joyfulchristian

So I haven't said much lately

Well, McCain's performance the last few days has been abysmal, the media coverage has become almost surreal, and my last big deadline of the year is coming up.

All told, I'm finding it hard to have anything to say.

I've read things at the Volokh Conspiracy I didn't agree with before

But never before have I read something that was just plain idiotic:

"Now you [Biden] said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so,
government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper."

Well, you heard it here first, folks: I have uncovered incontrovertible evidence that Sarah Palin has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue and converted them to her own personal use!! Where the hell else does she think her salary comes from?

It may be foolish, or unwise, or even unreasonable to suggest that people pay higher taxes; sometimes it surely is all of those. But it is
really irresponsible, outrageous, and insulting to say that it's unpatriotic.

Except of course, that Palin never said that calling for higher taxes was unpatriotic. It's perfectly clear from the excerpt posted that Palin was not calling Biden unpatriotic for calling for higher taxes; she was, instead, lambasting Biden for saying:

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

So how did David Post take a quote in which Sarah Palin blasts Joe Biden for saying that for upper class people to be patriotic they had to pay more taxes (the clear implication of Biden's statement) to the preposterous notion that Palin was questioning Biden's patriotism?  I have no earthly idea.

Update: It seems post has been the victim of a lot of slurs and name calling because of this post. That's really unfortunate. Post said something really dumb. News flash: We all say really dumb things. Post, unfortunately, said his dumb thing on the internet on a subject a lot of people are REALLY touch about. That's no reason for him to be personally attacked.

One of the unfortunate things about the level of rhetoric on the internet is that basically good people sometimes get rhetorically tarred and feathered for saying something dumb or offensive. People are no longer willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, even if they've read the person for years and KNOW that this one stupid thing is an aberration.

Law off Post personally. Underscore the stupidity of what he said, sure. But personal attacks for one idiotic post are major overkill.

Another bald-faced lie from Biden

Biden claimed that McCain hasn't been a maverick on the Iraq war?  McCain has been blasting the Bush administration for like 5 years on their war strategy. 

Softball question

"Senator Biden, you've always been an interventionist. Please expound on how wonderful you've been."

OK, it wasn't quite that bad. Close, though.

Watching a DVR delayed VP debate

Whatever you think of who won, from where I'm at so far, it seems clear to that both VP candidates are better debaters (and extemporaneous speakers) than their principals.

You'd think Obama would have whiplash

Apparently the fundamentals of our economy are strong after all.

So the bailout bill failed

Does anyone else find this convenient?  Both McCain and Obama were able to publicly support the plan, though Obama hemmed and hawed some in the debate, but neither one of the had to actually go out on a limb and vote for the dumb thing because the bill failed in the House. 

Conspiracy? No. Convenient? You betcha.

General impressions on the first debate

1. I don't know if it was Leher's decision or an agreement by the candidates, but I thought that pretending that this was still exclusively a foreign policy/national defense debate by shoehorning "financial security" into national security was pretty lame. If you want to change the format so the first hour is about economics, just say so.

2. No major gaffes from Obama like I was hoping, but overall I thought McCain looked stronger.

3. McCain made Obama look outright foolish about Iran.

4. McCain clearly had a message he wanted people to hear about Obama. He repeated over and over, "Senator Obama just doesn't get it."

5. Obama either had no theme for the night, or didn't communicate it very well.

If Republicans were like Democrats...

...a sizable portion of the right-leaning blogosphere would now be accusing the Obama campaign of engineering the recent corporate failures Ho help their campaign chances.

Just saying...

I usually agree with Eugene Volokh

... but not this time. Eugene has been a consistent advocate of the idea that people should not make too much of politicians minor gaffes when speaking without a script. He has rightly pointed out that everyone makes mistakes and/or is sometimes less than clear when speaking.

Sometimes though, I think he takes this kind of thing a bit far.

As I've long said, these sorts of errors (here about what medium presidents were using to speak to the public in 1929, and even about exactly who was president in 1929) are inevitable when people speak extemporaneously, especially when they're in the middle of a hectic campaign and probably not getting much sleep. All this shows about Senator Biden is that he makes errors just like all the rest of us. But it's worth remembering incidents such as this one when people start mocking other candidates for similar slip-ups.

