27 posts from February 2008

It's not enough that the two candidates for the Democratic nomination would never even be there were it not for the fact that one is black and one is a woman, but now Howard Dean has put his foot back in its customary location -  his mouth.

Dean says the Republican field "looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s."

Interesting. In the 1950's, the Republicans were the party of civil rights, and in the 1850s, the Dems were the party of slavery. The Republicans were founded to combat slavery.

Not to be outdone, Obama has said he'll get tough - with Canada - over NAFTA. WOW! He'll court Iran and Venezuela, but our friendliest ally and one of the only NATO members fighting alongside us in Afghanistan, that one he's gonna rough up a bit.

I've always felt that closer scrutiny would cause Obama to unravel, but now I'm getting a little worried that his unraveling will take place before he's sewn up the nomination.

Meanwhile, other black politicians continue to demonstrate that they'd be a better candidate than Obama. They are being pressured to endorse Obama, and they are even receiving threats, but they aren't bending

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, said:.

"I’ve gotten threatening mail" of the nature: "Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change."

Representative Watson continued: "But I don’t intimidate.... I would lose my seat over my principles."

And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) is perhaps even more interesting. Also a Clinton backer, he's a superdelegate who says that other black superdelegates are receiving "nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

Now here's the best part:

Cleaver states, "This is the politics of the 1950s."

And coincidentally, the Cleaver name was also prominent in the 1950s, and it was virtually synonymous with principle.

Good luck, Howie, the race you're in puts you at a disadvantage.

And speaking of race, if you're like me, you usually really enjoy Black History Month, but I gotta say, this one's the best ever! If only it didn't have to end tonight, but at least we got an extra day this year. I know that may not seem like much, but every day counts when it comes to Obama's maturity.

This time the James Taranto weighs in - with style!

Cut and Run and Then Run Back
With Hillary Clinton being written off (perhaps prematurely), the eight-month general election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama seems to be getting under way. Obama, apparently moving to the right, is now threatening military intervention in Iraq after years of demanding America's immediate surrender. As the Associated Press reports:

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq,' " McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable."

Quips Glenn Reynolds: "In Obama's defense, he probably reads the New York Times, which always calls it 'Al Qaida in Mesopotamia.' That may have confused him."

Obama's response to McCain, described in the same AP dispatch, makes even less sense:

"I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.

"But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. . . . They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place."

So let's see if we have this straight. Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't worth fighting because it wouldn't be there if it weren't for Bush and McCain. Obama is going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he will send them back to Iraq if al Qaeda are there, even though he now wants to withdraw notwithstanding al Qaeda's presence.

Yes, we can!

Let's Get Metaphysical
Mystified by the Obama phenomenon? Let Susan Neiman of the Einstein Forum, writing in the Boston Globe, explain it all to you:

Strange as it sounds, this is an election where metaphysics may count more than demographics, and focusing on the latter misses the point. Metaphysics determines what you hold to be self-evident and what you hold to be possible; what you think has substance and what you can afford to ignore. Hope is based on, or undermined by, your metaphysical standpoint. . . .

If it's a message so catchy that it has now made the rounds of cyberspace as a star-studded video, it's also one with roots as deep as Immanuel Kant. The "Critique of Pure Reason" is not easy reading, but it makes some startling claims. Kant tells us that Plato's ideal of a perfectly just state was always dismissed as a utopian dream; but if everyone had worked to realize those ideals, they would be true today. . . .

Obama's is a message to demand more--and not just for the young. His idealism is unsettling to many not because it's naive, but because it poses a challenge. If you assume that things cannot get better you have nothing to do but sit back and watch them get worse.

Yes, we Kant!

The last paragraph of Ms Neiman's comment is both perplexing and revealing in that the conclusions she draws have nothing to do with the pop philosophy she extruded in her first two paragraphs, and those conclusions themselves are merely imputed without evidence.  First, she makes an assumption as to why Obama's "message" is 'unsettling," then she makes an assumption as to the number of people affected, unless, of course, she knows firsthand. And if she's right,  Obama may have a bigger task ahead than he imagines, since he'll have to overcome the law of inertia..

