Hmmmm....

My Representative to Congress, Democrat Jay Inslee, has done a couple of things recently that I find interesting.

1. He voted against the big financial bailout package in its defeat yesterday in the House.  He was the only Democrat from Washington to vote against it.  All three Republicans from Washington also voted against it.
2. He sponsored a bill, "that would greenlight an anticipated agreement between Webcasters and SoundExchange, a nonprofit that collects royalties on behalf of recording copyright owners and artists from Internet radio stations and other digital radio services."  The bill just passed the House unanimously.
   
   

   Inslee's bill would enable the two sides to continue negotiations through Feb. 15 and make any deal struck while Congress is in recess legally binding. The bill would provide congressional approval for any agreements that SoundExchange reaches with Webcasters represented by the Digital Media Association, a trade group made up of companies that operate in the online audio and video market, and with other types of Webcasters, such as National Public Radio and college or religious Webcasters.

I've never voted for the guy, and I expect that on most issues I'd disagree with him, but these two actions are prompting me to take a closer look at his views and his record.

Party of the rich, and braver people than me

On the way to work I saw an older Ford Thunderbird sporting a McCain - Palin sticker on the trunk lid above the license plate.  The car had obviously been in an accident at some point because, while the car was white, the front bumper, hood, and right-front fender panel were not.  And yet this working woman, who doesn't make enough money to afford a nicer car and still feed her family, had put this sticker on her car.  I guess she figured the car was already cosmetically-challenged enough that the risk of it being scratched or otherwise vandalized was not that big a deal.

But then, she's obviously one of those people who consistently vote "against their best interests" so maybe she's just not smart enough to realize the risk she's taking.

Shortly after that, I saw a recent Chrysler 300 sporting small McCain and Rossi stickers on the rear window.  As I passed I did a double-take when I looked at the driver.  There is only one possible explanation for his hairstyle:  He's an Elvis impersonator, specifically the overweight jumpsuited Vegas Elvis of the 70's.

Respect for opposing viewpoints

Which is something you won't find in one Seattle neighborhood.

Ray Till lives in Seattle's Crown Hill neighborhood.  He says his home was vandalized Saturday after he placed McCain campaign signs in his front yard.
Till says; "I found my McCain sign over there on the front porch with dog feces all over it."

During the 2004 campaign, someone had put up a large Bush sign up in a location that was visible from the freeway as I drove to work.  On at least two occasions, the sign was broken up or knocked over.  I don't take that route anymore so I don't know if there's a McCain sign.  I should drive by there one day before the election and see.

I've yet to see any vandalism directed at a sign supporting a Democrat candidate.  That's because Republicans and conservatives have a little something called respect for other people's property and respect for other people's opinions, even if we disagree with them.

This is not to say that the majority of Democrats and liberals do not.  But it's telling that this effort to repress the free speech of others is so one-sided.

Stifling free speech

Okay, here's the deal. It is entirely legal for people to call a radio station in response to a talk show guest they disagree with. It is their right to do so, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But if the McCain campaign had done what the Obama campaign has done, they would be excoriated.

Though we must acknowledge their rights, we nevertheless may criticize their method:

Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

And we will note the hypocrisy:

During the August fiasco, outraged pro-Obama callers fumed that WGN had offered Kurtz an unchallenged forum, despite the fact that Team Obama had declined an invitation to appear alongside Kurtz for the duration of the program. This time, however, Freddoso was actually paired up with an Obama-supporting counterpart. This wasn’t good enough for the Obama thought police, who blasted out marching orders to shut down the discussion. Once again, the phones melted down. The Obama campaign should be proud.

I have no doubt that Obama would sign legislation re-instating the Fairness Doctrine should it come to his desk as President. But as these events show, fairness, no matter how it is defined, is not the agenda.

Update: Based on additional data, this appears to have been more along the lines of a denial of service attack. The goal was not just to express displeasure, but to clog the phone lines and bring down web servers to prevent the opposing point of view from being expressed. That does indeed cross the line. Perhaps not to the level of a crime, if only because existing law may not cover this situation, but certainly beyond the bounds of what is right.

