The Amazing Race
I can't imagine you'll see another one like it even if America manages to survive an Obama Presidency, because this election cycle has it all - all the intrigue, rumors, stupidity, bigotry (and on top of it all, the worst proposals ever conceived of by living candidates) that could possibly be packed into one campaign, and we haven't even really begun yet.
So here's why Bush Is a bastard, McCain's a moron, and Obama's an abomination, although I won't be spending much time on the latter, since I've already said a lot about him previously, and I'd prefer to wait until I've come up with a sufficient number of new analogies before getting my second wind. Which reminds me, why is it that Obama never seems to run out of wind? Oh, and did I mention that he's the rottenest man who ever ran?
Now Bush has embarked on a "final attempt" to get bin Laden. Good luck, Jorge, I hope you succeed, and if you do, I'll dislike you even more, and that's despite the absolute fact that no matter what you see and hear elsewhere, I offer my personal guarantee that no one dislikes you more than I do already. And if someone can demonstrate they do, I'll add capacity.
But let's say Bush nabs Binnie. Good. Great! Why didn't you do it last week or last year then? Is it because you've literally been doing nothing for five years while people you've sent to war have died and you ceased playing golf in tribute? Don't get me wrong, abandoning the links was the right thing to do. After all, it's why I hate your father You apparently, as was I, were shocked to see dad in the cart while the first Gulf War raged? yet pops had a 90% approval rating when it ended, so golfing while Baghdad burned probably wouldn't have hurt your own approval rating any, ha-ha.
No, Jorge, you're in a class by yourself, that of being a tone-deaf, uncommunicative do-nothing who, despite all that has managed to keep us safe and make the world a little safer as he apparently regards the capture of bin laden as more important than stopping Iran's nuclear ambition while allowing his black version of Madeleine Albright to "scold" Israel for "jeopardizing" the 'peace process" by building more settlements on "Palestinian land."
Sorry, but there's just no way to describe our relationship with Israel without a a boatload of apostrophes. That's why I haven't said much about Israel lately, I had to wait for a new shipment before I could do it here.
And McCain? let me just say upfront, this ain't the McCain I knew...
Here's a guy who's running against an otherwise fatally flawed candidate, and he's looking more like Bob Dole with each passing day. Never were the issues so clear for Republicans, and yet so utterly overlooked, and that's even taking the last twelve years of Republican disintegration into account.
McCain - "Drill & Kill" should be his campaign slogan, but instead, he really does look like a doddering old fool as he talks about keeping places - those which people will never see and which have no value other than the oil beneath them - pristine. Even George Bush understood the need for drilling in Alaska as he added the idea to his do-nothing portfolio. And if that weren't bad enough, McCain takes to chastising oil companies just as if he were a Democrat. He's not, right?
Then there's the matter of his two best pals, Lieberman and Graham. man, there's a law firm for ya. When you consider Lieberman's recent " warming" bill, it makes me proud that I was denigrating him when conservatives thought he'd make a wonderful Democrat candidate for President.
But it's what I've been seeing from McCain himself that makes me think maybe there's a lot of truth to the stereotype that old people are too set in their ways to change, much less realize that change is necessary, and I say that as one who's far too close to doddering than I want to be. Someone (and I'm sorry that I can't remember who) said that McCain is still and constantly playing to his maverick role, and I think that's it - it's all he knows. The trouble is, it shows that if we elect him to the presidency, we should expect his term to make a great "Worst of John McCain" video when it's over since everything he's been and done up to now is mere prelude.
And yet, McCain will still be, and I can say this with absolute certainty, an enormously better President than Obama, and the reason I can say that is, we'll never get to make the actual comparison.
But you can trust me. Why? Because you can't point to a single other person who's criticizing both sides in the harshest terms I can think of and when I can't, I make them up... I'm the Lone Assailant!
]]>When Shakespeare wrote Much Ado About Nothing, he could never have imagined "global warming."
Or Barack Obama.
In fact, if Bill were alive today, he would see that his concept has gone from a play to an age. Much is made of almost everything except things that really matter. They're dismissed, as are any people who are voices of sanity.
More than twenty years ago we were lamenting the dumbing down of our culture. Now that it's fully dumbed, one has to question if recovery's even possible when you see intelligent, educated people who hold beliefs that are both preposterous and dangerous, and who flock to outlandish theories and people.