Furthermore, it's illogical to assume, as Madam Philosopheress has, that people are challenged because they've grown lazy in the comfort of abandoned hope, and her comment shows the clear distinction between philosophy and logic. Everyone should hope Neiman sticks to the former and avoids logic entirely. Otherwise,  you assume that things cannot get better, and you have nothing to do but sit back and watch them get worse.

I just read that Fox News is now the third most watched cable channel behind only USA Network and TNT, and anyone who saw the Fox report from North Korea understands why the news channel has the number three slot and deserves higher.

Accompanying the New York Philharmonic on it's "goodwill" musical excursion to Pyongyang, reporter, Greg Palkot showed film of the capital and some surrounding areas that was a scene straight out of 1984, and even better, it was in color! .

The bus caravan they rode in was new and looked like those Airstream trailers, but Palkot noted that they were frequently the only vehicles on the road, and the actual sight was startling - wide avenues with no cars (there are about 23,000 of them in a country of twenty-three million).

We were also treated to a library computer room in which all the computers were "mostly internally linked, but the Fox correspondent pointed out that people were starting to realize that a different world exists beyond their borders. Things are being smuggled in, and they get television from South Korea and China.

Palkot then said one particular thing that I found to be very interesting: that "capitalist-minded" individuals were finding their own way. Isn't that amazing that in the most hard line communist country on Earth, it's individual initiative that may be the way to a better life, and that in America and elsewhere, people are pushing for direct government control as a solution to virtually everything?

You should have seen the gleaming gold colored statue that was the focus at the end of Palkot's report. It showed that all that glitters is not gold... and sometimes it's surreal.

The piece on North Korea appeared on a segment of Special Report with Brit Hume if you'd like to catch the replay, and I'd like to mention again that there is no better news program on television than Special Report.

Is Obama Unfit To Serve?

From the title, I know many of you will think I'm going to say yes, Barack Hussein Obama is unfit to serve. But it's not as simple as yes or no. The true, nuanced answer is: Obama may be too young to be President.

I know he meets the age requirement constitutionally, but that only pertains to his chronological age, and as I've said many times, most people today are at least a decade less mature than their actual age would normally indicate.

So Obama's new-age age is borderline, and I don't say that just to be provocative. Some things he said last night and today should give anyone pause - anyone that is who has the maturity to take a pause - anyone who is not sleepwalking to the tune of Hope and Change.- catchy, I know, but is it good to dance to? And really, has anyone ever seen a sleepwalker dance?

During last night's "debate," The Chosen One said that as President, he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

For one to utter something that astonishing, he'd either have to grossly ill-informed or he'd have to acknowledge that we've been successful in destroying al-Qaida in Iraq, and since he can't say the latter and he's certainly aware of al-Qaida in Iraq now, he's stuck with his absurdity as an indicator that he's not mature enough to deal with reality.

Today, John McCain was quick to reply in typical Republican fashion - he said that he wanted to inform the freshman Senator that al-Qaida was already in Iraq.

Yes, that's considered tough talk for a Republican.

Not content with his initial stupidity, Obama then shot back with: "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq." That's like SO mature!

Obama then launched into the canned and unproven and unprovable liberal line that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until President Bush made it a rallying point. Uh-huh. Time for my power nap.

In this short example, Obama first demonstrated a fundamental immaturity, and then he followed it with proof positive that he's unfit to be President, and he did it in twenty-five words or less.

What, you don't see it? OK, let's all take Barry's view. He's going to pull the troops and stand by if chaos ensues even if it turns into genocide, and that's not my imagination talking, he has actually said that. Then he would "act" if al-Qaida regrouped in Iraq? Can you imagine the economic and human cost of that scenario?