Fiscal responsibility

I have long considered it likely that the majority of the blame for the current financial crisis does not rest with the Bush administration. I've read a few things to support this, but until today I hadn't seen it laid out so clearly and completely. As it turns out, the Bush administration tried to do something about the impending collapse, with predictable results:

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

So who was responsible for those bad loan practices in the first place? Answer: it's who you think it is:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

(Note: The actual name of the legislation passed in 1977 is the Community Reinvestment Act.) The article goes on to detail Clinton administration mismanagement that further contributed to the mess. I recommend reading all of it.

I included the last paragraph in the above exerpt for the sake of fairness because it points out that Wall Street isn't blameless in this disaster. Regulations to prevent that sort of thing may be in order. I'm not an expert, though, which is why I link to people who are. It is increasingly clear, though, that the Bush administration was at least trying to stave off an impending disaster the seeds of which were planted during past Democrat administrations. Big surprise.

Stalling for power

According to Amir Taheri in this opinion piece for the New York Post, Obama has attempted to usurp the role of the President and the State Department in foreign relations:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

He also attempted to usurp the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces:

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Taheri provides his thoughts as to why Obama might have done this. For example:

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Now I'm going to take this with a grain of salt; this is an opinion piece after all. As Fox News is reporting, the Obama camp has denied the allegations in Taheri's article. But if it's true, my understanding is that it's a violation of Federal law. I'm going to keep my eyes open for any additional information on this.

Selling faith

I heard about this on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning while driving to work. The Obama campaign is now selling "faith merchandise" so that people of faith can show their support. You too can pick up a rally sign or a button at the Obama store. There's also a Believers for Barack Obama website. It doesn't appear to have any links to the merchandise, but it is paid for by the Obama campaign.

As Mr. Beck noted this morning, if the McCain campaign were to sell "Believers for Palin" merchandise, they would be excoriated in the press. But since Obama is the Messiah, it's only natural that "people of faith" would support him. Right?

Guilt by geographic location

The concept of guilt by association is nothing new. But this is something I've never seen before:

It has been years since groups such as the Montana Militia, the Posse Comitatus and the Sagebrush Rebels, and individuals such as Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski have made us wonder why so many "angry white men" populated our rural regions. Many of us have forgotten the threat once posed by domestic terrorists and instead have turned our attention to foreign terrorists. But we should never forget that in the late 20th century, ultra-Christian, antistatist and white-supremacist groups flourished in the states of the Pacific Northwest - called by many the "Great White Northwest" - the very region that Sarah Palin and her family call home.

I know a lot of people who live near me in this very same Pacific Northwest who would be rather surprised to know that they're white supremacists. Some of them aren't even white!

In the penultimate paragraph the author, Catherine McNicol Stock, writes:

There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand, the beliefs of ultraconservative, evangelical churches like her family's come dangerously close to those of the Christian Identity movement of those years. Likewise, Palin's husband was a member of a political party whose members favored secession for Alaska, suggesting an affiliation with radical antistatism.

Emphasis is mine. Wow, so lack of evidence to the contrary is now evidence. Say, Ms. Stock, there's no evidence that you're someone who supports taking property away from private individuals and giving it to developers so that property tax revenues can be increased. But the city in which you work, New London, Connecticut, has a history of doing exactly that. To paraphrase the final paragraph in your "article," perhaps somewhere on the record you've voiced condemnation for those actions. But it's hard to know where you stand on issues of property rights and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Thus it is high time to review the cultural ideals and models of the radical liberals from New England and find out for sure where you stand.

Hat tip Mike.

Flawed analogy

The GeekWithA.45 provides three definitions of what a "community organizer" is.  It's pretty clear which one Barack Obama was.

During times of ordinary peace, follows and promotes the teachings of Saul Alinsky for the purpose of organizing the community into a coherent voting bloc. The minimum objective of this activity is to use this amassed power for the purpose of obtaining financial, regulatory and legal benefit from governmental and private sources. The implicit goals of the activity includes delivering a payload ideological indoctrination to that group, fostering the usual Leftist outcomes of dependency, collectivism, and the downwards spiral that comes with "progress" through wealth redistribution rather than the achievement of financial independence.

