On, Wisconsin

Last Tuesday Wisconsin governor Scott Walker handily won in the recall election forced by Democrats.  Although defeated and demoralized Democrats attribute that loss to being outspent by Republicans, a large voter turnout shows that Wisconsinites were involved in making the decision.  Walker actually beat his opponent by a larger margin than he had in the 2010 election.

The entire scenario came up because of Walker's actions toward cutting some of the Public Employees unions' extravagant perks and getting his state back on budgetary track. In the size of his win -- mandate is not too strong a word -- Walker and Wisconsin voters told the public unions what they thought of them. And it wasn't only non-union citizens.

One of the laws that Walker had initiated which panicked Democrats so much was ending of the automatic collection of union dues by the government. Union members still had the option of voluntarily paying their dues.  Well, money talks, and it also walks, and it walked away from the public sector unions. As Peggy Noonan wrote:  "...the single most interesting number in the whole race was 28,785. That is how many dues-paying members of the American Federation of State, County and Municiple Employees were left in Wisconsin after Mr. Walker allowed them to choose whether union dues would be taken from their paychecks each week. Before that, Afscme had 62,218 dues-paying members in Wisconsin. There is a degree to which public union involvement is, simply, coerced."

When given a choice, even many union members reject unions.

Obama's harsh Muslim punishment

Obama stoned. 

(Edit: I know, I know.  Nyuk nyuk nyuk.)

Obama's glass house

The Obama campaign, and Barack Obama himself, have made Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital a target of their attacks.  In a recent Washington Post column, Marc Thiessen has shown that Obama might want to reconsider throwing rocks in his extremely vulnerable crystalline palace.  From the story: 


 "...if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.  Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions."

The steps to every Liberal argument

A North Carolina teacher got caught on video telling a student that he could go to jail for insulting Barack Obama.  From the story:  "The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s  “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked: “Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”


And then the trouble started. 


The video actually only catches the audio of the conversation, but here it is:







From the recording, it's clear that the Liberal teacher followed the typical Liberal steps of argument almost perfectly, leaving out only the last step.


Step #1: State a lie, rumor, innuendo or misrepresentation as a "fact."
Step #2: When challenged, immediately become angry.
Step #3: As soon as possible, start screaming and do everything possible to silence those who disagree with you.
Step #4: During the discussion, tell more lies, rumors, innuendo or misrepresentations to support your point.
Step #5: Call the other person a racist, sexist, homophobe or nazi. (This is the step the teacher omitted.)


Give credit to the student, who had to know what was going to happen. He spoke reasonably and truthfully. Best of all, he recorded it so the teacher couldn't deny what happened.  

Obama in trouble...with Democrats

In my previous post, I noted James Carville's observation that Democrats can lose big in November.  Then I read this story on HuffPo.  A convict in a Texas prison got 40% of the vote running against Obama in the West Virginia Democrat primary.  That's forty percent of Democrat voters who want someone other than Obama.  


Other Obama opponents in Democrat primaries also have done well.  Randall Terry got 18% of Democrat votes in Oklahoma.  John Wolfe received 18,000 votes in Louisiana.  And in Alabama, 18% of Democratic voters chose "uncommitted" in the primary rather than vote for Obama.


Most of the voters didn't know Obama's opponent was in prison. Emily Brown planned to vote for him until she found out his address was at Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution. "I'm not voting for somebody who's in prison," she said.  She was certain about one thing: "I just want to vote against Barack Obama."

Democrats and The Big Lie

If you want to know the depths to which Democrats will go to deceive themselves and others about the real world, check out a recent column ("Wake Up, Democrats") by James Carville.  The column's main point is valid -- Democrats can easily lose in the November elections, and lose big -- but his supporting points are absurd.  A couple of quotes:


"...the Republicans are raising not millions, not tens of millions, but potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from the pollution industry as result of Citizens United v. FEC."  


The pollution industry?? Is there a Pollutions-R-Us store in your town? Maybe Pollution~Mart?  No?

But the supernova of crazy lies, presented as a Democrat's version of the truth, is this one:

"There is a full-fledged legislative agenda in many states to keep Democrats from even voting."