If we do make it, people will look back centuries from now and wonder how. On the one hand, we're all guinea pigs, and we're finding by trial and error that, as Woody Allen said in Annie Hall, everything our parents told us is good for us is bad - and vice versa. As proof, look no further than one of today's headlines: Low-Salt Diet May Not Be Best for Heart.
Wasn't it written in stone that less salt meant less heart disease? The article says, "the 25 percent of the population who ate the least salt were 80 percent more likely to die of cardiac disease than the 25 percent who ate the most salt." Great, will there now be a salt shortage and enormous price increases?
But what happens when we're wrong about something that can't be reversed - like "Muslim creep?" What if, for example, it turns out that Islam really isn't the "Religion of Peace?" I ask because seeing Obama last night was like watching a bad sci-fi movie... or living in one. You wondered if he's real, and if he is, he's almost certainly a front for a Soros-like manipulator. How else could someone so patently unqualified become the Democrat nominee?
"I respect his many accomplishments even as he's chosen to deny mine," Obama said of McCain last night. Are you asking what I asked? What accomplishments? It can truly be said that even more than Paris Hilton, Obama's merely famous for being famous.
And speaking of bad sci-fi, the TV show, Pushing Daisies, was named "best new show" in an AOL poll. The actual best new show, Chuck, came in fourth. Ironically, Chuck is good sci-fi. Coincidently, Daisies isn't just bad science fiction, it also comes off like bad Shakespeare. But today, bad is good, even if bad is immutable, and I'm not talking about the sort of bad in which tastes change, I'm talking evil. Not only have people lost their sense of outrage, they've lost their sense of what's evil... because they've lost their sense of right and wrong. Thus being homosexual is innate, but conscience ain't.
In another Woody Allen film, Hannah and Her Sisters, Max Von Sydow asks, "Can you imagine the kind of mind that watches wrestling?" Substitute 'Obama" for "wrestling," and the question becomes as current as today's headlines. If you wonder what I mean, just ask yourself how it's possible that an empty Obama could beat Clinton in meat and potatoes Montana?
Even Fox labeled the apparent Obama nomination as "historic." Shocking. Isn't that about race? Wasn't Obama once busily transcending it? I have another word for it anyway - ominous. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It has everything to do with the vacuous state of the American mentality. More evidence of that comes from another headline this day - Jay Leno Says "I Do" in Support of Gay Marriage. His argument:
“'He said that he is from Massachusetts and that the sky did not fall in their state when marriage equality became the law of the land there,' a rep for the event said. 'He wants to impress upon everyone here in California that the sky will not fall here either,'” according to E Online.
Leno's right, the sky won't fall in - society will cave in, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life."
Chip, chip, chip, that's how it works. I said to my wife the other day, "If you look back, every previous time in our lives was better than today. Even last year was better than this." If you disagree, you probably also believe that the "warmalarmists" aren't evil. And I'm not the least bit concerned that someone might disagree with me, the more control they get, the more apparent it will become that Hitler was a pussycat by comparison.
How about another headline from this morning? "The force is with Obama, 'Star Wars' creator says."
"We have a hero in the making back in the United States today because we have a new candidate for president of the United States, Barack Obama," Lucas said.
A hero? How exactly, George? Wouldn't you love for him to elaborateon that? Because, and I'm not trying to be cynical (it comes naturally), I can't imagine what makes Obama a hero? Is one a hero simply because he won an election? Or does Lucas mean that Obama's a hero because he'll have won against all odds? If the latter, the force isn't just -with- George, it has overwhelmed him. Everyone and his grandmother rallied to Obama's "cause" - and they did it in a frenzy. Just what that cause is, Obama's not yet ready to tell us. He blathered about healthcare and jobs and restoring America in his "soaring" speech, but whatever he didn't get flat-out wrong , the rest was, as they say in legal circles, non-responsive. Shakespeare called it sound and fury signifying nothing.
And yes, I admit that Obama's grandmother didn't exactly rally, but that didn't stop him from using her as needed in several speeches. In the first, he threw her under the bus. Last night, he dragged her out. No word yet on whether she was grateful.
But Obama is just a manifestation of the enormity of the problem. This is real-life invasion of the Body Snatchers, and its scope isn't limited to the left. Conservatives don't see clearly either. How could Bush not be reviled if they did? How could the Republican Party have any members at all?
And if you missed Obama last might, please trust me - you need to be very scared. He's already redefined "dangerous." He'll soon unveil it's new meaning. And in doing so, he'll demonstrate why I say there's no material difference between an evil person and the well-intentioned individual who abets it.