The war may be expensive now, but if we were to withdraw and then have to go back in, you know it would only be after a major disaster had already taken place in Iraq, and by "disaster," I'm not talking about what liberals call a disaster now, I'm talking the kind of scale that gives "disaster" a good name - massive death in Iraq in the sort of numbers that liberals have already been lying about for five years, where Iran may have established a presence along with al-Qaida, and where the concept of "civil war" seems positively quaint.

Not to mention the rest of the line Obama didn't finish - that the oil, you know, the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place, might have gone up in smoke and the price for what's left of it could leave economies sputtering all over the globe.

Although by then, presumably the Senator will have gained some maturity so it's just the price we'll have to pay for electing the second Democrat Boy-President in a row.

Here's Obama's complete statement: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

Then the sensible and mature course involves staying on the present course because that's the one that has a chance for stability. Anything else Obama would do is irresponsible precisely because it's rooted in the immaturity of hope and change.

Oh and speaking of the Boy-President, some feminist recently enumerated several points on which she said that Barack Obama was more feminist than Hillary. This begs the question: will Obama really be our first woman President?

N.B. - I was notified that this commentary as originally posted did not meet the criteria for being considered politically relevant, so I have modified it in order to conform to standards even if it means that I will no longer be a confidant of the titular Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States, and that modification is clearly indicated. Thank you.

*****

You can lead a jackass to a logical conclusion, but you can't make him think.

But he'll kick like a mule.

And Lenny is living proof... if you call that living.

Over the years, I've found that you can be brutally direct with people, and either they still won't understand or they won't take you seriously. So once again I feel the need to review the things that make this place different from other blogs.

1) This one has ME..

2) While I do allow comments, I don't really want to hear from you unless:

A1) You agree with me

2A) You have some rock solid something that I need to consider which significantly alters or improves upon my position.

And therein lies the problem. some people and all liberals are incapable of making that determination for themselves. Which is why I tell you when your submission fails some test or burden of proof of which I am aware and you're probably not.

I mean, I take a lot of time to formulate my ideas and a lot more time typing them out, and lots of people have read them and called me the B-word... OK, several B-words, but modesty precludes me from mentioning the best one and shame precludes me from acknowledging the other.

But the point is, this ain't Wiki-Ted.

See, does it make any sense that I would want to entertain every idiot's idea of what's brilliant, especially when he was never accused of producing anything approaching adequate in all of his six years of schooling?

And even if I did, why would I want to inflict something that appears to have been written by a special-ed student on my small but loyal following which has come to expect all lucid all the time here? Especially when even from me they only get that half the time at best, and a third of that is sheerly by accident?

So now seriously consider Lenny. I feel fairly certain that even many of those on his side of the missing link would realize that I was baiting him for nefarious purposes, and not just to prove that I can be every bit as immature as the next guy when I apply myself, but even when I make that unmistakably apparent to him, he still can't put the ingredients together and finish the recipe if you get my drift.

I say, "Lenny, you have to make sense." And he thinks he does? So what do I do then? I mean that's the point where I envy the Islamofascists: off with his head and voilà, no more Lenny - at least after a short while because you know, he's like a chicken, so he'll still flap around a bit before he finally drops. Oh and wouldn't it be ironic if he were to post something coherent then?

Because you know I try and I try to be accommodating. I ask questions, I give him more chances, I even tell him what he needs to do... and it's all for naught. Only a paragraph ago I asked you, now I beg you, what do I do then? When I tell Lenny he's stupid, it seems to take it badly, even though I do it for his own good, and I mean it in the nicest sense of the word.

And the worst part is that I have thirteen years of Lennys, and they're like little gods - they always were, always will be, and always remain the same - stupid.

At some point you simply have to say, Lenny, you'll never be able to play with the big boys, and if he gets all huffy about it, you give him a timeout.... and you don't tell him it's forever, because after all I've just said, if I let him back in, you tell me which one of us would be crazy then?

Ah, trick question - the correct answer would be - both of us.

Ah, trick answer - anybody who knows me would have realized that Lenny and I were both certifiable long ago - which is probably another thing Lenny would dispute. See, it never ends with lifeforms like him...