I assume that he's talking about voter ID legislation.  I haven't read or heard anything about having to pass an IQ test in order to vote. If you had to prove a minimum level of intelligence to vote, I can see where Democrats might think such a test was aimed at preventing them from voting. Carville doesn't explain what he means, he simply presents his nutty assertion as true.  

You don't expect a well-known (and well-respected by Democrats) political strategist writing on a national media website to act like a troll commenting in a regional blog, but there it is. You can bet that such silliness is already making the rounds as a "fact." One thing that you always have to look out for with Liberals is their use of The Big Lie.  And that one's already out there.

Obama's qualification(s) to be President*

*according to Joe Biden.  A recent Drudge Report headline.

Obama's "same tired rhetoric"

The Republican National Committee has produced a video showing Barack Obama giving speeches about financial issues...a year apart. The odd thing?  The speeches are virtually identical.  Watch:

Where's that vaunted Obama "articulateness" and "eloquence" his supporters bragged about? (In fairness, I guess they never said anything about "originality.")

My goal when arguing with a Liberal

"Conan!  What is best in life?"

To crush your enemies,
See them driven before you,
And to hear the lamentation of their women.

Obama: Republicans will make weather forecasts less accurate

...And voting for Obama lowers the sea level and heals the planet.  I'm not sure why we even have elections any more, if what Obama says is true.

Oh.

Operation Hot Mic

Finally someone on the Right produces a parody that's actually humorous.

Noonan on Obama

Peggy Noonan has a column in the Wall Street Journal that articulates the devastation that Obama has caused himself.  Some quotes:

"...the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault."

She itemizes the blunders Obama has made in recent months. In January the mandate that the Catholic Church's agencies would be forced to provide birth control, a concept that goes against the Church's teachings, caused an immediate negative reaction. "Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives."

Then came the open-mic incident with Russian president Medvedev. "When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so...creepy."

Then there was the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Obama's statement, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" came across as political grandstanding during a tragedy. Noonan: "At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."

"Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?"

Noonan, always a great writer, outdoes herself with this column.

Only a heartbeat away from the Presidency

Joe Biden, longtime sufferer of foot-in-mouth disease, thanks a soft drink.

An open mic reveals Obama's intentions

Terry Jeffrey has a great column regarding Obama's recent open-mic gaffe where he's overheard telling Russian President Medvedev, "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin] to give me space….This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”


Jeffrey's lead paragraph: "President Barack Obama would like to do some things for Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President-elect Vladimir Putin that he does not want American voters to know about before they decide whether to re-elect him in November."


Something to think about.

The copy key got stuck

...on the presidential speechwriter's keyboard. So says a Danish TV host.  Here's why:



Gosh, I wonder what would have happened in the media if George Bush had got caught doing that?

How could anyone (besides everyone) have known?

The Congressional Budget Office came out with new estimates on the cost of Obamacare, and it turns out that it will cost almost twice as much as Obama said when Democrats forced through passed their “healthcare” legislation. 

From the Washington Examiner report: "President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law."


Edit: The CBO also estimates two million fewer people will be insured than were first claimed. Revenues from penalties paid by individuals and employers will also be greater than claimed. And despite claims that Obamacare was not a takeover of the insurance industry, by 2022 three million fewer people will have insurance through their employers, 17 million more Americans will be on Medicaid, and 22 million more will get coverage through the government's "insurance exchanges."   

Unemployment and the LFPR*

*Labor Force Participation Rate is the percentage of the civilian workforce that is actually employed or looking for work. On the chart below, notice the absolute crash in this rate since Barack Obama took office.  Although unemployment under Barack Obama has been high, it's actually gotten much worse since he took office, and that fact is not reported in the media.

This measurement is important, because a low participation rate hides a high unemployment rate. Here's an example of how that happens:

Under Bush
Out of 1000 people, 670 are in the workforce. 35 of those are unemployed. Unemployment rate = 5.2%.

Under Obama
Out of 1000 people, 637 are in the workforce (33 fewer than under Bush.) 53 of those are unemployed. Unemployment rate = 8.3%.

The 33 people no longer in the workforce? Although unemployed and able to work, they are no longer looking for jobs. They are no longer "in the workforce." They are simply ignored. They are not counted as part of the "official" unemployment figure. Add them back into the equation, and Obama's real unemployment rate is 15.2%, using the exact same calculation as used under Bush.