This leads me to address the analogy that Democrats and leftists have recently worn out:  "Jesus was a community organizer.  Pilate was a governor."

Well allow me to retort!

I'll start with Pilate.  He was not, in reality, a governor, at least not as we use the word today.  He was the prefect of Judea during the time it was under Roman control.  He was appointed to his post, not elected by the people.  And he didn't actually govern.  His duties were primarily military, and he was also responsible for collecting imperial taxes.  The actual government in charge of civil administration was local.

That brings us to Jesus.  For most of his life, he was a carpenter.  Then, at around 30 years old, he began his ministry.  Depending on your views, he became an itinerant preacher, a prophet, an avatar, or the saviour of mankind.  His actions were those of a teacher, and did not fit any of the definitions of "community organizer" noted in the post linked above.

The analogy fails, though it doesn't surprise me they keep saying it.  Obama is the Messiah after all.

Pigstickin'

Republicans and conservatives, as you might expect, reacted negatively to Obama's comment that, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Now I don't know if he was trying to make a subtle, or not so subtle, dig at Sarah Palin. To be honest, I don't really care. No, what struck me was that it sounded like an attempt to sound all folksy and rural and it fell flat. He followed up the comment with, "You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years."

It doesn't come across on the screen but, if you listen to audio of his remarks, it's clear he's struggling with the metaphors. He's from Chicago, he's from an urban environment and culture. It sounds to me like he was trying to come off as something he isn't. And it didn't work.

Is Scalzi losing it?

One of my favorite science fiction authors of recent years, John Scalzi, has a few words for Democrat and liberal commenters on his weblog.

John, you're a great author, and I love your books, but you really need to stick with what you're good at.

Did you really not know that coming out of the GOP convention, the GOP candidate might have a poll bounce? Likewise, were you somehow surprised that the GOP might try very hard to make this campaign about something other than actual issues?

Just like the Democrats. Hope and Change are hardly issues.

The GOP picks a woman VP 24 years after you do, for the same goddamn reason you did (a contentless call to shore up a shrinking base), and you act like you’ve never seen this movie before?

Watch it John. If a Republican said that, he or she would be labeled a sexist so fast the words would emit Cherenkov radiation.

For God’s sake, she’s scandal-plagued Atwater spawn from a state with the population of Fort Worth, Texas, whose job it will be to work the lights of the Naval Observatory for four years. She’s a walking, taking advertisement for how easily placated religious conservatives are at this moment in history.

Here you have a prime example of elitism, folks. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Scalzi has only made it big as an author in the last few years which goes to show that elitism doesn't require one to be among the elite.

Please accept that the GOP will feast on every single fucking instance in which you show even the slightest hint of entitlement to the presidency.

You damn betcha. And well they should.

Please accept that the GOP SOP is to win by any means necessary, and that they’ve cultivated an entire generation of political strategists and media lackeys who can’t think in any other way, and whose allegiance to the party is reflexive and far stronger than their interest in things like facts.

Only differences are that the Republicans know it, and the Democrats enjoy support from far more and more prominent "media lackeys."

The GOP will crush you — again — if you keep doing it. For fuck’s sake, they’ve played you exactly the same way since the 2000 election. Will you please exhibit a learning curve. You’ve been here before.

Stupidity should hurt. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, if Republicans have a winning strategy, and use it again, who are the crazy ones?

I notice that you're only calling out Democrats and liberals, John.. Think there might be a reason for that?

It's interesting. I've met various science fiction authors in my time and to be honest, many of them struck me as being of average overall intelligence. Not that they were stupid or anything, and as writers they definitely had a good command of language. But I guess this is just further proof that writing good science fiction doesn't require one to be a genius.

Unfriendly work environment

A coworker of mine has a small Obama poster in her cubicle. It's the one evocative of Communist propaganda that says "HOPE" at the bottom. Now, of course, I don't have a problem with that. I gotta wonder, though: What would happen if I put a McCain-Pain sticker or sign up in my cube? Would someone tell me I need to take it down because it makes somebody "uncomfortable?" Would it suddenly just disappear one day?

