually give those words their commonsense meaning. Which American would most conservatives view as one of their own? Thomas Jefferson would be high on the list. He supported states' rights; he dreaded an imperial judiciary; we believed that the government which governed least was the best government; he believed strongly in the American Dream (he is recognized as the father of American Exceptionalism); he also deeply revered Western Civilization and its contributors. Thomas Jefferson would be considered an arch-conservative on most issues today.

But what was Jefferson, if we use the ordinary meaning of the words we have been given to describe politics? He was a liberal, because he believed in freedom (the ordinary meaning of the word relates to Latin libera. He was a conservative, because he sought to conserve those traditional rights which Americans had possessed as subjects of the Crown under English Common Law. He was a radical, who wrote the transformative Declaration of Independence and who made the radical gamble on America implicit in the Louisiana Purchase. He was a reactionary, because he sought to "turn back the clock," when the British tried to redefine the status of colonials by depriving them of rights which Englishmen had under Common Law. He was a revolutionary, because he reached the conclusion that only a revolutionary war could do justice to the American cause. He was a moderate, because he sought a tranquil, limited, apolitical government.

What Jefferson "was" ideologically was defined by the particular events happening at the time and upon the context it which those events happened. Yet Jefferson was not inconsistent it his political views: he was very consistent. He did not change, but rather the meaningless terms to define his actions and words had to change to meet the consistency of Jefferson. It is not unimportant that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers never used terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive." And, despite the fact that his Presidency came after the French Revolution, Jefferson never used the term "Left" or "Right." Jefferson, one of the most brilliant and learned political thinkers in history, never used the silly language that we do today to describe political thought.

Did that mean that Jefferson did not write about politics and government? Quite the contrary: He wrote extensively, brilliantly, lucidly, and deeply. What he wrote about was not ideology, but rather specific principles that he believed were essential for good government. Jefferson believed in very limited government. He believed in strong individual rights. He believed in strong states and weak federal government. He believed that America was unique and vital to the world. If someone wanted to use a name to describe what Jefferson believed, that was his right, but Jefferson defined himself who he was.

Read the whole thing: American Thinker: The Misnomer of Conservatism

Homeless: Can you build a life from $25?

2008-02-25T10:28:00.001-08:00

This is an amazing story about a guy with a college education who, just to see if it could be done, became homeless and tried to build a life for himself starting with just $25.

Meet Adam Shepard, his goal was to have a car, a job and $2500 in the bank after a year. After 10 months he had a car, a job and $5000 in the bank!

His story truly is inspiring. I can't wait to read the whole book but I love how he repeatedly eschews any attempt to suggest that he had an advantage because of his education and upbringing. Instead he talks about the lessons HE learned from the people who started out less fortunate than he did.

Homeless: Can you build a life from $25?

But surely your background – you're privileged; you have an education and a family – made it much easier for you to achieve.

[Adam]I didn't use my college education, credit history, or contacts [while in South Carolina]. But in real life, I had these lessons that I had learned. I don't think that played to my advantage. How much of a college education do you need to budget your money to a point that you're not spending frivolously, but you're instead putting your money in the bank?

Do you need a college education? I don't think so. To be honest with you, I think I was disadvantaged, because my thinking was inside of a box. I have the way that I lived [in North Carolina] – and to enter into this totally new world and acclimate to a different lifestyle, that was the challenge for me.

......

Would your project have changed if you'd had child-care payments or been required to report to a probation officer? Wouldn't that have made it much harder?

The question isn't whether I would have been able to succeed. I think it's the attitude that I take in: "I've got child care. I've got a probation officer. I've got all these bills. Now what am I going to do? Am I going to continue to go out to eat and put rims on my Cadillac? Or am I going to make some things happen in my life...?" One guy, who arrived [at the shelter] on a Tuesday had been hit by a car on [the previous] Friday by a drunk driver. He was in a wheelchair. He was totally out of it. He was at the shelter. And I said, "Dude, your life is completely changed." And he said, "Yeah, you're right, but I'm getting the heck out of here." Then there was this other guy who could walk and everything was good in his life, but he was just kind of bumming around, begging on the street corner. To see the attitudes along the way, that is what my story is about.