I'm all for giving people a great deal of leeway when speaking, but if the fact that Biden stated publicly that Roosevelt was President during the stock market crash of 1929 and was making televised speeches years before TV was a viable communication tool doesn't say anything about him other than that he's human, what kind of mistake would Eugene allow as revealing?

Palin

I think I've had time to gather my thoughts on the Palin nomination.

I like Sarah Palin. I like her quite a lot, actually. However, the primary issue when choosing a VP should be are they ready to be President?  On this issue, the answer is that I don't know and I seriously doubt anyone else does either. She has little executive experience and no time on the national stage.  This doesn't mean that she's not ready. It just means that nobody possibly knows enough about her to know one way or another.

On that score, it seems obvious that McCain should not have picked her. However, that's water under the bridge now because he did pick her.  The issue now is, "Is she more ready to be president than Obama?"  On that score, I believe the answer is "probably yes".  While her executive experience is limited, it's far more than Obama has. (Assuming that you don't buy the Obama camps ridiculous assertion that running a successful campaign is sufficient executive experience. "I'm qualified because I won!")

Obama has shown himself to be shockingly naive on international matters and his soak the rich tax policy will be dsiastrous, so assuming Palin doesn't say some equally idiotic things she should have him beat.

So, while we have no way of knowing if she'd be a good president, she'd probably be better than Obama.

Politically, this was obviously a masterstroke.  Win or lose, McCain managed to capture the momentum for the first time.

Well, I've said it now

I told SarahK the other day that I hadn't been blogging much lately because politics is mostly what I care to blog about these days and there's only so many ways to say, "I can't believe one of these two losers is going to be President."  Then it occurred to me that I hadn't actually used these words.

I can't believe one of these two losers is going to be president.

There, now I've used those words.

How big is his head?

The Canadian Press: Obama pledges to focus on nuclear, bio and cyber threats if elected president

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama warned on Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.

One goal of his administration would be to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he said in remarks he planned to deliver before a round-table discussion at Purdue University. Obama said adhering to non-proliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran, the former of which has tested a nuclear weapon.

He wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons? What is this, Superman IV? (My goodness that was a horrible movie. Did you know that Superman has "repair the Great Wall of China" vision?)

For an encore, he'll buy the world a Coke and teach everyone to sing in perfect harmony!

This certainly explains a few things

McCain sees himself in Teddy Roosevelt mold - International Herald Tribune

"I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said, referring to Roosevelt's reputation for reform, environmentalism and tough foreign policy.

So what's the problem with this? Teddy Roosevelt was a lot of things, but a conservative he was not. He was a populist, plain and simple. That's pretty much what McCain seems to go for as well.

Oh my word.

At first I thought this was a parody. It's not. We're all going to die.

Depends on your definition of "everyone"

Dahlia Lithwick on Hillary

Clinton did answer one burning question: “What does she want?” She just wants to win the war, turn the economy around, and fix health care. Since we all of us want those things, too, her real desire is actually to be the person who does it. Why doesn’t she just say that?

Really, everyone wants to win the war? Even all those people demanding we bring the troops home NOW regardless of the consequences?

Apparently, I'm not the only one

Thank you!

Can someone explain to me why we should trust that McCain would honor his promise to appoint conservative judges, especially if he took a one-term pledge and had no re-election campaign to worry about?

Obviously, infuriating conservatives is not a concern. And just as obviously, McCain's stated commitments about the judiciary are suspect since McCain also made stated commitments about the purported importance of campaign-finance reform that were every bit as solemn as those he is now making about originalist judges. (Indeed, McCain even went to the Supreme Court to seek to suppress the pro-life message to which he says he is unflinchingly committed because the pro-life group in question was running afoul of his campaign finance regs.)

I certainly can't.

The only compelling reason I can think of to vote for McCain is his pledge on judges. The problem with that is that I just don't believe him. If he were up against Hillary, I probably wouldn't vote for President at all, as OK doesn't allow write-in votes.

However, Obama will almost certainly be the nominee and I see plenty of reasons to vote against him. Bad policies combined with bad judgment. There's a winning combo!

What are the odds?