Which is why I prefer hyenas. Too bad they have such trouble getting visas. And when you offer to help them fill out the paperwork, they shred it. And even then I continue to maintain...

Hyenas are better than Lennys.

If you don't believe me, just consider that Lenny's mother mated with a hyena, and he was the result.

Get this; John McCain told me that he* once asked Lenny what he wanted to be when he grew up, and Lenny said, "A great ape." Then he added that he felt he was already a pretty good one... true story!

* In the original, I said that I was the one who'd asked Lenny about his future, I lied, but I think it's now clear why - Senator McCain would rather be seen being courted by, and possibly having an affair with, a lobbyist than be seen talking to Lenny!?!

I just posted this on IMDB and I thought, why should readers here be deprived? So...

Big laughs, intelligent scripts, gripping suspense, and great action!

With Chuck, everything old is new again - and better! Written for an intelligent audience, it should also play very well to those who crave mindless action (though I wouldn't know, ha-ha)

The casting couldn't be better...

Zachary Levi is so good (and generous) as the lead that you'd hardly know he was one, but he can be both hilarious and sincere, geeky yet brave, and always believable. Chuck Bartowski is truly a geek's geek and the kind of guy you'd love to have as a friend.

Yvonne Strahovski may be the most alluring woman alive today, and in one of the funniest scenes in the series, Chuck acknowledges her as such when Sarah approaches his service desk for the first time. He's talking on the phone and going through a manual, but when he looks up and sees the stunning Sarah, the phone and manual fall like dead weight as the phone customer becomes something less than insignificant. But Strahovski can act too. And she makes action scenes look, as David Schwimmer said in Friends, like "dance karate... it's a deadly but beautiful sport." So is "Weiner Girl."

Adam Baldwin is a guy who takes the killer elite to a new -comedic- level. He's literally seething in his every waking moment, and who wouldn't be if you're used to offing people for fun and profit, and you suddenly find yourself working as a stock boy and protecting a nerd? But Baldwin as John Casey also gives credit where it's due and he acquires a certain respect for Chuck that only a licensed to kill NSA agent could have.

Joshua Gomez plays Morgan, and you've seen his sort dozens of times, but never like this. He's a dork's dork. that is to say, he may be the only TV dope in history who's not irritating. Barney Fife could be hilarious, but he could also be infuriating. Morgan is totally human. His idiocy is touchingly funny, and you find yourself not only pulling for him but wishing you could be there for him when Chuck is off "on assignment."

Sarah Lancaster is Chuck's (and every guy's) dream big sister - pretty, nurturing, expressive and warm. She's a wonderful diversion from the main plot, and she's what keeps Chuck focused on the real when he's not engaged in the surreal life of an intelligence agent. Even her name, Ellie, makes you want to have her hold you and tell you a bedtime story... even if you're at work!

Finally, there's Ryan McPartlin as Devon... or Captain Awesome as he's better known. He's Ellie's love interest, and your first impression is that he's your standard jock. Not so. I mean would Ellie love such a guy? Devon is a jock all right - with a heart and a mind. He teaches Chuck how to dance, for God's sake! Dare I say he's a jock's jock?

OK, I apologize for that, but the point is, none of the characters are stereotypes. They're all human, even if Casey hasn't realized his humanity yet. But he will, because he's already shown some.

I'd like to elaborate on some of the other cast members because they're perfect in their roles as well, but I'm more tired of writing than you are of reading. Suffice it to say that I think Chuck is one of the best shows ever produced, and even if you don't, I dare you not to get involved with each character and each episode. If you don't, I'll buy you a hot dog!?!

Catch past episodes on Friday evening on the Sci-Fi channel. It should be back on NBC any year now that the strike is settled.

Lesson learned, Senator?

The New York Times smear of John McCain is a perfect example of the old saying: "When you lay down with liberals, you come up smelling like garbage."

OK, that's not exactly the old saying, but let's make it the new one, shall we?