That makes me feel almost ashamed for not having a better attitude about my career and education. It definitely gives me pride to live in a Country where you can start at the bottom and with enough hard work and a good attitude be very successful. Especially if you have an attitude similar to Adam's:

You made it out of the shelter, got a job, and opened a bank account. Did you meet other people who had similar experiences?

Oh, absolutely. We don't need "Scratch Beginnings" to know that millions of Americans are creating a life for themselves from nothing.... Just as millions of Americans are not getting by. There are both ends of the spectrum.

To meet that guy [in the wheelchair] at the shelter, [makes you wonder] 'Can he get out and go to college and become a doctor?' Maybe, maybe not. I think he can set goals..... You can use your talents. That's why, from the beginning, I set very realistic goals: $2,500, a job, car. This isn't a "rags-to-riches million-dollar" story. This is very realistic. I truly believe, based on what I saw at the shelter ...that anyone can do that.

That's one thing about liberals and really politicians in general. You never hear them say "you CAN do it". It's always "What you've already done should have been good enough and I'm the one who can fix this injustice". Even if the pols have good intentions they are discouraging the attitude that will ultimately help the poor become not poor.

Here is another interview with Adam from one of my favorite websites Get Rich Slowly:

Even now, though, in my current life where I have a little bit more financial freedom, I’m still always looking to save money. Why do I need to go to the “real movie theatre” when I can go to the “dolla-fitty” and watch movies that might be a month or two old? Why Eddie Bauer, when Marshall’s essentially has the same clothes? Why Dr. Pepper when there’s Dr. Thunder? And on and on. Even with money to spare, I’m looking for ways to put that money to work for me rather than spending it on items that I don’t truly need for right now.

I know that one day I’ll be financially free enough to own the car I want, the house I want, the clothes I want. That day is not today, but the idea of delaying gratification keeps me going.

J.D.
Is it really that easy? You were able to do this because you had a goal. What was the situation like for those people you worked and lived with? Did they have goals? Did they save?

Adam
Of course it’s easy for me to say it was easy. I had a goal. I was out to prove a point. I had the mentality and I knew what I had to do to get the results I wanted.

But what surprised me most, and what makes my story so fascinating, is that so many people around me were doing the same thing. It was most prevalent in the shelter (where some people had spent a lifetime learning from their mistakes), but it was just as prevalent outside of the shelter with guys like Derrick Hale, who emerges as the hero of my experience in Charleston.

Derrick was a guy I was working with at the moving company. He had come from rural Kingstree, SC, and he truly knew what poverty was like having grown up in a world of bologna and pickle sandwiches and maybe the lights will turn on, maybe not. And there he was in Charleston, saving his money just like I was. Actually, that’s cocky of me to say, since I was learning so many lessons from him.

Derrick was unique in that not only did he have a goal, but he had a vision for achieving that goal. There’s a monumental difference, and I really learned that throughout the course of my time in Charleston. Everybody knows what they want (nice house, car, vacation money, etc.) and many people know what can get in the way of achieving those goals (see poor spending habits above). But! Some people really struggle with the discipline of their vision. Derrick wanted a house, and near the end of my time in Charleston, he moved into a brand new 3-bedroom, two-story house, with a patio and a fenced in yard for his daughter and dog to play. He was 25 and he worked as a mover, but he knew how to handle his money.

So, is it realistic to set goals and save your money and make worthy investments? Of course it is! Are people doing it? Of course they are, just as there are people that are squandering their money to bad habits.

Read the whole thing. You will be glad you did

Also check out his website Scratch Beginnings.

Some Reading

2008-02-20T12:16:00.001-08:00

Here is some reading for you

John McCain
"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve."