One for the end of the road? Merry Clinton knocks back whisky on campaign plane| News | This is London

Earlier in the campaign, Mrs Clinton regularly took time out to enjoy a drop of the hard stuff with voters but she avoided informal contact with reporters

Earlier, she took a couple hours out of her not-so-busy schedule for a little sightseeing, driving in her 7-car motorcade up to Mount Rushmore.

Her appearance startled the handful of tourists at the shrine to the presidency on a cold and overcast morning.

One woman approached her and said: “Thank you for running.”

Mrs Clinton replied: “I need your help.” Another, who happened to have a copy of Mrs. Clinton’s “Living History,” handed it her to be inscribed.

What are the odds that a woman shows up with a copy of Hillary's book, not exactly a a new release, that she can get signed when she stumbles across Hillary at Mt. Rushmore?

Huh?

Michael, over at Save the GOP, after quoting several of Bob Barr's recent about face policy pronouncements, says this:

The War on Drugs, The Patriot Act, and now The Defense of Marriage Act. Barr is showing he will change his long held beliefs for political gain.

And he didn't even mention Barr's new stance on the Iraq war. Still, I'm confused. What exactly is the "political gain" involved in getting the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination? Clearly it's not going to get him elected president, nor does it seem a likely stepping stone to anywhere else.

Barr's slew of 180 degree turns is truly dizzying, but I don't see what he's getting for it politically.

Somebody shoot me

Oh for crying out loud:

Columbus — Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."

Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there," she said.

Someone needs to introduce Everheart to the English language. She says that McCain is "like Christ" but she's not comparing McCain to Christ? What does she think the word "like" means. Buy this woman a dictionary!

What would possess someone to say something like this? She's either attempting to shamelessly pander to religious conservatives, doesn't know the meaning of her own words, or I don't know what.

And this is the better of the two major parties.

So I knew Obama was arrogant

But to think that a speech by Bush blasting appeasement before the Israeli Knesset was a political attack on Obama smacks of hubris of the highest order.

Political Radar: Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I watched this part of the speech and Obama isn't mentioned. You know, typically when someone blasts a generic group and you take it as a personal affront, it's because secretly you know you're part of that group.

From Obama's policy statements it seems obvious to me that he would, in fact, be an appeaser. However, given that a big part of Israel's problems over the years have stemmed from a significant minorities appeasement instincts, wouldn't it be much more logical to assume that Bush was talking about appeasers there, in general, than one over here in specific?

Heh

New and improved Obama 57 star lapel pin.

Just to be clear, Obama claiming to have visited 57 states is not, and should not, be a campaign ender.

It is, however, rip-roaringly hilarious.

I've kinda given up on the GOP figuring this out this election.

In Defense of RINO Hunting - WSJ.com

Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.

I wouldn't go that far

Scott at Powerline, notes that Al Franken's accountant, who Franken claims is responsible for his failure to pay various state taxes, refused to comment saying he'd been told to say "No comment." Scott implies that this is part of a cover-up.

That's quite unfair to the accountant. Regardless of whether Franken told him not to comment or not, it's almost certain that his accountant is ethically and legally bound not to disclose any information about Franken's tax situation without Franken's express permission. The AICPA, of which most accountant's are members, has a code of conduct that forbids releasing this type of information. Likewise, many state boards of accountancy expressly forbid releasing this type of information. Further, most firms I'm aware of have express policies forbidding disclosure. I would no more expect an accountant to publicly comment without permission on a client's tax troubles without permission than I would his attorney. It's true clients typically do allow their attorneys to speak out in high profile cases, but attorneys have training in making their clients look good to the public, while accountants generally don't.

On another note, I've certainly had clients who received poor advice from former accountants about state tax filings so his explanation is plausible. I've also had lots of clients who never bothered to tell me they were doing business in other states.

Except, of course, that people around him keep bringing race into it

WRAPUP 2-Obama says race not an issue in U.S. election | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

"Is race still a factor in our society? Yes. I don't think anybody would deny that," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Is that going to be the determining factor in a general election? No, because I'm absolutely confident that the American people -- what they're looking for is somebody who can solve their problems," the Illinois senator said in an interview taped on Saturday.

You've got to be kidding me.