I want to say that there's no way Obama can be elected because I still believe that, but he's aided not just by an adoring, ignorant and insane constituency, he's aided by his opponent and the fact that the right realizes that even the best outcome is undesirable to conservatives and the country, and even warning conservatives that they don't know the meaning of 'undesirable" until there's a President Obama, it may not matter since the entire outcome of this election apears to depend on independents and the disaffected left. Are more of them disaffected by Bush or by Obama? All I can say is, let's hope there are still some sane people left of center even if I haven't found one in two decades of looking.
]]>Today John McCain made his strongest statements yet about his intent to regulate the "global warming" scam.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. McCain doesn't intend to regulate the scam, he plans to fully participate in it.
The one thing the senator and I agree on about this issue is that it's potentially the most serious one America faces.
Where we disagree is why.
McCain actually thinks that "greenhouse gases" play some role in something.
So do I - I think he's been breathing in too much CO2, for too long.
Consequently, I will not be voting for him.
He's by far the least of three evils.
But he's still very evil.
This is the first time in my adult life that I'm not proud of America.
Over the weekend, I was referred to a "carbon footprint test."
I took it.
Our "footprint" is under four tons - 3.7 to be exact
My wife and I agree we could easily reduce it further.
That makes us better than just about everyone.
If you disagree, you're worse than John McCain
But better than Barack and Hillary.
In all probability.
Now please, go help save energy - burn a cornfield
]]>Let me say again at the outset, I'm no fan of John McCain. I hate his positions on immigration, drilling in Alaska, and the "global warming" scam, to name a few. OK, "hate' is too weak, but it'll have to do since I can't spend a lot of time thinking of something more appropriate when it's not what this entry is about.
What I want to bring to your attention is the segment on today's Special Report with Brit Hume in which a former Hanoi cellmate of Senator McCain went into considerable detail regarding the nature of McCain's heroism, and it was far more extensive and impressive than I'd known - awe-inspiring, I'd say. OK, "awe-inspiring" is too weak, but it will have to do because it can't be described in a word or two.
This is the sort of guy in the sort of situation movies are made of... and one was. I saw it, and as reflective as it was of McCain's character in the face of circumstances I couldn't begin to endure, the film didn't convey the sentiments a fellow prisoner did in a short interview. I urge you to catch a replay.
Does heroism qualify one to be President? No, but it's one indication of temperament, ability to focus, and potential coolness in a crisis. And McCain has a long political and legislative track record which,shows that he's the man for the times. I expect that I won't like a lot of what he does in office, but I also know that he'll be a leader, a strong and capable one - an honest one, and I can't say that about his potential opponents.
]]>Nine to one! That's the margin of black votes that Barry Obama got over Hillary Clinton among black voters in Mississippi. What if that same margin existed for whites voting in favor of Clinton? Wouldn't the media be all over that story?
Yet they think nothing of merely mentioning the disparity for Obama.
I've said previously that Clinton is getting the sort of treatment from black voters that is normally reserved for Republicans, and today, Geraldine Ferraro called something for what it is: she said that Obama would be nowhere in the picture if he weren't black.
That truth seems to have made Democrats crazier, but the fact is, no white guy named Barry' would even have the audacity to run for President with the sort of experience Obama has "ammasses," so the fact that said white guy would never have been taken seriously doesn't even enter into it.
And let's get something else on the table: not only is Obama not qualified, he's not even that great a speaker, much less an orator. He's merely, as Joe Biden described him,: "clean and articulate." All the other qualities that have been attributed to him are desirously imagined by his supporters.
That doesn't mean it will evaporate. The same sort of imaginary qualities were once accorded Bill Clinton and it took liberals sixteen years to see what conservatives saw in 1992, so Obama might get lucky as well. However, the other possibility is that scrutiny may be greater for him than it was for Clinton and for several reasons:
1) His inexperience not only can't be camouflaged, it is becoming more apparent.
2) Ditto his immaturity
3) Half of his own party is not on board, and it has nothing to do with prejudice
4) Independents are fickle. If they start to see the real Obama, a lot of his support could veaporate
And the system the Dems have crafted is a thing of beauty. Even a significant Obama victory in Mississippi doesn't necessarily give him substantially more delegates than Hillary. That's gotta eat at his black and young supporters, one would think.
The super-delegates are another matter altogether. They're there to make sure "democracy" doesn't run amok, and if they do their job right, it could rip the Democratic Party apart.