Mark Styen - What would it take to alarm you?
The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few.

Global Warming? It's the coldest winter in decades.
Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.
The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
A photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg has become one of the most enduring images in the campaign against climate change.
It was used by former US Vice President Al Gore during his Inconvenient Truth lectures about mankind’s impact on the world. But scientists say the northern hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades.
They add that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966.

Obamamania

2008-02-20T11:50:00.001-08:00

The Obama campaign seems determined to be THE definition of "style over substance". In a recent speech Michelle Obama made the statement "for the FIRST time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" (see Video).

Really Mrs. Obama? Let's see in your lifetime the Berlin Wall came down, Segregation was stamped out and the Corvette was produced. Not proud of that? Hmm ok. What about being at the forefront of a technological renaissance that has literally changed the world(the Internet)? Or what about the way this country responded with aid to the Tsunami in 2004? Were you not proud of the heroic First Responders on 9/11?

Even if those things did make her proud, a little bit, putting her husbands speeches to rockstar like crowds in the same category is very revealing. It reveals that Obama's positions are going to be solely based on what makes people feel good. Indeed that's what his campaign has consisted of: feelings. His speeches is making Bill Clinton and his old "I feel your pain" speeches look like Ebeneezer Scrooge.

In the meantime those of us who are truly proud of our country know that it takes more than good intentions to be an effective President.

Michelle Malkin has a great take on this as well.

President Bush

2008-02-20T11:04:00.001-08:00

Has done more to fight AIDS and disease in Africa than any other President.

But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.

Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements.

The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

If Dubya's name was Bill Clinton this would be on the front page of every newspaper and magazine across this country (and probably other Countries as well).

But what's not being talked about is the dirty little secret about how HIV spread in the first place. The truth is that back when HIV first started spreading in Africa it was predominantly in UN controlled 'aid areas'. The UN refused to classify it as a deadly virus and thus did not quarantine or restrict the movement of those infected. This was later corrected but the problem is still way out of hand.

LILEKS

2008-02-20T05:59:00.001-08:00

Bleats all over Obama

On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It's a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. I disagree. It is my house. Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise! But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division. There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. Then we have truly come together. Look, this isn’t a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. You’re pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They don’t.

If he wins, I do look forward to dissenting; since it’s been established as the highest form of patriotism, I expect my arguments will be met with grave respect. Shhhh! He’s dissenting.

Among the arguments offered by the callers:

* He will help save the planet by encouraging everyone to recycle cans and bottles and paper (the caller discussed a local drought, and said she did not think that recycling would stop it, but if everyone recycled - something she thought Obama would bring about through a general new era of ecological concern - future droughts would not occur.)

* He will pay for college tuition (the caller thought tuition was too expensive, and did not want to be burdened with loans)

* He will meet with the Iranians, personally, and conduct a frank personal interrogation about their nuclear intentions

* He will inspire the Youth of America to get involved in politics again

* He will prevent American companies from moving manufacturing overseas (The caller was unsure how this could be done, only that it would be done, because it should be done)

* He will not raise taxes on anyone except maybe millionaires (The caller was surprised to be asked if Obama would raise taxes; it was a strange, peculiar, irrelevant issue)

* He will give everyone health care (This would make American industry competitive, since companies would be freed of the obligation of making it an employee benefit)

* He will talk to the Europeans

And so on. There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. I remember the same zeitgeist afoot in the land in 1992; change was the mantra then, too. Odd how things turn out – I’d be happier with Hillary as President than Obama, simply because she seems a bit more seasoned and realistic. And I do find it interesting that people who have decried the shallow, theatrical, emotion-based nature of contemporary politics are now so effusive in their praise for someone’s ability to move crowds. Perhaps they don’t mind a fellow on a white horse if he promises to nationalize the stables.