Conservatives have ethical constraints that liberals don't, and you've seen it right here as personified by, but certainly not limited to, Lenny and Snowy who will say anything that supports or justifies their beliefs and ideology regardless of whether or not it's true.

People on the right can't get away with that. If a conservative makes a dubious charge or commits a breach of ethics, other conservatives will call him on it. As they should. In politics, when a Republican does or says something that reflects badly on the party, and an apology just won't do, he's forced to resign. Not only is that not so with liberals, but Democrats can commit acts of criminality and still retain their seats. And the more liberal, the bigger the criminal act you can get away with, as if "talking while liberal" isn't criminal in itself.

And of course, the other side of that coin is that when people aren't constrained by a system of moral values, "the end justifies the means" becomes their rule of law.

Such is the case with the New York Times today. In one of the most overt displays of bias and a  most blatant attempt to undermine a Republican candidate and indeed, the party itself, the Times ran perhaps the weakest hit piece ever. Not only are the sources anonymous, but the charges aren't even the least bit substantial, much less substantiated.. In addition, it has come to light that the Times had, and failed to even mention, evidence and sources willing to go on record, both of which would mitigate the accusations, such as they are.

Now this is certainly no surprise. It was done to George Bush days before the 2000 election, but one wonders why then didn't the Times wait on this in order to plant doubt about McCain closer to election day? I say it's because the Times felt it could effect maximum damage right now.

You see, because the story is so weak, it might not have the intended effect in November, but right now, well, that's another story. First the Times endorsed McCain when it already had the smear in the works. Why? Conservatives groaned that the Times endorsement only proved what people on the right already felt about McCain. But that certainly wasn't who the Times wanted to reach. It wanted to encourage moderates, independents and liberals to help cement the McCain nomination so they, the Times, could then undermine it once he was the guaranteed winner.

That's only speculation on my part, but have you got a better scenario? The Times' idea: McCain secures the nomination - then he's toast. With a mortally wounded candidate and a loss in November guaranteed, why try?

And if McCain's not down for the count, at least the Times thinks it has laid the groundwork for others to expand on the charges and level new ones. I've said that I've never seen an election like this one, but I also have to say that once the liberal viciousness came out of the closet circa the Clinton impeachment, said viciousness has been on public display ever since, and it continues to grow and become more bold.

I see little difference in tactics between American liberals now and those employed by the leaders of the old Soviet Union. Pravda has nothing on the New York Times.

But the Times effort could backfire, both on the paper and the election - there is a golden opportunity for John McCain. For the first time, I believe conservatives are slightly sympathetic, even if they needn't be. I mean it's the perfect time to say, "Senator, we told you so." That's why McCain needs to seize the opportunity. It's not enough for him to call the Times story a smear. He has to understand that the Times represents all liberals. That the Times is liberalism at its finest.

McCain must (but I doubt he will) regard the Times attack as a gift. He has a window that won't remain open for long. If he were to move even slightly more right, he might accomplish what was previously unthinkable. Conservatives won't embrace him, but they might stop attacking him.

However, McCain, being far more like George Bush than conservatives are willing to admit, will probably do what Bush continues to do - he'll regard liberals as human, and he'll not only be civil to them, he'll still 'work" with them. I don't know about you, but I've found hyenas to be more approachable.

For the first time ever, I had to put down an Ann Coulter column. I did it because I was starting to feel that maybe it's better if she, herself, were put down - because she just won't give it up.

No, I don't mean give THAT up, I mean the McCain bashing. I mean, is McCain really the head of the Devil on the body of Kirstie Alley?

I understand that no one is thrilled with John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee, not even his black adopted daughter, but he's no Dole, and he's better than Nixon, and he happens to be the best candidate running.

Just to hear Hillary or Obama speak is so grating that I can't hit "mute" fast enough. Can you imagine having to listen to either for four years, much less having to look at them? Well then, how about eight?

