Tag: Opinion

Breaking News: John McCain’s Consultant’s Wife has ties Libyan Government

Posted on

This could be bad for McCain…. 

A top consultant to Senator John McCain is married to a lobbyist who has worked in recent years for the Libyan regime of Muammar Khaddafi, UltimateJohnMcCain.com has learned.  

She began working for the Khaddafi government at a time when it was officially designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Under Khaddafi’s rule, the Libyan government supported terrorism in countries as far afield as Spain, the U.K., and the Philippines, and was responsible for the 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died.   The Lockerbie bombing was considered the largest terrorist attack on Americans prior to 9/11.

The McCain consultant, Mike Hudome, is one of the media advisors who took over for Mark McKinnon when McKinnon left the campaign rather than work against Obama. Mr. Hudome previously worked with McCain media advisor Michael Murphy in the 2000 primary campaign. (via McCain consultant’s wife worked for Libya’s terrorist regime (Via Ultimate John McCain))

This could be seriously bad. Especially if the Main Stream Media gets it. You know, I have always suspected that McCain was dishonest. This simply proves it.

What this will do to John McCain’s Presidential Campaign, is anyone’s guess. But it will be interesting to see if the Blogging World and the Main Stream Media bothers to cover it.

So much for the policy of kicking out the Lobbyists out of his Campaign. Frustrated

You know, I will just say what the Republicans will not say, because of their loyalty to their candidate. This is the very large distinction between the Paleo-Conservatives and the Constitution Party and the New or Neo-Conservatives and Republicans. The Neo-Con’s know no integrity, if they smell money, they will go against the very fabric of the Principles of the United States of America to make a buck, even it means working for a Nation that was regarded as a Terrorist Nation.

It is a sad commentary of the present state of the Republican Party. One that makes me wretch in disgust. Angry

Editorial: Objective Journalism or hit piece on Michelle Malkin?

Posted on

I never thought in a million years that I would be defending the knuckle-headed woman. However, here I am, once again, defending someone, of whom my political beliefs are a bit similar. Michelle, being a staunch Republican and Conservative, and me a former “Left of Center” type and more of a Libertarian and very much a Constitutionalist.

In the interest of full disclosure, there are times, when I read what Michelle Malkin writes and I just roll my eyes and think to myself, “My God in Heaven, why do they let that women near a Computer?” However, there are other times, when I would like to whack her upside the head with an aluminum baseball bat, to knock some sense into her head, for some of the things that she has written. But then again, there has been quite a few times, that I would loved to kiss her soundly on the lips and give a nice squeeze on the butt, for some of the good stuff that she has written as well.

Deadly violence and sexual fantasies aside, when I see stuff like this piece in the Boston Globe, I find myself in a position of saying, “Hey, wait a minute here!”

What strikes me about this article is the glaring bias, could it be any clearer that this was written by some idiotic liberal who has a axe to grind with the Conservatives?

I mean, yes, when I read the article on Malkin’s Blog I just laughed and thought, “Well, maybe it is a slow news day, and she is looking for content.” It happens, I as a Blogger have the problem, some days, there just is not much write about in Politics. This is especially painfully true with the Democrats. I mean, can we just chose the candidate and move on please?

Nevertheless, what bothered me about this piece was this little quote here:

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ Donuts boycott.

‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,’’ Malkin yowls in her syndicated column.

‘‘Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.’’

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Said the suits in a statement: ‘‘In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.’

Yowls? I mean, can you get any more biased than to reduce a woman of great writing skills and awesome Conservative values to a word like “yowls?” This is, by the way, an underhanded way of basically calling Michelle Malkin a crybaby.

I mean, I can understand the idea that some people find Michelle Malkin’s writing a bit screechy at times, but to basically slam her for her Conservative values in a article and disguise it as objective journalism is just pathetic. As far as I am concerned the editors at the Boston Globe owes Michelle Malkin and people like me, who share her values a big apology, and should terminate the employment of the writer who produced this story.

Such much for the political progress in Iraq.

Posted on

This is not good.

Iraq’s main Sunni Arab political bloc said on Wednesday it had suspended talks to rejoin the Shi’ite-led government after a disagreement with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over a cabinet post.

Persuading the bloc to rejoin has been a main aim of U.S. policy in Iraq and is widely seen as a vital step in reconciling the country’s factions after years of conflict. Sunni Arabs have little voice in a cabinet dominated by Shi’ites and Kurds.

The breakdown in talks could undermine Washington’s efforts to prod Sunni Arab states to offer more support to Iraq’s government at a conference in Sweden this week as a way of countering Shi’ite Iran’s growing influence in Iraq.

"We have suspended negotiations with the government and pulled out our candidates," said Salim al-Jibouri, spokesman for the Accordance Front. He said the decision was taken after Maliki objected to a candidate for a cabinet position.

The Accordance Front pulled out of Maliki’s national unity government in August, demanding the release of mainly Sunni Arab detainees in Iraq’s jails and calling for a greater say in security matters.

Jibouri said the Accordance Front drew up a list of candidates for six cabinet posts to hand to the government but Maliki rejected the nomination for the Planning Ministry. (Via Reuters)

While the United States is making good gains militarily in Iraq, the political end of it is, quite frankly, going lousy. As it says above the new Iraq Government cannot agree on who to have in what office. Of course the Neo-Conservatives will gloss over this and say, "Oh, This does not really matter, what matter is, that we’re winning the war!" The problem with the whole idiotic mentality is, there are two fronts to this occupation of Iraq. Defeat the "Terrorists" and establish a new Government in Iraq. The first part is working well, so far, the second one, is not working well at all, as this article shows.