I personally find the idea of Obama as President quite disconcerting, but not because I think he's the anti-Christ.

To all you nuts out there who think you're doing some great service by making up scary notions about Obama being a Muslim, please CUT IT OUT. The truth is scare enough. We don't need fiction and you're not helping anything.

This is the guy we're nominating?

Seriously?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain accused North Carolina's Republican Party of being "out of touch with reality" over its refusal to pull an advertisement criticizing Democrat Barack Obama.

In an NBC interview aired on Friday, the Arizona senator said he has done all he can to persuade the state party to cancel the television ad that criticizes Obama as "too extreme" because of controversial remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

To begin with, I honestly don't understand what's supposed to be so wrong bout highlighting some of Wright's most offensive statements and saying that Obama, who calls this man his mentor and set in the pews listening to him for 20 YEARS might be too radical.

The only possible argument I can think of is that it's not fair to judge him for things other people said. In many cases, that's true. But if you've known someone for 20 years and never spoken up (until you decided to run for President) about the bile they're spilling in public on a regular basis you're either hopelessly blind and/or craven or you share their views.

What's so wrong about calling attention to this?

And what is this supposed to mean?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain accused North Carolina's Republican Party of being "out of touch with reality" over its refusal to pull an advertisement criticizing Democrat Barack Obama.

In an NBC interview aired on Friday, the Arizona senator said he has done all he can to persuade the state party to cancel the television ad that criticizes Obama as "too extreme" because of controversial remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable," McCain told NBC's "Today" Show.

There's no real indication here as to what this is supposed to mean. I guess these guys were somehow above using the idea that associates can impugn someone's character. He prefers impugning people for old fashioned reasons, like disagreeing with him.

How did you nominate a guy who's vicious to those on his own side and protects his opponents like they were defenseless babies.

God's not just a back up plan

SarahK's nailed it.

She's also got a better apology for Obama.

No thanks

Instapundit.com

SOME PEOPLE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE FOR THIS TO BE TRUE: Dan Senor: Condoleezza Rice Is Pursuing the VP Spot. And it's probably good for McCain if a potential running mate has more actual experience than both of his potential opponents put together.

Yes, but what has her experience taught us about her?

I used to be pretty big on Rice, but either her time at the State Department has seduced her into the moral equivalence that reigns there (it's certainly happened before) or that she was never as good as I thought. Take your pick, but I certainly don't want to see any more of her in a position of influence.

Have you ever noticed

... how it's the liberals who think guns are so evil that keep talking about armed uprisings?

Not all that over the top

The problem with Frank J's parodies of Obama is that Obama is becoming so ridiculous that parodies aren't that far from the truth. This parody of Obama's "major address on race" is not that far off the mark.

Whatever

Byron York on Mark Sanford & Tim Pawlenty on National Review Online

“John McCain is a conservative,” Pawlenty told me. “Now, there are some particular issues that have disappointed conservatives. He acknowledges that, and he has got some work to do to convince and reassure people that he is in fact a conservative…. But if you look at the totality of his record over the total time he’s been in Congress, it would seem to be unfair and incomplete to label him as something other than a conservative. And if the definition of conservative is going to be so narrowly construed as to only be those things to the right of John McCain, we’re going to have a fairly narrow market share.”

Going into the 2000 election we were repeatedly assured that George W Bush was a real conservative. That proved to be a pile of dung.  The truth is that both McCain and GW hold a variety of beliefs that have nothing to do with traditional ideologies, or for that matter any kind of organized political thought, and everything to do with personal values that drive what policies they will back. For GW, it was "compassion".  For McCain it appears to be "honor".

The idea that McCain is some kind of flaming liberal no different than Hillary or Obama is plainly nuts.  But the idea that he's a conservative is batty as well. McCain will choose policies based on what he believes is right and honorable and from what I can tell the only time he ever stops to consider whether those ideas are in any way related to conservatism is when he's trying to convince conservatives he can be trusted. Since he only cares about convincing us when he's running for president, I don't think he gives it any thought very often.

So here's what I need

The only good argument I've heard to bite the bullet and vote McCain this fall is judges. McCain says he'll nominate conservatives, but frankly I don't believe him. If I'm going to vote McCain, someone is going to have to convince me that he can be trusted on this issue.