LL Battles #5

2/1/2012

"As flawed as the Republican field is, I would consider any one of them a vast improvement over Obama. My favorite would be the one who would work hardest to reverse the damage Democrats have done.

* Obamacare was forced through by a Democrat majority, based on lies (the "ten year budget," double counting Medicare funds,) already resulting in higher insurance costs, and the promise that "you can keep your own insurance" when the Obama administration is doing all it can to drive insurers out of the market.

* The Obama administration seized control of General Motors and violated existing bankruptcy laws to award Chrysler to its union allies. 

* The Obama administration "loaned" half a billion dollars to a favored company owned in large part by an Obama fundraiser; when the company was clearly about to go bankrupt, the Obama administration renegotiated the contract so that said fundraiser got paid before taxpayers.

* You want consistent? Obama is the epitome of inconsistency. He campaigned against government spending under Bush, and then led Democrats as they doubled the spending. They correctly observed a problem, then did all in their power to make the problem worse. Obama railed against Gitmo; it remains open. He threatened to prosecute CIA operatives; the CIA program is essentially what it was under Bush.

* Obama refuses to take responsibility or consequences for his own actions. He's been in office three years, yet still blames Bush. He did everything to cut Republicans out of all legislation his first two years in office, yet now insists that the Republican House cooperate with him.

* Obama has denigrated, condemned, apologized for, demeaned and diminished the United States. It seems to me the President ought at least to like the country he wants to lead.

There's more, but maybe you get a hint of why I support an imperfect Republican against the rotten-to-the-core pretender that currently holds the position."

LL Battles #4

12/22/2011

"Obama was favored to be re-elected before he was elected the first time. His supporters voted for him because of who and what he was, not for what he had ever accomplished. 2012 will be the same way. The Republican candidates beat each other up. The media subject every GOP "frontrunner" to a colonoscopy to expose past trivia (e.g., Rick Perry's college grades). Meanwhile, on the Democrat side, Obama is untouchable and untouched. Don't believe me? Try to find Obama's college grades. The game's been stacked for decades. Republicans realize they have to beat both the Democrats and the media. If Obama is voted out of office, it will mean that even his worshippers finally took a look around at what he's done to the country."

My reading is on Fire

Since my wife gave me a Kindle Fire for Christmas, I've become a reading machine again. I'm not reading as much as when I was a kid, but more than I have in many years. I resisted the e-book phenomenon because I couldn't rationalize the cost of the machine, and because as a "book person," I love actually possessing books. Kathy took the first objection out of my hands, and I've come to acknowledge the idea that a book's worth is the ideas it contains, not the paper it's made of. (Still, I know that I'm only a drained battery or an EMP away from not having anything on my Kindle.)

Here's a list -- eclectic would be accurate, although crime fiction and political nonfiction seem to dominate -- of what I've read so far:

A Study in Scarlet, A. Conan Doyle

The List, J.A. Konrath

Demonic, Ann Coulter

The Lincoln Lawyer, Michael Connelly

The Sign of the Four, A. Conan Doyle

Critical Confrontations, Patterson et al

No Higher Honor, Condoleeza Rice

Decision Points, George W. Bush

Outlining Your Novel, K.M. Weiland

Deathworld, Harry Harrison

Afraid, Jack Kilborn

Killing Floor, Lee Child

Deathworld 2, Harry Harrison

Crime Stories, J.A. Konrath

Planet of the Damned, Harry Harrison

Afterthoughts, Lawrence Block

Die Trying, Lee Child

Write Your Blook in 30 Days, Dee Burks & Liz Ragland

Who Really Cares, Arthur Brooks

The Right Fights Back, Evan Thomas, Mike Allen & Politico

The Secret Knowledge, David Mamet

LL Battles #3

1/7/2012

"Take a look at the past three years of Obama's reign if you believe it doesn't make a difference who you vote for. His Justice Department sues Arizona for trying to enforce federal law, while dropping an already-won case against Black Panthers in camo posted outside a polling place with billy clubs. The Obama administration defied a judge's order to lift the ban on oil drilling in the Gulf; gave waivers to Obamacare to Harry Reid's entire state, deluxe hotels and restaurants in Nancy Pelosi's district, and over half a million union members; it sold weapons to Mexican gangsters that were used to kill at least one American citizen (and which Obama's AG lied about;) gave half a billion dollars to a company partially owned by an Obama fundraiser knowing it was about to go bankrupt; urged a general to lie to Congress about a company owned by another Obama fundraiser --

Well, you get the idea. There's a difference."