But as Grampy "Bedtime story" McSame says, "We will never surrender in Iraq!"

You can’t surrender a land that was never yours in the first place, Grandpa. Rolling Eyes

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Trust me, this is only the beginning of the Books whacking Bush and his White House

Posted on

Shocking Yes. Surprising? Not hardly. Not talking

Quote:

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.” 

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. -  McClellan whacks Bush, White House (Via Politico.com)

Other Interesting tibits:

Among other notable passages:

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”

• “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."

Unlike Jack Moss, who totally trashed Scott and his book, and even goes as far to say that Scott is lying about Bush in his book. I will say this, it is a good chance that Scott is actually telling the truth about Bush in his book. I think Jack Moss thinks that unless someone is praising Bush and saying he is 100 percent right and Iraq was a great idea, and Katrina was not his fault, they’re lying in their books. In other words, if they do not toe the party line, (of B.S.) they are just lying liberals out to discredit Bush. You see how screwed up the mind set is of the Bush apologists and Neo Conservatives?

The truth is, this book is most likely going to be one of the more stunning books, seeing that it is from an insider, someone who was in his inner circle. I personally would like to get a copy of it.

You can pre-order yours at:

Like I said in the title of this post, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I believe that torrent, a flood, if you will, of books will come out, after Bush leaves office, by former staffers, and friends of his, some glowing and some will be glaring. Bush might lose some friends over it too. You cannot stifle truth and it will prevail in the end.  It shall be interesting, to say the least.

Update: The White House responds:

The White House is panning a new book by former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad – this is not the Scott we knew," Dana Perino, one of his successors at the podium, says in a statement to reporters.

"The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the president. I do not expect a comment from him on it – he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she says.

How prissy. Rolling Eyes

More Opinions @ Memeorandum

Neo-Conservative navel grazing….

Posted on

This is about as close as I’ve seen the Neo-Conservatives saying, "We screwed up".

In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq.

President Bush no longer stressed Saddam’s record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy. This new focus compounded the damage to the president’s credibility that had already been caused by the CIA’s errors on Iraqi WMD. The president was seen as distancing himself from the actual case he had made for removing the Iraqi regime from power. "How Bush Sold the War" (via WSJ.com)

The problem was, they never found the WMD’s. They actually admit that, in this piece.

Feith goes on:

But the most damaging effect of this communications strategy was that it changed the definition of success. Before the war, administration officials said that success would mean an Iraq that no longer threatened important U.S. interests – that did not support terrorism, aspire to WMD, threaten its neighbors, or conduct mass murder. But from the fall of 2003 on, the president defined success as stable democracy in Iraq.

This was a public affairs decision that has had enormous strategic consequences for American support for the war. The new formula fails to connect the Iraq war directly to U.S. interests. It causes many Americans to question why we should be investing so much blood and treasure for Iraqis. And many Americans doubt that the new aim is realistic – that stable democracy can be achieved in Iraq in the foreseeable future.

To fight a long war, the president has to ensure he can preserve public and congressional support for the effort. It is not an overstatement to say that the president’s shift in rhetoric nearly cost the U.S. the war. Victory or defeat can hinge on the president’s words as much as on the military plans of his generals or the actions of their troops on the ground.

The sad part about all this is, The Neo-Conservatives have so badly damaged the Conservative movement, that it will take years, if not decades to fix the damage done. All because of a single piece of flawed CIA intelligence. All because Bush, in his blind arrogance, did not follow the simple Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify." There is even talk, among some circles that Bush even went as far to attempt to smear or destroy those who dared to challenge him. Valerie Plame is a good example of this. Although, there are those who dispute her story with varying degrees of vibrato.

Others: via Memeorandum 

Ol’ Barry gets it wrong……again….

Posted on

Seems the Obamassiah can’t even tell a straight story.

Quote:

How many Duh-bamas are we going to get out of Barack’s Memorial Day appearances? Here’s the latest:

Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic.

No, that didn’t happen. Auschwitz is in Poland. It’s on the opposite side of Germany from the American Army. Obama’s uncle might have gone there at some point, but not in an official capacity and certainly not as a liberator.

Man, He is something, isn’t he? Just another idiot empty suit. Promises hope and change, all the while robbing them blind.

It is going to be an interesting election year.

Bob Barr, Another Opinion….

Posted on

This is very interesting….

via Alexander Brunk:

Quote:

As of Saturday, Bob Barr is now the official Libertarian party nominee for President of the United States. Some conservatives, dissatisfied with John McCain as the GOP’s standard bearer, seem to think that here is a candidate ripe to receive the protest votes of thousands of movement conservatives dissatisfied with the direction that McCain is taking our party.

I wasn’t shocked that the libertarian party picked Barr – they are desperate for a candidate who more than a tiny fraction of the country has actually heard of. He’s a compelling speaker and will gain publicity for the party. But I’m surprised at how willing they are to ignore much of Barr’s history in doing so.

Certainly, it seems ironic that the man who was once congress’s greatest champion of the “War on Drugs” is now the leader of a fringe party devoted to opposing it. A man who rails against overspending in Washington himself voted for No Child Left Behind, which libertarians hate. A man who was one of the main movers and shakers in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which most libertarians opposed. A man who voted for the Patriot Act, but has now spent the last five years speaking out against it.

The bottom line is that when he was in congress, Barr was a loyal Republican footsoldier, not a movement conservative or libertarian who just happened to have an R next to his name.

His criticism of big government Republicanism, and then his movement toward the libertarian party and his rejection of Republicans altogether only occurred after Republicans rejected him – tossing him out of his congressional district in a 2002 primary, and failing to support an attempted return to congress the following year.