In theory, the super-Ds would get behind the people's clear choice, which, when this all started, they thought would be Hillary Clinton Now that there is no clear choice, and an entire constituency is ripe for disenfranchisement, well, it doesn't get any better... unless it happens
And did you see Ferraro on Fox? She was not only unapologetic, she forcefully said that Clinton couldn't rein her in, and she actually warned Obama not to alienate her because he was going need her later.
None of this is a surprise to conservatives who always knew the Dems were playing with fire in their pandering to racial and ethnic groups, but who could have expected such delightful manifestations of those consequences, much less imagine where they might still lead?
You keep thinking, oh the Dems will eventually reconcile and all will be forgotten, but will they? and will it? Hasn't a certain amount of damage already been done? Not only are they fighting amongst themselves, but they are exposing flaws in the individual candidates that the Republicans must have thought they'd have trouble getting the voters to consider on their own.
And thinking that the Obama youth and race vote would gravitate to Hillary if Barry isn't nominated is sheer fantasy. However, it does seem clear now that if Hillary is the nominee, she absolutely will ask Obama to be her VP, and I believe that despite the animosity, he'd accept, and that could be the Republicans' worst nightmare.
But don't get me wrong, even that nightmare isn't insurmountable, it's simply the best ticket the Dems can put forth, and as Rush Limbaugh has said, "They don't have a prayer." I wouldn't go that far, but I would agree that there are unknown negatives in such a ticket.
We tend to concentrate on the apparent positives - woman, black... that's about it. But those are also the ticket's negatives. At least its main negatives, and there are more - inexperience, Hillary's unlikeability... Bill Clinton, not to mention the horrible positions and plans such a ticket would advance.
Of course, McCain has his own negatives, and I don't see anyone other than Romney who can possibly solve the VP problem, not that Romney is a stellar choice.
But I'm rooting for the Democrats right now - to self-destruct. It seems easy enough to avoid, but then I can't think like a Democrat, and I certainly don't want to be responsible for putting a rational thought in their heads. Where's the fun in that?
]]>You may have heard that Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham were urging their listeners to vote Clinton in Ohio and Texas in hopes of continuing the chaos in the Democratic Party.
But as Hillary told Fox News, "Be careful what you wish for, Rush." And for his part, Limbaugh was already backing off his own urging last Monday, after apparently having realizd that if there were to be a President Clinton, there might be a Limbaugh Flambé.
Well, keep hope alive, it worked. Now you've done it, Rush, you've forced me to add to my Simple Rules I Don't Have To Follow List:
1) If you're a woman, don't marry and Arab
2) When you have a chance to deal the Clintons a knockout punch, you take it!
The thinking among most conservatives is that Hillary is easier to beat, and indeed, Karl Rove produced a chart last night that Showed McCain easily beating her State by State, while he would likely lose to Obama if the election were held now.
But that fails to take at least two important things into account:
1) Obama is vulnerable to criticism. he couldn't even answer elementary questions from the press the other day, and then he whined about it afterward, There's so much he hasn't done or failed to do, and there's so much he's said that's ridiculous and dangerous that the general electorate isn't aware of that once he's called to account, he's going to have a very difficult time. Obama has a glass jaw.
2) For all the hype and hysteria surrounding and accompanying Obama, you'd expect he'd be invincible. Yet he only leads Clinton by a hundred delegates and he can't even win big States in his own party. So you get the idea - his support may be far less than it appears.
And some of that support was on display this morning, again on Fox News. They went to Ohio University and interviewed his "youth vote" - idiots to a man... er... person. Literally not a single one knew anything much about his record or his plans. Now they won't care once it becomes well known that Obama has neither, but real Americans will
And by the way, wouldn't it be delightful to witness these students receive a big dose of good old American disillusionment en masse instead of having to experience it individually, in private, as we all did?
Hillary, on the other hand, can't go lower.She's hit rock bottom and is now on the way up again. That's good news for Republicans? I didn't like what Limbaugh was doing in exhorting Republicans to vote for her, and I like it a whole lot less today.
Republicans certainly didn't win Ohio for Hillary, but they may have won her Texas, and so she's still in the race. The numbers are against her, but where there's a will, there's a way, and the Clintons always have the first and usually find the other.
And as I've been saying, an Obama-Clinton ticket is less likely than a Clinton-Obama ticket, and the latter seems very formidable.
Dem analyst, Kirsten Powers said Clinton-Obama that might be too much change for the electorate to accept, and she could be right, but if I'm right, we could have sixteen years of horror whereas if Obama took Hillary as his VP, at worst, we'd probably have only eight.