LL Battles #2

2/27/2012

"It's the Democrat Party that instantly comes to mind when someone mentions family values, sex within the marriage, and two-parent households. (Sarcasm alert.) As Reagan said, "The Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won." The Democrats today rail about poverty and racial injustice, yet that's what the Democrat programs implemented in the 1960s, and championed ever since, were designed to eliminate. Instead they created a class of government-dependent Americans and foster racial divisiveness and resentment. The experiment has failed."

LL Battles #1

In another forum I frequently take on Liberals who post various political comments. Usually their comments are anonymous, filled with inaccuracies, mistakes and outright lies. I first started posting to correct their misinformation, and this has led to some battles that put the Battle of Helm's Deep to shame. I express my opinions -- infuriating those on the Left who want to silence opposition -- and usually support my points with facts and data, providing links to document the validity of my information. 


I don't comment with any hope of convincing the Left's True Believers -- they're relentless in their zeal to be stupid. But there are readers who won't get the other side of the story, stripped of misinformation, without my posts.  We all contribute what we can, so I put in my two cents' worth.


I hope you enjoy the new series of "reposts" of my comments as they cover a variety of different subjects. I'll edit them a bit so they make sense, but my points will be intact. Some of them are a bit dated, so read them in context of the date.

9/28/11

"The Tea Party has more strong opposition than strong support (barely.) Given the pounding the Tea Party has taken in the media, that's to be expected. (How many people still believe Tea Partiers spit on black congressmen and called them the n-word?) So in that sense, you're right.

However, more Americans identify with Conservative political ideology than any other. That means that more Americans agree with the Tea Party stance on issues -- their agenda, if you will. 

Moreover, which group is it that's energized and enthusiastic about next year's election? It ain't Democrats, that's for sure. Here's what Politico wroteabout what Democrats have to look forward to in 2012: "Now, resigned to the likelihood that the president will be a down-ballot drag in many races and absent signs of an electoral wave on the horizon, Democrats are scaling back their expectations." Ol' Professor Hopenchange ain't lookin' so good."

Santorum and the Left's attack on America

The most convincing argument so far made for Rick Santorum was expressed in a recent column by Star Parker.  Titled “The Left Fuels Santorum Surge,” Parker's column touts Santorum’s consistency.  “Santorum stands out in the current Republican field in the clarity of his image and identity. There is little doubt about who the man is and there are no glaring inconsistencies between who he says he is today and his past behavior and positions…. So the issue with Santorum is whether you buy what he is selling.”

Parker goes on to commend Santorum for his refusal to shy away from social issues.  The Left, she argues, engages in battle every chance it gets to mold our culture into what it wants. The courts found California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unconstitutional; the uproar that caused the Susan G. Komen foundation to reinstate its funding of Planned Parenthood; the Obama administration’s insistence that the Catholic church provide contraceptives to its employees.  

“The three high profile left wing victories of recent weeks all touch these key areas.

• End the traditional institution of marriage as a bulwark of our society.
• Continue to promote sex as recreation and relegate the life this activity creates as a trivial byproduct which we allow to be destroyed with ease.
• Destroy the sanctity of private property so government can finance irresponsibility with other people’s money.”

Rick Santorum, Parker says, is the only Republican candidate who has consistently fought against the Left’s deforming of America.

What exactly is Planned Parenthood's business?

 Planned Parenthood publicizes itself as a women's health organization. When the subject of abortion comes up, they (and their advocates) claim that abortion makes up only 3% of their services. However, ex-employees say that they were forced to push abortions because of their profitability. What's the deal?