Whether it's Hillary or Obama, for the first time ever I find myself hating a nominee before the election even takes place. I mean, I didn't hate Clinton for years, and I didn't hate Gore until he tried to steal the election, so I think it says something that I hate Hillary and Obama right out of the box.

Look, I realize that to the Coulters of the Republican Party, McCain is a lemon, but every inspirational book ever written says that when you have a lemon,, you exercise your rights under the Lemon Law and demand either reimbursement or a replacement. Or since that's not practical from a time standpoint, MAKE LEMONADE! For God's sake, in the same situation, Dole made pineapple!

Ann, I'm beggin' ya, and this is personal, find another note on that piano... or at least get it tuned. I only ask because when you become more irritating than Hillary, I'm not concerned about my eardrum shattering, I'm worried about knocking the Earth off its axis.

Today's column is (for about the fourth time in three minutes) all about McCain-Feingold. So I absolutely had to stop reading. But I did a search - not a single mention of George Bush as the McCain-Feingolder-in-Chief. It's too bad Spielberg isn't still doing Amazing Stories.

If McCain loses and Obama turns America into the world's newest socialist state with the help of a veto-proof Democratic Congress, I know conservatives won't blame Ann Coulter, just like they don't blame George Bush for the many and horrible things he's done. They'll just blame John McCain... as usual.

First it was the Man From Hope, now it's the Man With Hope.

Is Barack Obama the Messiah, and if he is, could he lie about it? I mean, he hasn't said, but has anyone put the question to him directly?

Personally I think there's a big hint right there in his name. He may not be the Second Coming, but I believe his initials give him away - BHO - he's the true Browser Helper Object!?!

That's right, he's just that significant.

On Monday, the big story was that Obama "plagiarized" part of a speech previously given by Massachusetts Governor What's His Name, which is probably why What's couldn't be more pleased with the publicity.

Obama admitted he'd borrowed from his friend, so are the Dems pinning their hopes on the wrong black guy? Obama's soaring rhetoric...soared before.

Today is about determining whether or not it means anything - it does. It begs the question: what kind of a sorry state are the Democrats in that they think someone like Barack Obama can fix it? Not having any ideas of his own, he now has to spout rousing lines from others verbatim?

This is not plagiarism, but the fact that Obama wanted people to believe they were his words, that's the problem. This pure beacon of hope now ain't so pure. One wonders if all this is what Michelle Obama had in mind when she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country?"

Ask not whether you can be proud of your country, ask whether your country can be proud of you, ma belle.

And what about the newest group of Obama supporters- the Swooning Sistas?. My friend, Dox, likens it to a Beatles concert, and James Taranto detailed the episodes: in a segment titled:

We Shall Be Overcome

(Credit James Vicevich):

This proves once again, California's a trend starter .

Are any fainters now, or have they ever been, a member of the male gender? . What does that say? And unlike a Beatles concert populated by teenagers, these are adult women - chronologically speaking. If you think there's little difference, trying telling an eighteen-year-old to her face that she's got the maturity of 16.

These are Vagina Monologuers with the vapors...

So may I make a suggestion? Women, slap your swooning sisters!

The criticism of liberals is that they are all symbolism and no substance, and Obama and his supporters are Exhibit A. They're passin' out the Kool-Aid in Nebuchadnezzars!

Not only does Obama say nothing, but women and Lenny are ecstatic about it!

Ona Abderholden Keller writing in a New York post column:

As John Kennedy put it, I'd like to say this about that: based on her name alone, that woman is fiercely determined to remain single! Anybody want to speculate about her calves?

But seriously, apparently any change will do.

Ona went on to say...

(I'll pause till you stop laughing)

Ona continues:

She also said things like:

OK, I"m no longer asking, I now demand, WOMEN, SLAP YOUR SISTERS!.

Just when you think America can't get any sicker, a silver-tongued black guy (got that picture?) becomes the living embodiment of Tommy....

Now if he says, "I'm a sensation," that's plagiarism!

Barry can you hear me?

Can you feel me near you?

Barry?

Barry?

Barry?