LILEKS (James) the Bleat

Free Speech and Radical Islam

2008-02-19T11:20:00.003-08:00

Great article in the WSJ today:

For the past three months Mr. Westergaard and his wife have been on the run. Mr. Westergaard did the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 -- the one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban. The cartoon was a satirical comment on the fact that some Muslims are committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam and the prophet. Tragically, Mr. Westergaard's fate has proven the point of his cartoon: In the early hours of Tuesday morning Danish police arrested three men who allegedly had been plotting to kill him.

In the past few days 17 Danish newspapers have published Mr. Westergaard's cartoon, which is as truthful as Picasso's painting. My colleagues at Jyllands-Posten and I understand that the cartoon may be offensive to some people, but sometimes the truth can be very offensive. As George Orwell put it in the suppressed preface to "Animal Farm": "If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Sadly, the plot to kill Mr. Westergaard is not an isolated story, but part of a broader trend that risks undermining free speech in Europe and around the world. Consider the following recent events: In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog's body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having "insulted Islam." In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed "blasphemous" material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don't like her books.

Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech. The cases are different, and you can't compare the legal systems in Egypt and Norway, but the justifications for censorship and self-censorship are similar in different parts of the world: Religious feelings and taboos need to be treated with a kind of sensibility and respect that other feelings and ideas cannot command.

Read the Whole Thing and keep this in mind the next time you hear someone call Christians intolerant.

Islamists want to kill you for 'sinning', even if you are not Muslim.

Rush Limbaugh Talks to TIME

2008-02-15T12:20:00.001-08:00

Shockingly Rush is given a fair shake and ample space to explain himself.

Take a look:

The second thing that the media doesn't understand — and I think it's because talk radio is outside the Beltway. It's a phenomenon that attracts what I call the people who make the country work. I don't think politicians and elected officials and bureaucrats and even the media are responsible for the greatness of the country. I think it's individual Americans laboring in anonymity, not seeking fame, just trying to get by, play by the rules, work hard, ordinary people doing extraordinary things. And those are the people that listen to talk radio. And the media thinks that they're all hayseeds and hicks without minds of their own. When in fact, they are totally independent thinkers. And most of my audience is there not because I have Pied Pipered them to where they believe. They already believed what they believe — I just came along and validated it. When I started in '88, there was CNN, the three networks, your magazine and Newsweek and US News and the newspapers. That was it. I started in '88 and I was the first so-called national voice espousing conservatism and people glommed onto it because finally, "Somebody who agrees with me!"

So the assumption is that people who listen to talk radio are idiots, or mindless robots, or victims of slick marketing and packaging. So there's sort of a condescending view of the audience of talk radio, people are sometimes held in contempt by some people. It's just totally wrong. It's 180 degrees out of phase.

Rush Limbaugh Talks to TIME -

Potomac Tuesday

2008-02-12T07:13:00.001-08:00

So it's our Super Tuesday here in the Potomac area. And a lot has changed over the past couple of weeks on both sides of the political aisle. So here's my take on what happened on the big Super Tuesday and what my perspective is going forward.

Super Tuesday saw John McCain basically wrap up the nomination. Fred Thompson dropped out and Big Mac took a commanding lead in the delegate count. Also Mike Huckabee did very well in the south taking some states that Romney had high hopes of picking up.

But the big story on Super Tuesday was how poorly John McCain did in the south. In fact Huckabee's success could be seen more as a negative reaction to McCain than a positive for Huck. And this is a situation that needs to get fixed, soon. McCain's large delegate pickups came from California and New York. Which makes sense, he is very popular with the Independents and soft liberals who live in those states. But come general election time those states will be blue. And he is silly if he thinks that he can win without the south. For a Republican to win he needs to win the whole south, and a majority of the Midwestern states as well. McCain polls really well against Hillary and Obama, but they will kick his tail in NY/CA.

And to his credit McCain has been saying all the right things and is trying to convince people that he really is a conservative who is compatible with the lifestyles of people in the South. Time will tell how successful he is in this endeavor. Of course a lot will depend on who he picks as his running mate. And also if Hillary gets the Dem nod then the South would automagically be united against her.