No, probably not. I'm certain my coworker wouldn't do anything, but I'm not entirely certain that nothing would happen.

Quote of the day

Remember: Standards are good. Double standards are twice as good.

Ignore this man

After all, he's just a dumb soldier who didn't have any other option, or who was duped into it by a duplicitous recruiter.

Memo to Chris Gregoire

You're running against Dino Rossi, not George Bush. Just thought you'd like to know....

The Aristocrats

No, I'm not talking about that rather famous joke. I'm talking about the characterization of Cindy McCain as aristocratic. For example, it has been noted that during her speech in which she referred to Barack Obama as "elitist" she was wearing earrings worth an estimated $280,000 (assuming that her earrings were real three-carat diamonds).  As has also been noted, there is a difference between "wealthy" and "elitist."  Whether or not Obama deserves such characterization I'll leave for you to decide.  However, I would like to bring up some interesting information which I think pertains to whether or not Cindy McCain is truly "aristocratic" and a comparison between the McCains and Obamas when it comes to helping out their fellow citizens, especially those less fortunate than themselves.  After all, that's what the Democrats say they're all about, and what they accuse Republicans of not caring about at all.

First up, we have a description of the charitable giving from John and Cindy McCain:

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

...

Mrs. McCain has donated the same amount to charity as her husband — a total of $170,162 for each of them — over the past two years, his campaign said.

...

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”

Next up, a rather complete rundown of Cindy McCain's charitable activities:

But beyond the designer clothing and the perfect blond hair is a Cindy McCain few have ever seen, one who contrasts sharply with the smiling, glossy image she projects alongside the senator on the campaign trail.

This Cindy McCain harbors a ruggedness and fearlessness befitting her war-hero husband.

She has waded through minefields in Cambodia. Slept out in the bush in tents in Angola. Comforted children under the broiling sun in Morocco.

But the 53-year-old's extensive charity work has been largely overlooked.

This is just a taste so read the whole article.

Now how about Barack and Michelle Obama?  Let's take a look, shall we?

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

...

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

In 2005 they gave the church $5,000 and in 2006 it received $22,500. Over the past two years, the Obamas have claimed charitable deductions for $45,000 in gifts to reading programs; $31,000 to CARE, an international aid group; $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; and $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre. Michelle Obama serves on the board of directors of the South Side dance troupe.

And this is from the Chicago Tribune, his hometown newspaper.

Now I know the Obamas have done some charity work besides donations. However, there doesn't seem to be much information on what it might be. I did find this, but it's pretty thin.

Obama has dedicated time to neighborhood projects in poor communities.

He spoke at an event for K.I.D.S., a charity supporting disadvantaged children.

...

Obama spoke at a charity event for girls in Omaha, helping to raise $154,000 for the group.

In 2007, Obama created a “doodle” which netted nearly $7,000 in an auction for NF, Inc.

If anyone knows of anything else, please let me know.  I want to be as fair as possible on this issue.

Now whether or not wearing such expensive clothing and jewelry during her speech was particularly wise is a matter for debate.  I think the Republicans should have known she'd become the target of such criticism and had her tone it down, especially after Michelle Obama's speech the previous week where she was rather understated in how she dressed.  But to take base such a broad characterization on that one event, without doing any research like I've presented here, is irresponsible at best.

Regardless, how the candidate's spouse is dressed during the speech is not an indicator of how qualified he is to hold office.  Characterizing the Obamas as "elitist" is based on their words and deeds, not how they dress.  But to the left, impressions and feelings are as important as logic, perhaps even more so.

O'Reilly on Obama

As I noted earlier, Barack Obama was interviewed yesterday by Bill O'Reilly.  As a followup, O'Reilly devoted his latest column to his thoughts about the interview.  A couple of things stood out:

As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.