Income

In their 2008-2009 annual report, PP claimed revenue from their "health centers" of $404.9 million. That "3%" figure is out of nearly 11 million "total services," meaning just over 328,000 abortions. The price for a PP abortion ranges from $300-$950. Using an average price of $625, that's $205 million revenue from abortions out of $404.9 total revenue from PP "health centers" - 50.6%.

Does PP actually provide "health services" for pregnant women?

A pregnant woman enters PP. That woman will either a) Receive prenatal care to help her baby, making her a "prenatal client" or b) Receive help placing the baby for adoption; (These first two may overlap;) or c) Receive an abortion. 

Using info from Planned Parenthood, we find that in 2008 PP had 9,433 prenatal clients, 2405 aid with adoption clients, and performed 324,008 abortions. Of the 335,846 pregnancies, at least 96.5% ended in abortion.

***

Planned Parenthood is what it is, and the information above speaks for itself. Why, then, does PP act so coy about what is clearly a huge part of their business? It's as though McDonalds was bashful about saying they sell hamburgers.

Who's really unemployed?

This video explains it.

Satisfying in so many ways

Recent headline from the Huffington Post: "Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates as Donors Flee to Romney."  Apparently the financial world which gave so much money to Obama in 2008 is now investing in Romney. One passage from the story which is particularly satisfying:


"Why the world of finance is leaving Obama is a subject of some irritation among Democratic fundraisers. Wall Street executives, after all, have thrived under the Obama administration. The Justice Department has been notoriously slow in pursuing investigations of fraud. Ditto for the Securities Exchange Commission."


Why is this satisfying? It contradicts what so many Democrats have claimed, and confirms so much of what the rest of the world knew.

• Obama received huge amounts of cash from Wall Street, even as he demonized them.
• The Obama administration has paid back that fundraising with its quid pro quo practices.
• The Obama administration uses the Justice Department and other federal agencies as political tools.

We can only hope that the Wall Street money is effectively used to oust Obama & Co.

Classiest way to respond to a thoughtless interruption

Way more gracious and spontaneous than I could ever be.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXIV

John Ransom has written another column whose title spells it all out: "15 Questions the Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were a Republican." Some samples:

• In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?
• Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?
• How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?
• If they could, don't you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

You get the gist.  Read the column.

The case against "mentee"

The word mentor derives from Greek mythology.  When Odysseus left to fight in the Trojan War, he left his friend Mentor in charge of Odysseus’s son Telemachus.  When the goddess Athena visited Telemachus, she took the form of Mentor and advised him to resist the advice of others and to go in search of his father.

In modern usage, a mentor is an advisor and teacher to another person, usually someone younger and less experienced.  In other words, we are calling that person the name of the historical Mentor, just as we call someone who gives presents a “Secret Santa,” or a smaller person (or company, etc.) going against a much larger entity a “David” going against a “Goliath.”

The backformation word mentee treats the word mentor, with its –or ending, as if it means “one who ments.” Thus a mentee would be “one who is mented.” This is clearly not the case. Although a contractor is one who contracts (for a particular job,) an author is not one who “auths.”  Employers employ employees, detainers detain detainees, but mentors do not ment mentees.

There exists a perfectly good word for the role of someone who a mentor mentors – protégé.  The dictionary defines protégé as “a person under the patronage, protection or care of someone interested in his career or welfare.”  In other words, the exact description of one who has a mentor.

It takes the twisted mind of a sociopath or a bureaucrat to create a horrendous, misbegotten atrocity and encourage its use to replace a lovely, useful, and faithful word such as protégé.  Those who repeat the process are just as guilty of verbal crimes against humanity as the creator (with its –or ending.) For the sake of your soul, use the correct word.

I thought I'd got sick of these things

1. I'm not a Justin Bieber fan.
2. Over-choreographed wedding dances have used up their freshness.
3. Too many people these days want to video themselves, purely to feed their ego.
Having said all that, this one is kind of neat.

Yeah, let's run everything through the government

From a recent column by Hadley Heath: 

If we were to run the roughly $950 billion spent on anti-poverty programs in 2011 by the 49 million Americans who are poor, we'd have nearly $19,400 per person. That's $77,600 for a family of four, which would clearly surpass the federal poverty line. ($22,350 for a family of four.)