When Bob Barr was in congress, when he had the opportunity to stand up for the principles he now claims to champion, he didn’t. He is not the principled leader he claims to be. And conservatives and libertarians alike looking to cast a protest vote should look past him.

You know I kind of had a feeling that this was true. I just was not sure. It is what I suspected. I noticed that during the voting process at the Libertarian convention, that were were a few who spoke out against Bob Barr. Now I see why.

Another good reason to get rid of the United Nations

Posted on

This is sick and totally disgusting…

Quote:

Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.

After research in Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity proposed an international watchdog be set up.

Save the Children said it had sacked three workers for breaching its codes, and called on others to do the same.

The three men were all dismissed in the past year for having had sex with girls aged 17 – which the charity said was a sackable offence even though not illegal. – Via the BBC’s Special reports 

Here’s another good reason why the United Nations ought to be dissolved, or at least the United States should formally withdraw from. The very agency that was sent to help people, is harming them.

Isn’t this clean indication that it was a mistake to have the United Nations in the first place? It should be.

Terrible, Just terrible.

A perfect example of the Neo-Conservative Media Machine…

Posted on

Is found right here.

Go on over and read it. I’m not quoting the nonsense over here. Those Neo-Conservative jackasses are still drinking the Kool-Aid of George W. Bush.

malkintinfoil2fp Those Morons need to read Chuck Baldwin’s latest article. But as I would expect, Chuck’s articles will be ignored by the Neo-Conservatives. Who want to run this Nation over a cliff into a war with Iran and the middle east, that will bankrupt this Nation and will cause the rest of Arab world to hate our guts.

We have our own selves to blame, we elected that Rockefeller Conservative, Big Government, Big Spending, Pro-War Conservative, and now we’re paying for it.  The sad part is, the Republicans are either too dumb, or simply unwilling to stand up and say, "this is wrong!" I guess they have to protect their incomes.

Hopefully, someday, the American Conservative will wake up from their Neo-Conservative Kool-Aid stupor. Until they do, America will be stuck with the Liberalism of Barry and his friends.

Technorati Tags: ,

Iraq violence falls to four-year low

Posted on

This is a good thing….But!

Quote:

The U.S. military said Sunday that the number of attacks by militants in the last week dropped to a level not seen in Iraq since March 2004.

About 300 violent incidents were recorded in the seven-day period that ended Friday, down from a weekly high of nearly 1,600 in mid-June last year, according to a chart provided by the military. – via LA TIMES

This is not a time to gloat, but rather a time to pray for the stability of that country. Because, quite frankly, it could all come ripping apart at any time. Not to sound like a critic or a negative person.  But the security of that country is hanging by a thread.

I have seen the comments on the left, and yes, they have some valid points, but at least give it a chance. It is all those people in Iraq have.

I think everyone that believes in God should utter a prayer this week for the country of Iraq and our Brave men fighting there.

Ouch.

Posted on

You know, stuff like this right here, makes me quite sad. Sad

Yes, that’s a harsh headline for this piece.

But I’ll ask you to forgive me because, as a Veteran, there isn’t a day on the calendar that causes my hatred — and I do indeed mean hatred — of George W. Bush to bubble over the top more than Memorial Day.

"On Memorial Day, we honor the heroes who have laid down their lives in the cause of freedom, resolve that they will forever be remembered by a grateful Nation, and pray that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made," reads Bush’s official Memorial Day proclamation, issued by the White House on Thursday.

The Chickenhawk-in Chief says a lot of things that make this Vet’s blood boil but stuff like saying that he prays "…that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made" is almost vomit inducing. – Dead Troops Remembered By President Who Had Them Killed- (Via The Huffington Post)

Now unlike Jack Moss, AKA Macsmind, I won’t skewer this guy. I can see his anger and outrage over this War. The fact is, The United States did go into Iraq on bad intelligence. The United States was absolutely wrong as how the war would go. People like Bob have every right to be angry. Only people that feel that he doesn’t have a right to be angry or would say he is wrong are the Bush and Republican Party apologists, like Jack Moss.

I will be honest with you all, this type of seething anger is what is tearing this Nation apart. I do not believe that it has been this bad since Vietnam.

What America needs right now, is someone that will bring the American people back together, because whether you’re a Liberal, Conservative or a Libertarian/Constitutionalist like me, you are still an American. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all in this together. The quicker we all figure that out, the better that this Nation will be for it.

Other Opinions at Memeorandum

Obama’s lead strategist has lobbyist ties….Media Buries it.

Posted on

Now this is quite interesting…

Why wasn’t Michael Isikoff’s investigative piece outlining the lobbying connections of Barack Obama’s lead strategist, David Axelrod, promoted in Newsweek’s Sunday e-mail to subscribers?

I’ve cropped the article descriptions from this list for purposes of formatting this post, but I have not removed any of the articles. Although Isikoff’s report appears in the same June 2 issue of Newsweek as the stories at right, it is nowhere to be found here. And it should be, especially considering that the first four articles listed are all generally pro-Obama in their tilt and three are explicitly framed as advice for candidate Obama. The other four articles cover minor issues such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John McCain.

What happened? One slim possibility is that the article is online-only and thus not eligible for inclusion in a round-up of magazine stories. But this seems not to be the case, as the screen capture above indicates, Newsweek says it’s in the print edition. – Via Blog PI

I must say, I’ve suspected that the liberal media was in the tank for Obama, and this just confirms what I’ve thought all along.

It is pretty stinking bad, when Newsweek, which is owned by MSNBC, buries a story, so the Bloggers won’t get grab the story and run with it. This is the SAME network that allowed their resident liberal attack dog, Keith Olbermann to attack the damned President for trying to control the media, but yet, they do the same damn thing themselves. The hypocrisy of the Left is so vast, you could park the Pentagon, The White House AND the Capital Building in Washington DC in it.   