Nothing surprising there, but it sums up pretty concisely Obama's very liberal views.  It's not new at all.  It is, as Bill says, classically liberal.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

Okay, I can accept that.  However, I still think he should admit that he was wrong about the surge and that John McCain was right.  He won't, though, as it's not good politics and would likely offend his base.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy—that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

I've never said that Obama didn't want what was best for America and its people.  Though I disagree strenuously and passionately with his political positions and intentions, and question his judgment, I don't think he intends to do evil.  I think his policies will be destructive but I do believe he thinks they will be beneficial and he feels strongly enough about them that he's willing to fight for the power to implement them.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take it any easier on him, though.  And I will certainly call him on it when his methods, or those used by his supporters, cross the line as they so often have, especially with regards to Governor Palin.

Update:  And I reserve the right to change my mind should new facts become available, or should Obama say or do something that belies the above conclusions.

Flyin'

In the comments to Bill Whittle's latest post, a commenter going by the handle Richard R wrote the following:

Something I found out last night.

We all know John McCain was a fighter (actually, light bomber) pilot.

Cindy's a Pilot too, she has a Cirrus.

Sara Palin is a pilot. Todd Palin is a pilot. They own a Supercub on floats.

I've poked around and it looks like it's all true.

Now I'm a private pilot myself so I know what it takes to get your license. It's not the most difficult thing in the world but it takes dedication, intelligence, and the ability to keep track of several different things at once. It also requires that you keep calm in stressful situations.

But perhaps the most important thing is that the federal regulation of pilots is one of the few areas of government where the emphasis is on personal responsibility. As the pilot in command, I am responsible for the conduct of my flight. If something goes wrong, it's on my head with few exceptions (such as a maintenance error that I wouldn't be expected to discover). It's perfectly legal for me to take someone flying who is not a licensed pilot and hand over control of the aircraft. I can even let that person operate the aircraft through the entire flight including takeoff and landing. However, if that person crashes the plane, or otherwise screws up, it's my fault and I'm the one that will have my license suspended or revoked, or even harsher penalties applied.

Knowing that both McCain and his running mate are pilots tells me that they understand the concept of responsibility and that they're capable of handling themselves in sticky situations. That their spouses are pilots is an added bonus.

If you want peace...

The saying goes, Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated from Latin, it means "If you want peace, prepare for war." Its simple wisdom is as applicable today as it was in ancient Rome. Yet there are those that believe that preparation for war only serves to make it more likely.

The world will have peace when the whole world wants peace. As long as there exist people who desire war, those who desire peace must be ready and able to defeat them when their desires are made manifest.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong

However, Barack Obama has done nothing of the kind.

Yesterday, Obama sat down with Bill O'Reilly for an interview. Regarding the troop surge which has had such dramatic success, he had some comments:

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (Emphasis mine -RR)

At least he's admitting that it has worked, though to say that nobody anticipated that it would ignores George Bush, Obama's opponent John McCain, and a host of commentators and bloggers who all supported the decision to send more troops over and get the job done right once and for all.

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

It's still a work in progress, true, but progress is being made as demonstrated by the U.S. military turning control of the Anbar Provice over to the Iraqis.

We're winning in Iraq. It's time to accept and support it.

Hanson does it again

In his piece, Target Palin, VDH takes on several of the issues that have evolved since the announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate.

On the contrast between Palin and Biden:

When Palin talks about her present life it sounds as authentic as Biden’s showy populism came off as false. Enraged feminists are apparently the gatekeepers for less well-educated American women, who are supposed to have 0-1.5 children not 5! Their husbands must be professors, lawyers, CEOs, editors—not snowmobile champions, union members, oil workers, and fishermen—or, worse, all in one! And unlike a Pelosi, Quinn, or Clinton, Palin, God forbid, did not rely on a powerful, wealthy husband or father to energize her career. Worse still, she took no women’s studies class, never attended the Ivy League, and shoots moose. The danger is not just that Sarah Palin could win McCain the election, but she could expose the entire flimsy structure of doctrinaire liberalism as the hypocrisy—and chauvinism—it has become.

On the double standard propagated by the Left and the media that is now more obvious than ever:

Obama’s violation of drug laws with a “little blow” was youthful exuberance; Palin’s husband’s DUI was more proof of a working-class messy family.
...
Criticizing Clinton’s engaging in sex in the oval office and lying about it to the American people were once “the politics of personal destruction”; lying that Sarah Palin might not have been the mother of her 5th child is the mere overreach of the blogs caused by the improper vetting of the McCain campaign.