Then again, knowing Hillary, she just might want to have another go at it at age 68... just in case, anybody got any age progression software?
]]>What A Stunning Accomplishment
In a very warm concession speech tonight, Mike Huckabee finally made me a kingmaker.
OK, he didn't, but he proved me right about "No one named Huckabee is going to be President," and he vindicated me as one of McCain's earliest lukewarm supporters.
But suddenly, the focus is on John McCain, and his is an utterly amazing achievement. It was all over for him more times than I can remember, and yet he kept on (just as Hillary is doing, I might add), and here he is now, the Republican nominee.
This is the very sort of thing that only happens in America
Congratulations,Senator, I wish I liked you more. But I respect you a lot. If ever someone deserved the nomination, you're that man.
]]>What's the one thing you can't fault John McCain on?
What am I saying, let me put it another way: What's the one thing in which John McCain is indisputably more courageous than 99.9% of Americans?
What's the one thing you'd think liberals would consider to be off-limits in this campaign?
So can you imagine the filthiest feminist saying this:
"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years,'" Gloria Steinem claims the media would demand to know?
Every time you think liberals can't go lower, they surprise you.
Now understand, that's not a direct slap at John McCain, it's directed toward Steinem's warped image of the media and society, and there's some truth to it, though not the sort the likes of Steinem would admit to. because when she talks about "the media," she's referring (unknowingly) to the liberal media which minimizes and maximizes whatever it pleases without concern for accuracy or relevance.
And the celebrity worship that's going on on the left could go from horrific to dangerous in November.
In that respect then, Steinem is criticizing herself, since she's certainly done her share of distorting in her lifetime. Would you like an example from the same article?
"A majority of Americans want redemption for racism... I don’t think as many want redemption for the gynocide. They acknowledge racism... They would probably be less likely to acknowledge that the most likely way a pregnant woman is to die is murder from her male partner. There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female."
What's next for Gloria, an Academy Award?
Here's a few more Steinemisms:
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"America is an enormous frosted cupcake in the middle of millions of starving people."
"We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters."
"What has the women's movement learned from Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy for vice president? Never get married."
Here's my favorite:
"Hope is a very unruly emotion."
Say goodnight, Gloria.
Not only are Steinem's McCain remarks outrageous, but you can picture liberal's trying to defend them, and Clinton hasn't denounced Steinem, she's merely said that Steinem's comments were not the campaign's position.
Well, when it comes to the positions of both Clinton and Obama, you'd need a political Kama Sutra to begin to sort them all out.
]]>Whether the lights are on or off, is anybody home?
It should be billed as the Battle of the Lightweights, although Hillary Clinton is clearly right at the top of their weight class, and the question should be, not if Barack Obama is fit to answer that hypothetical 3am phone call (it could come at 3;10), but whether he can rise above the ranks of amateur. He's clearly the least qualified candidate ever to make a serious run for the Presidency in modern history (mine), and that means he's the least qualified ever, because no one as inexperienced as he would have even dared run in earlier times.
Of course, that says even more about the electorate than it does the candidate.
But the cracks are stating to show.
In an Ohio debate, Obama vowed to change NAFTA. Later, it was alleged that he had pre-qualified his remarks with Canadian officials when a CTV report said Obama told the officials well ahead of time that it would be just "campaign rhetoric." Obama denied doing such a thing.
Except that he did.
It turns out that some Canadians do something that's a bit old-fashioned - they take notes and write memos. Now the Obama campaign is saying that Canadians misinterpreted what they were told.
What happened to that grand eloquence?
And today, the Canadian Prime Minister, whose name is being withheld pending official lookup, told Parliament directly that Obama is sending mixed signals.
So clearly, they were told something. And we can assume that it wasn't "I'm going to scrap NAFTA forthwith so get used to it," because, well, that would be real news in Canada's capital, Snowville, Ont. (I think).
So from there, it hardly matters what was said (except to Canadians), because at the very least, it was ambiguous, and intentionally so. Is this the sort of new diplomacy Obama is going to bring to the Presidency?
And lest you think that's only one minor mistake, consider the following from the Associated press:
"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.
Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.
Rockefeller called Obama "brilliant" and "well grounded" and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.
Just one slight problem with that brilliant preparedness, Jay, and it's a problem which the AP's Tom Raum outrageously failed to report: Rockefeller not only voted FOR the authorization of force, he urged his colleagues to do so in a speech.