Now maybe I will get lucky Keith Olbermann will name me worst person in the World for saying that about him, one can only hope, God knows I need the traffic for this Blog. Of course, if I honestly gave two flips what that lapdog for Media Matters for America and the DailyKos thought, I wouldn’t be writing this Blog, now would I? Winking

Seriously, I shouldn’t talk about Keith like that, DohI don’t disagree with everything Keith says. Some stuff I do agree with, especially the things about Bush and the Iraq War, and the Kool-Air drinking right. Some of the stuff, like him ripping on Armed Forces staff at the Pentagon, who are ALSO Soldiers. I don’t agree with. But for the most part, I know he means well. I just wish he’d learn to train the damn fire of that flame thrower at the right people, that’s all. Big Grin (Which he does do, 95% of the time. It’s just that 5% that he gets wrong that annoys me. At wits end)

More at Memeorandum

Castro to Obama: "Oh no we can’t!"

Posted on

So much for that idea eh?

Quote:

Former President Fidel Castro says Sen. Barack Obama’s plan to maintain Washington’s trade embargo against Cuba will cause hunger and suffering on the island.

In a column published Monday by government-run newspapers, Castro said Obama was "the most-advanced candidate in the presidential race," but noted that he has not dared to call for altering U.S. policy toward Cuba.

"Obama’s speech can be translated as a formula for hunger for the country," Castro wrote, referring to Obama’s remarks last week to the influential Cuban American National Foundation in Miami.

Obama said he would maintain the nearly fifty-year-old trade sanctions against Cuba as leverage to push for democratic change on the island. But he also vowed to ease restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives.

He repeated his willingness to meet with Raul Castro, who in February succeeded his elder brother Fidel to become the nation’s first new leader in 49 years.

Castro said Obama’s proposals for letting well-off Cuban Americans help poorer relatives on the island amounted to "propaganda for consumerism and a way of life that is unsustainable."

He complained that Obama’s description of Cuba as "undemocratic" and "lacking in respect for liberty and human rights" was the same argument previous U.S. administrations "have used to justify their crimes against our homeland."- Via CNN

So much for all that "Hope Change, Change Hope" and new politics and all that other garbage that the Marxist Magic Negro likes to talk about eh?

Looks like ol’ Barry is going to have his work cut out for him and the ‘fierce urgency of now" is going to run smack dab into the "Realities of Today."

There are some things that you just cannot change, and a Country that is hardcore steeped into the Communism, is one of them. Of course, seeing he’s a Marxist as all, he might just be able to talk shop with Cubans.

Birds of a feather, flock together, I always say.

Hillary Clinton Dances her Memorial Day Away…

Posted on2 Comments

Heh.

I got to hand to the ol’ gal, she can really move.

This doesn’t however, excuse the stupid comment that she made. Not in my mind at least.

I still wish she’d just drop out and let history take it’s course.

But then again, we are talking about a Clinton here.

Memo to Billy Jack: Quit yer freakin’ whining, ya azzhat!

Posted on

Anybody got a crying towel for this guy?

ABC News Political Radar Reports:

ABC News’ Sarah Amos reports: Former President Bill Clinton in South Dakota today delivered a harsh critique of how his wife has been treated during her presidential bid, telling the crowd that he has "never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running," and that, "she will win the general election if you nominate her. They’re just trying to make sure you don’t."

Clinton spent more than six minutes calmly discussing what he called a "frantic effort to push her out" of this race, saying that no one asked Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart to end their presidential campaigns early. 

Clinton also spoke against bullying superdelegates to make up their minds, saying, "I cant believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out. ‘Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.’"

I beg my readers, spare me a few minutes to  step outside of my normal decorum and blast this idiotic jack-legged fool.

I sometimes, in the back caverns of my mind, wish that this man’s wife, WOULD win the Democrat Nomination, because if she does not, we are going to have to suffer through 4 to 6 years of listening to Bill Clinton monotonous whining about his wife unfairly losing the Democrat nomination. How she was unfairly treated because she was a woman, how the media singled her out, because she was married to him and on and on and on….

At this point, Bill Clinton is making, as much as I abhor her, Gloria Steinem look like a Catholic school girl! I mean, can’t this moronic tool just admit that his wife does not have the delegates to be nominated and just drop out and move the hell along and let the process take the proper course?

I am sorry Billy Jeff, but two breasts and a warm vagina does not entitle your wife to be President of the United States! I mean, we already have one idiot broad up in the Congress, The Speaker of the house; and what has she done? Nothing! I mean, the very minute she was elected, she backed down from her campaign promises! 

I just believe that Bill Clinton needs to seriously look into getting over it, taking him and his idiotic wife and getting the hell OUT of the spotlight, before he causes irreparable damage to her political career and his legacy. (If they even had one to begin with…)

I’m Chuck Adkins and I endorse this message, fully!

Other Opinions via Memeorandum

Bob Barr gets the Nomination of the Libertarian Party.

Posted on

News from the  Libertarian National Committee:

The Libertarian Party has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr as its candidate for president for the 2008 election.

"I’m sure we will emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr stated in his victory speech shortly after being selected as the Party’s nominee. "I want everybody to remember that we only have 163 days to win this election.  We cannot waste one single day."

More than 650 Libertarian delegates met in Denver from May 22 till the 26 for the 2008 Libertarian National Convention.  After six rounds of voting Sunday afternoon, Barr was selected as the Party’s presidential nominee. 