As sad as I was to see Mit Romney drop out. It was probably best for the party. McCain had beaten him despite a great stage presence and millions of dollars spent on advertising. So it was the right thing to do. It is better for him to drop out and encourage McCain to embrace more conservative positions than to spend months bashing his past record. I liked Mitt a lot, and I think he will be back in 2012. There is also some talk of him taking over the head of the GOP. But honestly, it's nice to be reassured that our elections aren't totally about who has the most money.

Rush Limbaugh has been lambasted by our media and some high ranking conservatives for not supporting John McCain. Rush has been very critical of Mac's 'maverick' tendencies. And not unjustly so. The claim is that Rush will ruin the party by not getting in line behind McCain. And frankly I find the claim ridiculous! Rush has always dealt with principles and ideals, not candidates and parties. Rush is the Maha Rushie because he articulates conservative life views in an entertaining manner. And while he supports certain candidates, based on their positions and ideology, he has never tried to play king maker nor has he ever wanted to take on that mantle. And really did John McCain think that he could take liberal positions on things like Global Warming, Campaign Finance, Taxes, and Illegal Immigration without coming under fire from someone who's job it is to to refute such positions?Seriously if Rush were to say "no it's ok, those issues don't matter" the he would basically be saying that he himself doesn't matter.

And really, these criticisms betray a lack of understanding about Rush's show. Rush has never been a spoon feeder of ideas. His show is popular because he uses clear and reasoned opinions and a rapier wit to gives voice to a lifestyle that already exists. Despite what talking head "drive by media" types would have you believe he is not a Pied Piper telling people what to think and how to vote. The Truth is that if Rush were trying to lead people around by the nose he would not be as successful as he is today.

Where do we go from here? That is the question facing many conservatives today. Who do you vote for? Do you jump on the McCain bandwagon? Or do you vote for the pastor with the populist rhetoric? Or do you sit out to teach the Republicans a lesson? Well honestly the Primary today makes very little difference. McCain will win, and VA is not a state that splits it's delegates, so the only reason to watch Huckabee's numbers is to see if he's close enough to get the VP spot.

McCain has the support of some people I respect (George Allen) and some that I don't (John Warner). At this point voting against him won't do much anyway. So what is the answer?

I think Michelle Malkin hit on it earlier this week:

Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders—no matter who takes the White House in November.

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.

If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (vetsforfreedom.org) group for their endorsements.

Opposed to the amnesty bill? Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Cornyn of Texas all fought the McCain-Kennedy-Graham-Martinez-Bush open-borders disaster. All of those Senators are up for re-election this year. Send them some money. Then send a few more bucks to the enforcement proponents on the House side as well.

.......

Get involved. Don’t calm down. Get fired up.

She has it exactly right. We shouldn't whine about the Republican establishment abandoning conservatism. We should be supporting and promoting tomorrow's establishment.

Sour grapes? Maybe. Or maybe just correcting a mistake that has been made in the past. Stay tuned because I intend to do exactly what Michelle suggests.

Hillary was on the board at.....

2008-02-01T05:42:00.000-08:00

WAL MART!!!!

What a hypocrite!!

Also, isn't it amazing how the people at ABC just HATE one of the most successful companies in the history of the world?

Candor from Slick Willy?

2008-01-31T08:47:00.001-08:00

The basic difference between the conservative and liberal position on global warming is that conservatives want to improve energy efficiency, make it cleaner and more easily accessible. While Libs want us to stop using as energy and preserve the earth.

Conservatives tie cleaner energy to improving the quality of life, we want to invent the next catalytic converter. Libs want everyone to make quality of life sacrifices to save our planet from destruction.