I'm not saying that it would seal the deal for me, but I'm not pulling the McCain lever without it.

Oh, well then everything is OK then.

McCain a 'True Conservative,' Bush Says

WASHINGTON (AP) - John McCain is a "true conservative," President Bush says, although the likely Republican presidential nominee may have to work harder to convince other conservatives that he is one of their own.

McCain "is very strong on national defense," Bush said in an interview taped for airing on "Fox News Sunday." "He is tough fiscally. He believes the tax cuts ought to be permanent. He is pro-life. His principles are sound and solid as far as I'm concerned."

The man who has done more to marginalize conservatism as a movement within the Republican party as anyone in my lifetime says McCain is a "true conservative". I feel better already.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Not quite right

IMAO: The Future of the Republicans

I guess the Republicans are like a self-destructive alcoholic, and the Democrats are enablers by sucking so badly that the Republicans don't have to strive to be any better. Now, a party that is an abusive drunk would actually be kinda cool if it took out all its inebriated rage on foreign countries, but the Republican Party is more of a quiet drunk, sitting in the corner mumbling while wasting all its money on booze.

Unfortunately, their more like the quiet drunk in the corner wasting all my money on booze.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pulling the lever (well, completing the little arrow thingy)

I checked the polls last night and it appears Romney has no chance in Oklahoma, although Huckabee is running close to McCain. I just can't bring myself to vote for Huckabee. If Romney had been close, I'd have gone ahead and voted for him. However, he wasn't.

I decided to show the party exactly what I thought of the choices they gave me; I voted for Thompson anyway.

Apparently Bob Dole's disastrous 1996 presidential bid didn't do enough damage

Not happy that Rush Limbaugh has the audacity to point out the many elements of McCain's record that are very unconservative, Bob Dole released a letter urging Rush to back off.

Dole wrote that as the former Senate Republican leader, he could vouch for the fact that McCain supported the party on all “critical votes.”

In a bill of particulars numbered 1 through 8, Dole wrote that McCain has a “Consistent pro-life record,” was a “Strong advocate for strict constructionist judges,” “Supported voluntary school prayer,” supported a balanced-budget amendment, was a strong advocate for cutting spending, consistently defended Second Amendment (gun-owner) rights, “opposed ‘Hillary Care,’ ” and was “Probably the Senate's strongest advocate for strong national defense.”

The charge against McCain isn't that he's not a Republican (although many question that as well), it's that he's not conservative. This sleight of hand allows him to ignore campaign finance "reform" as a "critical vote".  Then there's the matter of things that didn't to to a vote, like McAmnesty.

Dole also insists that McCain is committed to strict constructionist judges. Frankly, I don't believe that. McCain is a religious zealot on CFR and basically says that anyone who opposes this assault on political speech is corrupt. Strict constructionist judges are far more likely to toss out this travesty and I don't believe he'll that risk.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Crackers?

Thought Of The Day: On Conservatism & 2008 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

The whole idea that conservatives can torpedo the Republican nominee in 2008 and have that be good for conservatism is crackers.

I wouldn't say that the Democrats winning in 2008 is good for conservatism. However, I'm not at all convinced it's worse than a McCain presidency.

Powered by ScribeFire.

My discomfort with Mitt

I'm still torn about what to do when I vote in the primary. I've come to the conclusion that I can't vote for McCain or Huckabee, for vastly different reasons. On some things Ron Paul is absolutely right, but on many he's stark raving mad. (And let's not even get started on his supporters.)

What does that leave? Well, it leaves Mitt Romney. Based on the campaign positions he's taken, he'd be the logical choice. The problem is, I'm very unsure any of this is believable. Joe Carter pretty fairly sums up my concerns with Mitt.

I have no idea if Fred Thompson is still on the ballot in Oklahoma.  If he is, that's how I'm voting.That seems the best way to show my utter disgust to the party regarding the choices they've offered me. If not, I don't know. My recollection is that Oklahoma doesn't allow write-in votes, so maybe I'll vote Mitt.