"Of course, instead of going directly to the poor, government money passes through the pipeline of federal, state and local-level bureaucrats paid to administer welfare programs. These additional costs mean fewer resources go to the people in need."

Forget "where's our Reagan?" -- Where's our Thatcher??

Smart, well-spoken, quick as a whip and sharp as a tack -- "wiping the floor" with her opposition in debate. That was Margaret Thatcher.

Why Gingrich is the man, per Thomas Sowell

Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the best thinkers in America today.  (I've quoted him numerous times before.)  In this recent column, he spells out how Newt Gingrich has proven he should be the Republican presidential nominee.

Funny how time affects people differently

Reductio ad Klanum, in the mainstream media*

MSNBC "award winning journalist" and anchor Thomas Roberts reported that Mitt Romney's slogan "Keep America America" is similar to one the Ku Klux Klan used in the 1920s.  The report includes a graphic stating "ROMNEY'S KKK SLOGAN?"  Roberts made sure to include the fact that the slogan was "a rallying cry for the group's campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews."  That darn Mormon Romney must have the same intentions, right?  At least that's what MSNBC implied.




* Or at least as mainstream as MSNBC can claim to be with its couple of dozen viewers.

The Fantastic Republican Field

The narrative being put forth by the media and Democrats (technically separate groups, but the same) is that the Republican field of presidential candidates is weak. Here's what I had to say in another forum:

Republican candidates include a governor, two US Representatives, three former governors, a former Speaker of the House, and a former US Senator. This field is at least the equal of the '08 Democrats.

Having made that declaration, I took a look back at the Democrat field of 2008:
- Barack Obama - US Senator for only two years before starting his campaign for President. Survived being a member of Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the sermons; associate of terrorist William Ayres and convicted felon Tony Rezko. The claims of "lack of experience" by his opponents subsequently being proved true.
- Hillary Clinton – Elected US Senator of a state where she didn’t live because she was the wife of a popular ex-President.  No prior elected office, but author of universal healthcare debacle and Travelgate scandal of 1993, while serving as wife of a popular President.
- John Edwards – Indicted on six felony charges related to his extramarital affair, facing 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.
- Bill Richardson – Currently the subject of a grand jury investigation around his allegedly paying $250,000 to quiet a woman who had threatened to file sexual harassment complaint. The money came from donations raised for his presidential campaign, a federal no-no. (What? You hadn't heard about this?)
- Dennis Kucinich – Greatest claim to fame is being considered the most extreme Liberal in Congress.
- Joe Biden – Dropped his candidacy in 1988 after being busted for plagiarizing a speech. Most well known for his verbal gaffes. (Example: Urged a wheelchair-bound veteran to “stand up and take a bow.”) Chosen as Obama’s VP.
- Mike Gravel – Unknown Senator from Alaska. He’s most famous for this “artistic” campaign video:

- Christopher Dodd – Beneficiary of a sweetheart loan from disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide; defended Fannie Mae as “fundamentally sound;” authored a provision that allowed AIG executives to take government-provided “bailout” money as bonuses. The government gave AIG $170 million; executives took $165 million as their bonus. Most famous for a notorious sexual attack of a waitress (along with Ted Kennedy.)

- Tom Vilsack – Best known for tying for the title of the least scandalous of 2008 Democrat presidential candidates.

- Evan Bayh – According to the Washington Post, “wasn’t a particularly distinguished senator…an ordinary politician.” Outstanding in not taking a stand. Tied with Vilsack.

In comparison, today's offering of Republican presidential candidates don't look so bad. Not bad at all.

Most patriotic house decorations in America

As the poster on YouTube put it: "This is a light show as only Republicans know how to put on."

Rats, sinking ships, etc.

Democrat congressman Barney Frank has announced his plans not to seek reelection in 2012.  That handwriting on the wall for Democrats must be depressingly clear.


Frank is best remembered for his spirited (and videoed) defense of Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae in 2004.  Or maybe it's the corrupt Dodd-Frank legislation.  Regardless, it's another rat deserting the sinking Democrat ship.

What does Obama understand about economics?

Not as much as you'd think.