Actually if they are honest, Global Warming is really just a way for Liberals to gain more control over your life. Bill Clinton basically admitted as much in a stump speech in Colorado (via Political Punch ):

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

He can talk about saving our grandchildren all he wants, but what does it take to slow down an economy? Control! That is what these socialists libs want. They want to tell you what you can eat, where you can live, where you can work, how much money you can make and why you should feel guilty.

Conservatives think that the only way we will all be successful is if you are in control and have the freedom to decide those things for yourself.

If Libs really cared about the environment they wouldn't do things like leave their gigantic fuel burning, pollutant emitting busses idling outside their "Global Warming Conference".

Big Mac

2008-01-30T07:38:00.001-08:00

So McCain wins Florida. And probably the nomination.

McCain Beats Romney to Win Fla. Primary

Barring some miracle neither Romney or Huckabee will be able to win the nomination at this point. Especially since Guliani has pulled out and will endorsed McCain.

This is very tough for me. I can only hope that McCain is serious that he wants to unite the Republican party around conservative principles. However I am dubious and feel as if this is campaign speech pandering.

I'm not one to fool myself, I can read the writing on the wall as well as anyone. As much as I don't like John McCain he will get the nomination. Or at least it's his to lose. So let's try to look on the bright side.

-He's very electable. He leads in polls against Clinton and Obama.
-His electability might give him coattails. And a Republican house and senate is the best way to keep him from acting like a Democrat
-His foreign policy is stellar, the troops will be safe and confident in their mission

Man this is hard. I can't get past his anit-tax cut, anti-business stance. Or McCain Feigngold. Or his amnesty-laced immigration bill.

He will probably end up being like a Republican Bill Clinton (sans infidelity), everyone will like him but he won't be able to accomplish the agenda or goals of his party.

We hardly knew thee

2008-01-22T12:17:00.001-08:00

Fred Thompson Quits Presidential Race

NAPLES, Fla. (AP) - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.

"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," Thompson said in a statement.

Thompson's fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.

Actually that's not true. We knew lots of things about Fred. He came in as the most well reasoned intellectually solid candidate on either side.

However you can't be a successful campaigner without appealing to the sensationalistic nature of the American people. Couple that with the fact that the general public is really in the mood for 'change' and it is easy to see why things didn't go well.

It's very disappointing for me. I was sure that Fred, as a professional communicator, would be successful in cutting through all of the silly campaign rhetoric and clearly present conservative ideas in ways that appealed to a broad spectrum of people. Sadly this was not the case.

Fred Thompson Quits Presidential Race

2008-01-21T12:05:00.001-08:00

This makes me sad because it's true. It's true for my candidate and it's true as a commentary on what politics has become.

Bob Krumm on what might have been for Fred Thompson:

6. Since the media only print sentences don’t talk in paragraphs. Fred has displayed more depth and intelligence than any of his opponents in either party. It is clear that he understands the issues of the day and has thought about them deeply. No candidate in the past two decades has ever entered the race with such a wealth of knowledge. But he wasn’t able to convey his thoughts in short soundbites. What he intended to say, therefore, often got lost in what he said. Like the old adage perhaps, his late start meant that he “didn’t have enough time to be brief.” Still, if he wasn’t campaigning in the early states, and he wasn’t spending the early campaign time raising money hand over fist, he should have spent the time working on his stump speech. Instead he never matured his message until it was too late.

BobKrumm.com » What might have been . . . and what was

Debate Top 10

2008-01-17T13:06:00.001-08:00

John Hawkins has the Top 10 Moments from the Republican debates.

Here's my favorite:

Fred Lays It Out On Foxnews

2008-01-17T08:12:00.000-08:00

Obama's Church

2008-01-16T12:03:00.001-08:00

In politics today the question increasingly comes up "should religion play in to your decision to vote for a candidate". This to me seems like a silly question. Since you are voting for a person to represent you should naturally want to know how he makes his/her decisions. And religious conviction or lack thereof, being a large part of a person's worldview, affects decision making directly.