"We’re proud to present to the American voters Bob Barr as our presidential nominee," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. "While Republicans and Democrats will fight for their own power in November, Libertarians will fight for Americans.  Bob Barr is one of the strongest candidates in the Party’s 37-year history, and we look for him to have an enormous impact in the 2008 race.  Republicans and Democrats have good reason to fear a candidate like Barr, who refuses to accept the ‘business-as-usual’ attitude of the current political establishment.  Americans want and need another choice, and that choice is Bob Barr."

I happened to watch the Libertarian convention, well, half of it anyhow… I did notice that there are some within the Libertarian Party that do not like Bob Barr, at all. I can see their point, Barr has been painted as a flip-flopper by some in the party, as he did change many of his positions after leaving congress.

Personally, I will not be voting for Barr, because I am voting for Chuck Baldwin, who is the Constitution Party’s Nominee for President of the United States. While I support about 95% of the positions of the Libertarian Party, I do not know Barr that well, and I am more closely aligned with the Constitution Party’s Platform.

However, out of respect of the Libertarian Party, I have placed a banner in my sidebar, promoting their candidate.  

I wish Bob Barr the best in this election.

Update: There’s always a smart aleck liberal in the bunch.

(snark) Doesn’t this guy have some corn to pick or some shoes to shine? Just sayin’…  (/snark)

Liz Trotta on Fox News jokes about Obama Being Assassinated

Posted on

Just as it was totally unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to make a flippant remark about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in 1968 and to suggest that she was running in case it happened to Obama, Just as it was totally unacceptable for Michael Savage to play the "Dead Kennedy’s" on his radio show, in a lame attempt to mock the health crisis of Ted Kennedy, It was totally unacceptable what this woman did on Fox News.

The Short Clip:

The Quote:

"and now we have what … uh…some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]….well both if we could [laughing]"

What this woman did was not only distasteful, socially unacceptable, and totally disgusting, it was also against the law. Making a statement of this nature is against the law, for anyone under the protection of secret service. Now whether they will enforce it or not, is another matter.

You can also contact FOX:

Contact FOX:
Teri Everett, Senior Vice President
Corporate Affairs & Communications
Phone: 212-852-7070
E-Mail: teverett@newscorp.com

jhorner@newscorp.com

In case anyone thinks that she was taken out of context, here is the full clip:

This not to say, that all Republicans think like this, I am personally a Constitutionalist and Libertarian and I do not feel this way, I cherish my right to free speech, but with that Right comes a responsibility, and this stupid woman, totally shot that responsibility all to hell.

I also notice that none of the Conservative Blogs are even talking about this. Because they are cowardly bastards, all of them, they should hang their heads in shame, because talking about, even jokingly, killing someone that is running for President of the United States of America, is about the most low class, ignorant thing that one could ever want to do.

The very idea that Rupert Murdoch would even remotely tolerate this sort of reprehensible sort of talk on his own network, speaks volumes about him, his thought process and the status of this man’s very dark soul. It also speak volumes as to the reason why I will never, ever, watch Fox News Channel.

There is a great deal of outrage in the blogging world and rightly so, you can see it all, at Memeorandum

Update: Spied over at HotAir, an apology from Liz, I guess the DailyKos people got through to the Secret Service or to Murdoch:

Exit Question: If she did not mean it, then why the hell say it for in the first place? Humor my ass. Dumb bitch. AngryLoserTalk to the handRolling Eyes

Iraq’s The Grand Ayatollah tells the United States, no deal….

Posted on2 Comments

This is of interest…’Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’ (via press TV)

The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.

The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.

While the mainstream media keep mum about the accord, critics say the agreement would virtually put Iraq under the US tutelage and violate the country’s sovereignty.

The source added Ayatollah Sistani, however, backed PM al-Maliki’s government and its efforts and that of the nation to establish security in the country.

The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki’s government is under US pressure to sign ‘a mutual security agreement’ which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq.

Washington’s plan has so far faced fierce protests by religious figures including Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Haeri, another senior Shia cleric, and it is expected that other religious figures join the efforts to prevent the deal.

The US has signed similar agreements with countries like Japan and South Korea and thousands of US troops are now stationed in the countries.

While he is alive. You know there, Mr. Camel Jockey, that can be arranged. Devil Nothing a hellfire missile and come spy work wouldn’t cure. Of course, the defeatist, Military and America hating Liberals will run with this and try and say, "See they don’t want us there!, We need to pull out tomorrow!" Which is so typical of the bastards. But this is one man, and truth me known, HE is the one that is telling these terrorists in Baghdad to blow themselves up.

This is further reason why I think we should have never went in there in the first darn place, because now, we’ll have to contend with idiots like this. Should be interesting.

Update: Gateway Pundit is reporting that this story was bogus and was generated by Iran PSY-OPS. Only reason I grabbed it, was because it was on Memeorandum. (H/T to reader Ken)

Hillary says why she’s running, still living in fantasy world.

Posted on

Not to mention the fact that she remains totally unapologetic about her remarks: 

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different – and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year’s primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy’s son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful – particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for – and everything I am fighting for in this election.

Not to mention, she’s lying, still, about her husband’s campaign in 1992:

I made clear that I was – and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband’s primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy’s, had continued into June.

Her husband’s nomination had already been secured long before June. She’s lying, again.

I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter – and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over. More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race – the most in presidential primary history.

I am running for all those women in their 90s who’ve told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls – and little boys – whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream – the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

Translation: I am running because I am a egotistic bitch, who doesn’t understand the word, "You lost". I am running because I am an Elitist Liberal who is used to getting what I want and will go at any lengths to get it, including murdering people. Just ask Vince Foster.

If Hillary is going to rescue her reputation, she had better give this up and now, otherwise, there is going to be a great number of people angry at her.