Well, it's not so much what he understands, as what he believes.  Democrats refuse to work on any deficit reduction that does not include tax increases.  They euphemistically cite those increases to "increase revenue," but that's not what motivtes Democrats, particularly Obama.  Here's why he wants tax increases:

To be more "fair"



To "spread the wealth around"



Because at a certain point "you've made enough money."

Gingrich kills again

The best debater in the world, and the smartest man in any room he walks into, guts the MSNBC moderators and the media at the Republican debate.

Speaking of debates

I wrote about one of our Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich, back in 2007.  He had engaged Liberal Democrat Mario Cuomo in an "elevated discourse" (a polite term for an in-depth debate) with amazing results. Again, I can't post the video because of copyright restrictions -- apparently C-Span has a tighter hold on information than Google does -- but the two-hour debate is available here.  To quote the C-Span website, they had this debate "in the belief that national and international issues facing presidential candidates deserve full discussion and analysis in the style of Lincoln's time."  

Now THIS was a debate

The dog-and-pony shows trotted out recently and called "Republican Presidential candidate debates" have been shameful.  Shameful to the candidates, shameful to the media for treating it seriously, and shameful to the American public for accepting something so far from an actual debate.

One of the masters of debate was William F. Buckley Jr., who for over three decades engaged his guests in spirited discussions on his television show Firing Line.  Besides weekly conversations, Buckley also occasionally sponsored formal debates. 

In 1978 two giants of the American conservative movement disagreed over whether or not the U.S. should relinquish control of the Panama Canal Zone. Instead of ignoring their differences on this issue, Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr. conducted a live debate to present their arguments to the public. With this, they set the standard of how to handle disagreements over ideas and issues in public policy – in other words, how to debate.

Below are two videos.  One is the introduction of the participants by Senator Sam Ervin.  The other is a video of Buckley's closing argument for his point (that the Senate should ratify the treaties giving the Panama Canal to Panama.)  Copyright issues prevent posting sections of the meat of the debate, but the entire two-hour debate is available on C-Span here.

This video's title says it all

The most eloquent, uh, um, .....

At a recent press conference, Barack Obama used thirteen minutes to answer two questions.  2:47 of that time was in the form of verbal pauses such as uh, um, y'know, etc.  BreitbartTV made a clip of "the greatest orator the office [of President] has ever known." *




* (According to former Democrat Representative Harold Ford.)

With Drudge, Nothing's Accidental

From this morning's Drudge Report:

The deification continues

A quote from a news story attempting to explain the continuing decline in crime, despite the economic downturn.  It's because of Obama.  "Obama's election has created such collective inspiration that it has changed the thinking and the behavior of would-be criminals."


The logical conclusion of such thinking, of course, is that anyone who isn't inspired by Obama is a potential criminal, Minority Report style.

Didn't Sarah Palin get creamed for this?

From a transcript of Barack Obama's interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News last night:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, since we are on the web here-- live on Yahoo.com, everyone wants to know which-- websites do you surf?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I'm pretty eclectic. You know, I'll-- you know, I read a lot of newspapers that I used to read in print, I now read on-- on the web.

GS: Do you have an iPad or just--

OBAMA: I-- I've got an iPad. And-- and-- Steve Jobs actually gave it to me-- a little bit early. And-- (LAUGH)

GS: Oh, that's pretty cool.

OBAMA: Yeah, it was cool. I got it directly from him. And-- you know, I go to ABCNews.com, of course, and Yahoo.

GS: And Yahoo, too, thank you.

OBAMA: Of course. But-- you know, typically, my-- I-- I-- I read on the web what I read in hard copy. I mean, there-- there are some exceptions. There are some blogs and some websites that-- that are interesting that-- you don't have--

GS: --make a comment.

OBAMA: I-- you know-- I don't. I-- I figure if I-- if I got started-- I wouldn't stop. And I've got other things to do.

GS: Mr. President, thanks for your time.

Okay. With the exception of ABC News, who was hosting the interview, and Yahoo, which Stephanopoulos fed him, what was Obama's answer to the question "Which websites do you visit?" This is the same type of non-answer that Obama has given before, for which Palin was smeared by everyone in the media.  Obama once again gets a pass. But we do discover that Steve Jobs himself gave Obama his iPad.

The bar for these things just keeps on getting higher

Another flashy marriage proposal.  I enjoy these.