Not to mention lying about it under oath which is the crime for which he was actually impeached.

The immediate ferocity of the reaction by the Left and the mainstream media to Palin's nomination is unprecedented. The unfounded attacks on Palin and her family, particularly her daughter, and the flat out lies that have been told about them are truly disgusting.

It serves to demonstrate how scared they really are and it's going to backfire, at least to a degree. It may even outrage enough people that the media is finally truly called to the carpet for their obvious but unadmitted bias. At least I can hope.

The non-existent bit-bucket

Mike tips us off to a post at LGF documenting continued efforts to hide the fact that the Democrats' staunchest supporters include raving lunatics of the type mentioned in my previous post. It seems the Kostards haven't figured out that once something's on the Web, it's forever. All we have to do is pay out the rope, folks. Then, once they've tied the knot and slipped the noose around their collective neck, just pull the lever, sit back, and watch them dance.

Oh, by the way, the reference to hanging in the previous paragraph should not be taken as a racist comment referring to the practice of lynching. But I'm sure it will anyway. I'm white, after all, and can't help myself.

The Dogs of (Political) War

The 2008 Presidential campaign has already turned pretty nasty.  The attacks from the left have already begun in earnest; in particular on two different but related fronts.

The first is that of the direct, physical assault.  Yesterday during the first day of the Republican National Convention, some enterprising radicals thought it would be a good idea to harass arriving delegates and even commit vitriolage.  In some cases, they didn’t even wait for the buses to arrive before committing their assaults.

You will note that there were no “conservative protesters” (an oxymoron, really) at the DNC last week, let alone anybody doing anything like this. If there had been, you can bet whatever amount you like that it would have been all over the news in lurid headlines and breathless prose.

The second front is the more “respectable” one, if no less repugnant.  Since the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate, the Democrats and their supporters have been pulling out all the stops in the effort to smear her in any way they can, regardless of how baseless and ridiculous their allegations.  They are descending far below the level to which they in their fevered imaginations can even contemplate the Republicans sinking.  It has the air of desperation about it, which means that they’re truly concerned even though they’ll never admit it.

Of course, since they’re right, dammit! anything and everything is justified.  Any target, from Palin to her husband to her children and even her unborn grandchild is fair game.

Palin and her family are going to be put under a media microscope the likes of which has never before been seen.  I hope they’re up to it.  Unlike Obama, they don’t have the luxury of declaring topics “off limits” if they’re inconvenient.

All class, all the time.

First up, we have Michael Moore, prevaricator extraordinaire and hero to those that the Democrat party should be ignoring, but that instead appears to be their base:

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

After that comment, Moore backed off a bit and did say he hoped nobody got hurt and he hoped everybody is taking cover. However, he failed to make note of the $43.625 billion in damage the last hurricane to strike New Orleans caused – Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – and the billions of dollars the storm cost taxpayers.

Now frankly I'm not surprised that Moore said this. Disgusted, yes, but I've been disgusted with him for years.

On the other hand, somewhat surprised (but only somewhat) to hear the same sentiment from National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler during an in-flight conversation with Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. Video below, commentary at RedState.



So New Orleans is going to get pasted again. People may die and who knows how much property damage will be done. Fuel costs will rise again because of all the refining capacity that's in danger and the economy will suffer, affecting the poor the most. But it's all okay, you see, because it will help Democrats gain power. Ha ha ha. Sickening.

Contrast this with what the Republicans are doing:

John McCain tore up the script for his Republican National Convention on Sunday, ordering the cancellation of all but essential opening-day activities as Hurricane Gustav churned toward New Orleans.

“This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans,” he said as fellow Republicans converged on their convention city to nominate him for the White House.

The President is also ordering his priorities correctly:

President Bush is skipping the Republican National Convention on Monday and will travel instead to Texas to meet with emergency workers and evacuees as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf Coast.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's just a slight bit of difference.