While I'm by no means as convinced as Joe that McCain has this thing in the bag, that seems to be how things are running. What will I do if he wins the nomination? No idea. McCain is simply not acceptable to me. Joe shows one of my concerns here:

I'll admit that I'm troubled by the idea of a McCain presidency. He still seems to me to be a cross between Conan and Charles Foster Kane: A fascinatingly flawed and haunted man whose main goal in life is to crush his enemies and see them driven before him.

Beyond that, though, there are so many constitutional and conservative principles that he's willing to turn on if they suit his purpose that he simply can't be trusted outside the national security arena. At this point, I seriously doubt I could vote for the man in the general election, regardless of who he's facing. If he does ultimately get my vote, it won't be with any enthusiasm.

None of that's to say that I'd vote for Hillary or Obama. I sure wouldn't mind a legitimate conservative 3rd party candidate with a chance of winning right now. (Like that's going to happen. Third party runs can work at the state level, but winning at the national level without a party apparatus rivaling the major parties doesn't seem plausible.)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Best headline I've seen in a while

Good post too.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Kerry blasts Bill Clinton for ‘abusing truth’ « - Blogs from CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Kerry, the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee for president, took aim at Bill Clinton Friday, telling the National Journal the former president does "not have a license to abuse the truth."

The Massachusetts senator, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."

Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. …I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.

Given Kerry's rather loose association with the truth regarding his war and post-war history, complaining about Clinton's excesses is rather interesting.

I'll also note that Clinton isn't behaving any differently than he ever has. This is just Bill being Bill. All of the sudden, however, Democrats are getting huffy about it. Somehow, I suspect that if Hillary wins the nomination Bill will keep this up, but Democrats will stop complaining.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Can you help her out here?

John McCain's mother is complaining that he gets no support from the base. I'd help her out, but getting all the knives her son's stabbed in back out is taking longer than I'd hoped.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Now what?

Fred Thompson quits presidential race - Yahoo! News

NAPLES, Fla. - 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 was by far our best candidate, though his run was always a long shot. His views were the most conservative and consistent and his policy proposals showed the most serious thought (though I had serious doubts about his elective flat tax). Now that he's gone, there's simply no one left to be passionate about.

What will I do? Well, if Thompson's still on the ballot in Oklahoma I'll probably still vote for him. If not, I don't know what I'll do. Romney's the closest to my views of those left, on paper at least. As I've said before, I don't really trust him. Come to think of it, if Fred's not on the ballot, I'll probably write him in.

So what about the general election? If it's Romney, he'll get my vote, but I won't be passionate about it. For McCain, I'd probably hold my nose and still pull the R lever. Giuliani and Huckabee seem far-fetched, but I don't think I could vote for either of them. Giuliani promises originalist judges, but he's pro-abortion and basically a big government conservative as far as I can tell. (That used to be an oxymoron.) Huckabee sounds like John Edwards would if he thought he was on a mission from God.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bill Quick lets us know just how frustrated he is

Yes, I think Bill's frustration with the Republican' inability to choose a conservative candidate is well on display. Seeing as Fred's chances look dim, I can't say I blame him.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Heh

In Nevada, Campaigns Face a Common Foe - New York Times

ELKO, Nev. — On the eve of the Nevada caucuses, the third stop in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, the campaigns were doing more Friday than feverishly rallying their supporters. They were also fielding a question: What, exactly, is a caucus?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Republican Voltron

Now this is a great idea.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Conspiracies R Us

Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2% of the vote in NH, is demanding a recount. He's not claiming that he should have won, or even that there will be a substantial change in his vote count.

Nope, he just wants to help give conspiracies life (and do some good old-fashioned grandstanding while he's at it:

In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.

What is it with people who, when faced with voting results that differ from the polls, assume that the vote must be wrong while the polls were infallible?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Just want every presidential candidate needs

The endorsement of the guy who lost the last election!

Powered by ScribeFire.

I'll take the plumber for 200 Alex

Question: Would you prefer a blase surgeon remove your appendix or a very concerned plumber?"

You'd think this would be an easy question to answer. Jonah Goldberg, however, aptly argues that we tend to chose the plumber when voting for President.

Powered by ScribeFire.

There he goes again. On Al Jazeera no less.

Just how much of that Kool-Aid has Kucinich been drinking?

Powered by ScribeFire.