Now it's true that Rockefeller urged that war be the last resort after all other avenues have failed, but that's a judgment call on the part of the President, and there can be no doubt that Jay Rocking authorized force.
And there's a new Clinton ad which alleges that Obama, as chairman of a Senate subcommittee set up to monitor al-Qaida activities in Afghanistan has never convened it - because he's too busy campaigning, and Obama appears to confirm it.
There's something about Barry
Finally, the new buzzwords in the Clinton camp are "buyer's remorse." Those words will become a battle cry if Hillary manages to win both Ohio and Texas. I'm not sure her double victory would be a good thing because it would certainly restore a lot of her footing, but the thrill of contemplating what would happen next is alluring.
Now I leave you with this question: Has Gloria Steinem always been insane?
]]>I've been thinking about Obama's response to John McCain that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq before Bush and McCain invaded, and the more I do, the more juvenile and dangerous it seems. Now Angelina Jolie, writing in the Washington Post has done a great service while at the same time proving that not all liberals are blinded by ideology.
Jolie: "Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"
Obama can. He's said so - that even genocide wouldn't deter him from his cut and run strategy. Can the United States afford to gamble that Obama will know the right thing to do and actually do it? He was looking to the past to save him from McCain's sarcasm because his initial faux pas was so glaring. More important, he was desperate to avoid having to deal with the implications of saying that he'd pull the troops and send them back in if and when it became necessary.
How is it possible that Angelina Jolie understands what Obama can't?
The thing that has long troubled me about Obama is not his lack of experience or his liberalism or his possible allegiances to the wrong people, all of which is terrible enough. But it's his immaturity that is so very ominous since it may portend a boy-President making critical decisions for the greatest country on Earth at a time that, it could be argued, is as precarious as any in our history.
A recent poll had 84% of respondents saying that they did not think Obama was too young to be President. What amazed me is that someone would ask that. They didn't for Kennedy or even Clinton. There's something about Barry. He seems much younger than his years, and not in a good way.
Obama's reply to McCain not only focused on his weaknesses, it magnified them by several orders of magnitude. Suddenly, the thing that every rational person feared about him was there on display. He really is clueless - his intelligence can't cover for his naiveté. He's a dangerous man, and now that danger is multi-faceted.
This serves as a wake up call for those on the right who say they can't support McCain, or worse, would consider voting for Obama. Things may be bad, but they can get a lot worse, and if you helped make an Obama Presidency possible and things went inevitably downhill, how could you live with yourself?
I know conservatives will continue to mutter about how un-conservative McCain is, and that's fine. It should actually help McCain. But when push comes to shove, I hope you'll be pulling that lever for the little old Senator from Arizona who, by the way is younger than his years in that good way and despite his torture wrenched body..
Obamanonsense is a product of loony left hysteria, youthful stupidity and alcoholic stupor. Here's hoping we won't have to rename the Democratic Party, the Democratic Cult.
When the campaign begins in earnest, barring some Invasion of the Body Snatchers action, the general electorate should be far more grounded..America has proven that a black man and a hideous woman can run for President and be taken seriously. There's no need for the country to commit suicide in order to prove it's not bigoted.
Mrs. O. hasn't been proud of her country until now, and Mr. O can't answer questions about the here and now. After the election, the name, Barack Obama, should retain no greater significance than as one of the sounds your parrot makes.
I'll leave with this edited version of what Joseph Farah recently had to say about Obama:
]]>Let's examine some of Obama's key votes:
On May 24, 2007, he voted against continued funding of our troops in Iraq.
On Jan. 11, 2007, he voted against reform on earmarks
On May 17, 2006, he voted against an increase in the amount of fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border...again contradicting the majority of his fellow Democrats.
On Sept. 29, 2005, he opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.
On Aug. 3, 2007, he voted against expanding the power of U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects.
On April 26, 2007, he voted to set dates for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
On March 29, 2007, he voted to start withdrawing troops from Iraq last summer.
On May 11, 2006, he voted against extending President Bush's tax cuts.
On Jan. 31, 2006, he opposed confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
What is the single, solitary, lone vote Barack Obama regrets?
(That) he tried to save the life of a poor, handicapped woman who was being victimized in the most inhuman way by her estranged husband and a rogue local court.
This should give you some insight into the character of Barack Obama. It should give you a glimpse of his dark soul. It should give you a look into his hardened, politically correct heart. It should give you a picture of what this country has in store for it when he is elected president later this year.