Others on this: Ben Smith’s Blogs, TalkLeft, NO QUARTER, TIME.com, AMERICAblog, TPM Election Central, I Am TRex, The Carpetbagger Report, Irish Trojan in Tennessee and The Trail

Chuck Baldwin officially launches his campaign website….

Posted on

I received some great news this morning in my e-mail inbox. Dancing

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has officially launched his Campaign website.  

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he more represents the American values that I, as a Christian, as a Libertarian and as a Constitutionalist, hold very dear.

He might not win, but I will know that my vote went for someone who still believes in the old Paleo-conservative values that I hold dear. I will also know, that my vote did not go to a third term of George W. Bush, a Neo-Conservative, Globalist, Shill or a Socialist, Marxist, Liberal. 

This notion that if you don’t vote for John McCain, that your vote is a vote for Hillary or Obama is the biggest lie and the great travesty ever heaped upon this Nation. Heaped upon it by warmongering bastards who want to send this Nation into a pit that it will never get itself out of.

I ask you today, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Republican, wake up and realize that this Nations only hope, is found in this man.

Check out his Website, Forum  and go to his "Money Bomb" page.

Let’s get American back on the right track, vote for Chuck Baldwin

What hath Senator Clinton wrought?

Posted on

I was sitting around last night after Keith Olbermann’s show, digesting everything related to the remarks of Senator Hillary Clinton. I noticed that some within the Blogging world really could not see what all the fuss is about. I hope that this editorial will explain that a bit better.

Last night I was looking at an old article on New York Magazine. It was an interview of Keith Olbermann, of all people; it was some research that I was doing, after reading what some nutcase right-winger wrote on a Blog about him, and I, in my reporter type instinct, I went looking for facts, I guess you could say, I was following the old Russian proverb, “Trust, but verify.” I found what I was looking for, as suspected the right wing blogger got his facts wrong and what he did not get wrong, he stretched and outright made up. So typical for the Republicans, He must have learned it from his mentor and personal deity, George W. Bush.

It was after looking at the interview that I spied something on the main page of New York Magazine, the thing I had been wanting to use, to bring some sort of sense to this whole thing, to be able to calmly explain this whole thing, so that everyone, that just does not get it, would in fact, get it.

That is when I found what I was looking for, the piece of text that presented in the fashion that only a writer, a writer who was there, could present to the masses. It has been said that words are powerful, that they can move people emotionally, that they can inspire, and that, if used improperly can horrify and bring destruction.

This text, taken from New York Magazine, which is a snippet from the Book, “A Time It Was: Bobby Kennedy in the Sixties,” which is to be published later this year, gives us the true image of scab that Hillary Clinton ripped off in a rather bizarre manner.

“I thank all of you,” he was saying now. “Mayor Yorty just sent a message that we have been here too long already.” Loud laughter. “So my thanks to all of you and now it’s on to Chicago … ”

Kennedy thrust a thumb in the air, brushed his hair, made a V with the fingers of his right hand. The crowd was chanting now. “We want Bobby! We want Bobby! We want Bobby!” Plimpton and I went down three steps off the side of the stage, through a gauntlet of Kennedy volunteers and brown-uniformed private security guards. We turned left. At the other end of the stage, people turned right. On to Chicago. On to Chicago …

We entered a long grungy area called the pantry. I would write later that it was the sort of place where Puerto Ricans, blacks, and Mexicans usually worked to fill white stomachs. Fluorescent ceiling lights, bare sandy-colored concrete floors, pale dirty walls. A rusting ice machine. Shelves filled with dirty glasses. Through an archway to the left, we could see the main kitchen. A small group of Mexican-American cooks and busboys waited for Kennedy. To shake his hand. To murmur about luck, and thank him for coming. Against the left wall, three steel serving carts stood end to end. At the far end of the long pantry, two doors led to an improvised pressroom where Kennedy would speak to the press about the primary.

Kennedy moved slowly into the area, shaking hands, with people from the stage behind him, at the head of a platoon of reporters, photographers, campaign staffers, TV men, and the curious. I was walking backward, facing Kennedy, scribbling notes. I saw him turn to his left to shake hands with a smiling young Mexican man (we learned later that his name was Juan Romero). From the Embassy Room we could still hear chants.

“We want Bobby. We want—”

Then a cruel messenger arrived. Curly-haired. Pockmarked face. In a pale-blue sweatshirt. Blue jeans. His right foot was forward. His right arm was straight out. He was firing a gun.

A ferocious brawling moment: Grier, Plimpton, Rafer, Schulberg, me. Others. All of us trying to get the gun. The pockmarked young man still firing, so that some people behind Kennedy were hit in the legs. Then the gun was out of the man’s hand, and he was being lifted, slammed onto the line of steam tables, dragged toward the exit to the pressroom, someone yelling, “Don’t kill him, don’t kill him, no Jack Ruby!”

And there was Kennedy on the floor, at the foot of the ice machine, his eyes open, a kind of sweet accepting smile on his face, as if he knew it would all end this way. There was blood on the fingers of his right hand, and blood on his chest, so I thought he had been shot just below the neck. But because his head had been turned to say hello to Juan Romero, the first shot hit him behind the right ear and his hand brushed reflexively at the wound as he crumpled to the floor.

Ethel came to comfort him, and seemed to know that he was forever beyond comfort. Juan Romero came to him too, as shown in the extraordinary photographs Bill Eppridge made in that awful pantry. My notes told me later that Kennedy was shot at 12:10, and was carried out of that grubby kitchen at 12:32. It seemed a lot longer.