Of course since over %80 of the people in this nation profess to be some flavor of Christian you can't turn around without seeing a candidate standing in a sanctuary. It is very fair to examine the religious stance of each candidate, if only to detect political pandering from the pulpit, But more to get an idea of how the candidate would govern.

Looking at Barack Obama's church reveals some very disturbing attitudes and activism. And it is responsible to ask how closely Obama agrees with these stances and how much they will affect his decision-making should he be elected.

In 1991, when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he pledged allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a code of non-Biblical ethics written by blacks, for blacks.

It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media's portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races.

The code also warns blacks to avoid the white "entrapment of black middle-classness," suggesting that settling for that kind of "competitive" success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them "captive" to white culture.

In short, Obama's "unashamedly black" church preaches the politics of black nationalism. And its dashiki-wearing preacher — who married Obama and his wife and now acts as his personal spiritual adviser — is militantly Afrocentric. "We are an African people," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright reminds his flock, "and remain true to our native land, the mother continent."

Wright once traveled to Libya with black supremacist Louis Farrakhan to meet with terrorist leader Muammar Qaddafi. Last year at a Chicago gala, Wright honored his old pal Farrakhan, who's fond of calling whites "blue-eyed devils," for lifetime achievement.

It comes as little surprise then that Wright would think Israel a "racist" occupier of Palestinians, while describing the 9/11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to "white America" for ignoring the concerns of "people of color."

.......

Still, his Muslim heritage is not the signal issue before the electorate. It's his Afrocentric church, which preaches black socialism and black nativism, and his family ties to an African tribe that's fanning the flames of Marxism and militant Islam in a country once considered strongly democratic and a friend of the U.S.

"I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change," Obama has asserted. He also says his faith has led him to question "the idolatry of the free market."

If a President Obama's foreign and domestic policies are anything like the Afrocentric doctrine he's pledged to uphold, Americans will pay a hefty price, including those among the growing black middle class.

Remember this nativism the next time you hear someone call Obama a uniter.

IBDeditorials.com:-- Obama's Church

Wow

2008-01-16T11:42:00.001-08:00

What have I missed? I've been extremely busy launching my company's new website so I haven't had a lot of time to blog.

I have totally ignored three Republican primaries. So what have I learned? Well first I learned who people in Iowa would want to pastor their church, Huckabee. I learned who centrists, independents, and democrats from the Northeast want to be the Republican nominee, McCain (anyone can vote in the New Hampshire primaries). And I learned that Romny is very popular in his home state by the largest margin of victory of any of the three winners.

Meanwhile my candidate, Fred Thompson, blew people away in the New Hampshire debates and has been spending most of his time and money in South Carolina. But he's still significantly behind in all polls everywhere.

Here's hoping for a FDT win in SC. I will be updating with a lot more frequently now that my project is finished. Stay tuned.

A Grinch spotted in Oklahoma

2007-12-20T11:07:00.001-08:00

And no I'm not overreacting. Dude is trying to stop Christmas from coming.

Dear RedState Reader,
Drew Edmondson is the Oklahoma Attorney General. Recently he rounded up conservative activists and threw them in jail for circulating petitions to get conservatives on the ballot.
Now, however, Oklahoma Atty Gen. Drew Edmondson has done something even nuttier. He has issued an advisory opinion from the Attorney General's Office directing universities and public employees in Oklahoma to refrain from using or writing the word "Christmas."
Mark Tapscott with the Washington Examiner has the details. Mark notes, "Edmondson issued an advisory opinion to officials at Southwestern Oklahoma State University in Weatherford advising them that the word "Christmas" should not be spoken by any employee of the state school, not written in any official holiday decorations."
Attorney General Edmondson can be reached at 405-521-3921. Please call and wish him a Merry Christmas and ask why he banned Christmas.
All the best and
Merry Christmas to you,

Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

Please share with your friends and give him a call. I called and talked to an administrative person, and made sure I cheerfully wished her a Merry Christmas.