I was originally going to make this subject one or two sentences long as part of a number of offhand comments I'd planned to post today, but it has just expanded into a full-fledged subject of its own, and the other comments will have to wait. I only hope you can.

Earlier this week, I was surprised to find that our very own Lenny (URL withheld due to insignificance) appeared to think that Barry-O was rising above racism. If he'd stopped there, I wouldn't have taken note, but Lenny's young and stupid, and he implied (at least that's how I saw it) that this racism was somehow emanating from the right. That couldn't go unanswered, even if it was Lenny who thought it.

You see, you can point to a number of racists and racial incidents from years past, and of those that can be attributed to a specific party, well, let me ask you, can anyone name anything that a Republican said or did that was distinctly racist?

Let's see, George Wallace was a Democrat... Robert Byrd is. So is Ed Rendell. Meanwhile, President Eisenhower tried and failed to get a civil rights act through, and his failure was due to one man - Lyndon Johnson. And Harry Truman used that dreaded word to describe black people long after he'd left the Presidency.

So did you hear the one about the half a black guy running for President?

The Democratic bigots are coming out of the woodwork. But lest you think this is about the Clintons and their supporters, it isn't. In fact, that's well documented and there's no need to beat a dead horse, even a white one, and no, I'm not referring to Hillary... she's now the dark horse, anyway.

Let me put it this way: remember who our first black President was? That's right, Pasty Bill. Black people loved him. But black guys marry white women more often than the reverse, and Bill is apparently one of them,.because have you heard anyone hailing Hill as the first black woman presidential candidate?

Well, before you think I'm just being silly, consider this: in every election cycle (and many times in between), some jackass in the liberal news media asks the question, "Why can't Republicans attract the black vote?" What does it run, about 90-10 Democratic? The implication is, of course, that Republicans are bigots. No matter that there are other reasons why the Dems get the black vote which I don't need to go into here, other than to say they involve dependency and false promises.

But this has nothing to do with Republicans. It's all Dems, all the time. Now I ask, can't both Hillary and Barry be expected to be FOBs? No, not friends of Bill, blacks! Then why is Obama getting that same disproportionate share of the black vote now when it's two Democrats they're voting for? Now can you say, "Racism?" "Bigotry?" OK, how about "Bigism" or "Racistry?"

No, then consider what James Taranto presented today in a column delightfully titled, We Shall Be Overcome:

Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee is a rarity in Congress: a white lawmaker representing a majority-black district. First elected in 2006 to fill the vacant seat of Harold Ford Jr., Cohen faces a primary challenge this summer from a black candidate, Nikki Tinker. The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers reports that the campaign against Cohen has gotten unusually ugly:

"Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus," blares the flier, which Cohen himself received in the mail... Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn't even in Cohen's district... the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to "see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election."

Akers quotes a Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial:

Last summer Cohen came under attack from black ministers for (supporting) federal hate crimes legislation to protect gay rights. The paper wrote that the "real motive" behind the ministers' attacks... revealed later by Rev. Robert Poindexter...: "He's not black and he can't represent me, that's just the bottom line."

Poindexter (has) a misconception about the nature of political representation in a democratic republic... that his congressman's job is to represent him "as a black" rather than as a citizen.

Yet it is this same misrepresentation that has led to deliberate efforts to draw "majority minority" districts like the one Cohen now defends.

As for the anti-Semitic flier, it is evidence of the folly of thinking that a society can practice identity politics without opening itself up to the ugly side of such politics.

So I can understand Hillary getting a lesser share of the black vote than Barry, but nine to one? Is one candidate getting ninety percent of the vote of any other group? Are black women paying Hillary back for stealing one of their men?

Or are blacks voting for Obama because he's almost black like them?

And speaking of that dreaded word, Al Sharpton just said "misconscrewed" on Glenn Beck. I swear! Catch the replay, damnit, why are you always doubting me?

Now c'mon, let's sing, "Sittin' on the dock of the bay... wastin' ti,,i,i, ime..."