Brian and I ran outside the hotel. A large enraged black man was heaving chairs into the swimming pool. Another was punching a hotel pillar with a bloody right fist. Weeping Kennedy volunteers were all around us. We kept hearing a single word, repeated in many variations. Why? Why? In my own head, I blamed some dark hole in American life, but I was wrong. The origins of this killing—for Bob was sure to die in a matter of hours—lay in the Middle East. The gunman was a Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan. He was 24. His rage was fueled by the Six-Day War the previous year and by Kennedy’s support for the sale of jet fighters to Israel. The motives didn’t truly matter. The crucial fact was simpler: He was able to get a gun. Brian and I drove to the Good Samaritan Hospital, where Kennedy was dying in a room on a high floor.

Early in the morning, Brian drove south in the California night. I dozed and felt sick. When we came through the canyon into Laguna Beach, I could see the colors of the sky warming as the sun pushed over the mountains. Flocks of birds were rising from the darkness. We reached the house and I went in and turned on the television set and looked at the latest bulletins. I sat facing the set and the sea. Brian and I drank some whiskey and then he went off to sleep. I looked up and saw my daughter, Adriene, staring at me in a baffled way. My face must have been a ruin. She came over to me, tears in her eyes, and touched my face. I started to weep for her, for her sister, for my Irish parents, for my friends, for America. Out there. Sea to shining sea. I held her tight, wondering what would become of all of us.

Therefore, you see, my friend that is what Senator Clinton brought back to the minds of many who were old enough or were there at this event or even had to suffer through the shock and horror of that horrific moment. Hillary Clinton did not just make a flippant remark; she reopened a nasty wound in the conscience of America. One that America has taken years upon years to heal. All so, she could take a cheap political shot at her opponent and justify her reasoning to stay in the Primary.

This moment of soulless apathy my friends, is what Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton hath wrought upon America.

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment: "Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare"

Posted on

The Video:

Full Transcript: (Taken from and Thanks to MSNBC for getting this on, before the weekend.)

Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don’t. Because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don’t understand it. You know, there’s lots of speculation about why it is. “

The comments were recorded and we showed them to you earlier and they are online as we speak.

She actually said those words.

Those words, Senator?

You actually invoked the nightmare of political assassination.

You actually invoked the specter of an inspirational leader, at the seeming moment of triumph, for himself and a battered nation yearning to breathe free, silenced forever.

You actually used the word "assassination" in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred  -  and  gender  hatred  – and political hatred.

You actually used the word "assassination" in a time when there is a fear, unspoken but vivid and terrible, that our again-troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president.

Or a white man.

Or a white woman!

You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running against an African-American against whom the death threats started the moment he declared his campaign?

You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running to break your "greatest glass ceiling" and claiming there are people who would do anything to stop you?

You!

Senator -  never mind the implications of using the word "assassination" in any connection to Senator Obama…

What about you?

You cannot say this!

The references, said her spokesperson, were not, in any way, weighted.

The allusions, said Mo Uh-leathee, are, "…historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."

I’m sorry.

There is no inaccuracy.

Not for a moment does any rational person believe Senator Clinton is actually hoping for the worst of all political calamities.

Yet the outrage belongs, not to Senator Clinton or her supporters, but to every other American.

Firstly, she has previously bordered on the remarks she made today…

Then swerved back from them and the awful skid they represented.

She said, in an off-camera interview with Time on March 6, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months."

In retrospect, we failed her when we did not call her out, for that remark, dry and only disturbing, in a magazine’s pages. But somebody obviously warned her of the danger of that rhetoric:

After the Indiana primary, on May 7, she told supporters at a Washington hotel:

"Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992. I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."

And at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on the same day, she referenced it again:

"You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as, you know, Senator Kennedy won that primary."

On March 6th she had said "assassinated."

By May 7 she had avoided it. Today… she went back to an awful well. There is no good time to recall the awful events of June 5th, 1968, of Senator Bobby Kennedy, happy and alive – perhaps, for the first time since his own brother’s death in Dallas in 1963… Galvanized to try to lead this nation back from one of its darkest eras… Only to fall victim to the same surge that took that brother, and Martin Luther King… There is no good time to recall this. But certainly to invoke it, two weeks before the exact 40th anniversary of the assassination, is an insensitive and heartless thing.

And certainly to invoke it, three days after the awful diagnosis, and heart-breaking prognosis, for Senator Ted Kennedy, is just as insensitive, and just as heartless. And both actions, open a door wide into the soul of somebody who seeks the highest office in this country, and through that door shows something not merely troubling, but frightening. And politically inexplicable.

What, Senator, do you suppose would happen if you withdrew from the campaign, and Senator Obama formally became the presumptive nominee, and then suddenly left the scene? It doesn’t even have to be the “dark curse upon the land” you mentioned today, Senator. Nor even an issue of health. He could simply change his mind… Or there could unfold that perfect-storm scandal your people have often referenced, even predicted. Maybe he could get a better offer from some other, wiser, country. What happens then, Senator? You are not allowed back into the race? Your delegates and your support vanish? The Democrats don’t run anybody for President?

What happens, of course, is what happened when the Democrats’ vice presidential choice, Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, had to withdraw from the ticket, in 1972 after it proved he had not been forthcoming about previous mental health treatments. George McGovern simply got another vice president.

Senator, as late as the late summer of 1864 the Republicans were talking about having a second convention, to withdraw Abraham Lincoln’s re-nomination and choose somebody else because until Sherman took Atlanta in September it looked like Lincoln was going to lose to George McClellan.

You could theoretically suspend your campaign, Senator.

There’s plenty of time and plenty of historical precedent, Senator, in case you want to come back in, if something bad should happen to Senator Obama. Nothing serious, mind you.

It’s just like you said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Since those awful words in Sioux Falls, and after the condescending, buck-passing statement from her spokesperson, Senator Clinton has made something akin to an apology, without any evident recognition of the true trauma she has inflicted.

"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact.

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy.  I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up
to and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.  Thanks. Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying – whether it was intended or not – that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not a word about Senator McCain.

Not: I’m sorry…

Not: I apologize…

Not: I blew it…

Not: please forgive me.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often…

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King’s relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan’s vote wouldn’t count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad…

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife’s endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton’s disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson’s.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro’s national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"…

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama’s expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket’s expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

We cannot forgive you this — not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation’s deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy.

Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately – to still not appreciate tonight – just what you have done… is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator – a politician – a person -  who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot – has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.

Good night and good luck.

——

I am also working on an editorial about the comments that Senator Clinton made. I most likely will not be able to finish it tonight. I am going to watch racing with my Father tomorrow. So, the piece will not be up till tomorrow or Sunday. There is just too much here to write a simple piece, this whole thing is a grand insult and outrage that cannot be just tossed aside. Something has to happen to fix it, before it destroys the Democrat Party. I just hope Senator Clinton wakes up from whatever dream world she is living in and realizes what she has done.

Till tomorrow, as Keith Olbermann would say…..

Good Night and Good Luck

Hillary Clinton insults The Black Race, The Kennedy’s and everyone who grew up in Bobby and John Kennedy’s Era….

Posted on

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton, when she insults a group of people, she really does it in a big way.

The Video:

Quote:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

I mean, that is about the most stupid thing that anyone, running for a public office, could ever say. Especially seeing what happened with Senator Kennedy just this week.

Here is a clip of Hillary trying to explain herself:

I am sorry, there is absolutely no excuse for this whatsoever. There is nothing that she could say, whatsoever to make up for this. She has jumped the shark here and I think, personally, that she should leave the race now.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews announced at the end of his show, that Keith Olbermann will be doing one of his "Special Comments" tonight on Countdown. Obviously, Keith is pissed, I would be willing to bet, that blood was shooting out of Keith’s eyes, when her heard that, and rightly so, that has to be worst thing that anyone could possibly say. I will be posting it to this entry when it does become available.

This is going to cost her a Vice President slot, any and all respect among the Black Community, among Liberals, and possibly amongst some of her own supporters.

The Blogging world is quite abuzz about this, commentary and many angles are available at Memeorandum

Update: Keith Olbermann’s Special comment, with full transcript have now been posted, click here to see it.

Tucker Carlson…….for president? Wha?

Posted on

That’s what Brendan Nyhan is saying…:

Via Mike Munger, my department chair here at Duke and the Libertarian candidate for governor of North Carolina, there are rumors that Tucker Carlson may take a shot at the Libertarian presidential nomination.

I’m not sure if this is for real or not, but I’m not as surprised by the idea as you might think. Many people forget that Carlson was a conservative but non-dogmatic print journalist before he started doing shout TV. In particular, he wrote a Talk magazine story about George W. Bush in 1999 that got him in a lot of trouble with conservatives. Along the same lines, I had lunch with him once in DC when he was doing Crossfire and I remember thinking that his views were more heterodox than his TV work suggested (he might have even referred to himself as a libertarian). And he was also kind enough to blurb All the President’s Spin even though it wasn’t in his interest to do so.

In any case, I would love to see a debate matching Carlson against Bob Barr and Mike Gravel.

I believe it would be an interesting idea. It would bring a certain legitimacy to the Libertarian Party. Carlson’s star power from TV would possibly bring people to the party that would not normally want to be a part of it.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that Tucker Carlson would want to waste his time campaigning for a position that he knows good and well, that he could not possibly win, this late in the Presidential race.

So, While it may sound like a excellent idea, I just very highly doubt that Tucker would be interested in such a thing.

John McCain’s Support eroding amongst hard line Conservatives.

Posted on

WOW!  SurpriseSurprised

John Hawkings Says

Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He’s a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush’s father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.

Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.

Moreover, I genuinely regret having to do this because I do still believe the country would be better off with John McCain as President as opposed to Obama or Clinton. However, I just cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who has told this big of a lie, for this long, about this important of an issue.

That being said, although I cannot back John McCain, encourage others to vote for him, or contribute any more money to his campaign, I’m not going to tell you that you should do that same thing. What McCain has done here is a bridge too far for me, but others may not have as big a problem with being told this sort of lie. That’s their decision.

Furthermore, I will defend John McCain when I think he deserves to be defended, excoriate Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton at every opportunity, and I will continue to stand behind the sort of Republican candidates who actually deserve conservative support. But, what I will not do is vote for John McCain in November.

I have to agree with John here, John McCain’s hypocrisy and double talk is stuff of legends. In fact, MSNBC’s resident flaming Liberal, Keith Olbermann documents McCain’s blunders,  missteps and outright lies every night on his show.

If this is a trend of things to come in November, John McCain might just find himself a loser again, in another election. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t gloat at this, I feel bad for John, I really do, but, he put himself into this position, I mean, he could have let Romney beat him or one of the others, but it didn’t happen, McCain got the nomination.

It also shows that the G.O.P. is  not the party of the Ronald Reagan era, the tent has gotten too big. The Liberal ideology of the Neo-Cons has spread across the Party, some call that evolving, I call it compromise, and some people just do not accept that. When it comes to illegal immigration, I do agree with the stance of John Hawkins. Illegal Immigration is a serious problem, that needs to be handled harshly. If it is not, our economy will suffer for it. 

Thank you John Hawking for saying what many others within the Party are possibly thinking.