The Occasional Observer

His reaction to these ridiculous protesters is just priceless:



I particularly liked:

"I'm like Grendel of Beowulf, I'm not often seen, but people talk about me a lot."

ht: Moe Lane @ RedState

ht: RedState

From Philip Klein at the AmSpecBlog:

The media keep hyping up the Democratic race as the political equivelent of a Jean Claude Van Damn movie--a fierce, bloody, death match. But it's really more like the English Patient -- a movie that goes on and on forever, with no real point, only to get rave reviews from critics.

The whole thing is worth a read if you get the chance. I'll give you the conclusion here:

As a boy, my family legacy, as fascinating as it was to me, often felt like an imposition. I knew from a very early age that I was destined for Annapolis and a career in the Navy. In reaction, I often rebelled in small and petty ways to what I perceived as an encroachment on my free will...

...Like most people, when I reflect on the adventures and joys of youth, I feel a longing for what is lost and cannot be restored. But though the happy pursuits of the young prove ephemeral, something better can endure, and endure until our last moment of life. And that is the honor we earn and the love we give when we work and sacrifice with others for a cause greater than our self-interest. For me that cause has long been our country. I am a lucky, lucky man to have found it, and am forever grateful to those who showed me the way. What they gave me was much more valuable and lasting than the tribute I once paid to vanity.

I am the son and grandson of admirals. My grandfather was an aviator; my father a submariner. They were my first heroes, and their respect for me has been one of the most lasting ambitions of my life. They gave their lives to their country, and taught me lessons about honor, courage, duty, perseverance and leadership that I didn't fully grasp until later in life, but remembered when I needed them most. I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I am their son, and they showed me how to love my country, and that has made all the difference for me, my friends, all the difference in the world.

Latest Gallup poll suggests 20-30% of Dems claim they will vote for McCain rather than Dem nominee if the nominee is not the candidate they presently support. This is particularly true of Hillary supporters if Obama is the nominee.

I think we'd be lucky to get even half of those who are presently making that claim; I'm sure their "support" for McCain is fleeting at best. But he should figure out a way to try to secure as many of those voters as possible. They represent a significant number of 'in-play' votes that could easily swing the election in his favor. I think his best chance of appealing to these voters--without appearing to pander and without alienating conservatives--is to emphasize his honesty, integrity, and leadership. He needs to represent that is the right person to lead the country out of recession, out of Iraq in a safe and appropriate way, and into the future.

So Paterson and his wife both had a ton of affairs, Paterson perhaps inappropriately awarded jobs and cash payments, and now we learn used coke in his early 20s (apparently a requirement for the best: Marion Barry, Bush, Obama, and Paterson).

My question is this: on what basis does CNN's article end with this curious statement:

Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is capable of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer shake-up.

Really? Integrity? I guess M-W must've gone and changed the definition of integrity when I wasn't looking.

Some thoughts on McCain's VP options here.

I think he would be best served by picking someone who can point to economics as a strength, since that is going to be the #1 issue in this election, followed by Iraq.

There appears to be poll support for my earlier hope/prediction, that Dem voters whose candidate loses the nomination might be so bitter at the other side as this drags on that they'd vote for McCain instead of Dem nominee. Even if we pick up just a few percent that might be enough to swing it to McCain.

Seems McCain may have been correct after all when he suggested that Iran is helping AQII.

And even if not, the broader point is that Iran is certainly working against us in the region. At the very least it is widely believed that Iran is providing insurgents with the EFPs that are so deadly.

McCain 51, Clinton 41. McCain 49, Obama 42. Or so says latest Rasmussen poll.

Wright scandal has hit Obama's #s hard. The only problem is, I'd be surprised if it's a permanent drop. Voters seem to have awfully short memories these days, and my guess is he could easily recover from this by Election Day. The good news is that McCain continues to have highest favorability ratings of all 3, and in fact is the only candidate who has higher favorable than unfavorable ratings.

From Gordon Taylor at RedState:

The beaut-iful girl on the left is none other then Diane Dixon, Olymipic medal winner in the 1984 and 1988 summer Olympics. According to Ms. Dixon, Lt. Gov. Paterson got her a nice paying gig with the NYC Department of Education. Here is how she tells it...

“I’m a single mom with a child. I need this job,” said Dixon, who grew up on Carroll Street in Crown Heights and won medals in the 4×400-meter relay at the 1984 games in Los Angeles and the 1988 Olympics in Seoul.

Dixon, 43, said Paterson, 53, was “mostly responsible” for getting her a badly needed job earlier this month with the city Department of Education in Crown Heights’ District 17.

Apparently they have been having an affair that lasted at least until this past summer, well beyond what Paterson says.

Read the rest of the post here.

Good drummer. Great look. Good drummer. Fine drummer.

He, um, died. Quite sad, actually. It was a bizarre, eh, gardening accident. It was one of those things, the authorities said, "best leave it unsolved," really.

Supreme Court has apparently upheld the individual's right to bear arms.

I was surprised this issue has never before been tried before Supreme Court. Here is the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

People have often questioned what to make of all the commas and specific phrasing. I would say it's hard to read much into the commas; anyone who has read passages from the 1700s knows that they often wrote as they spoke: in long run-on sentences chock full of commas. I take away more from the fact that they never specifically said militias have the right to bear arms; they said this is the right of the people. Considering that they were very specific in other amendments, and considering that the question of the danger of a standing army was a hot topic at the time, I'd say if they wanted a person's right to bear arms to specifically be linked to that person's standing in a militia, they would have written it explicitly. I think the verbiage about militias is basically there to provide some insight into why they were providing this right at that time, but I don't think they intended it to be the sole reason. Had this been their intent, it would have been easy to switch the wording to read that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as they are in active standing in a militia.

Instead, as written, and looking at the explicit wording of other rights, I think their intent was that individuals shall have the right to keep and bear arms. My take is that the more interesting question is exactly what constitutes "arms" today, and what authority does the government have to limit the definition of arms?

ht: Kavon

The stock market is going to Tank today, with a capital 'T'. When the government forces Bear Stearns to accept a buyout offer that values them at 1% (that's one percent) of their market cap from just a year ago, look out. The financial crisis continues to run far deeper than anyone yet understands.

Fox News Sunday is waiting for Obama to come on their show for some hard questioning. They are officially on Obama Watch. Personally, I think he is holding out for Larry King.

Obama sure seems to have a situation on his hands now. His "mentor", "uncle", and pastor Jeremiah Wright thinks America deserved 9/11--it was our "chickens coming home to roost." Instead of asking for God's blessings upon America, he asked for a curse: "God D-mn America!" He said--from the pulpit mind you--that Bill Clinton "did [blacks] just like he did Monica Lewinsky...he was riding dirty." He says America is run by "old rich white men." He visited Qadafi along with fellow good guy Louis Farrakan. Wonder what kind of operations they might have been planning.

Meanwhile, Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years. Wright presided at his wedding. Wright baptized his children. And now Obama says he had no idea until the past couple of days that his pastor had a history of racist and anti-American comments. Sure.

Kinda wish we had kept our powder dry till after he secured the nomination, but that's for another time.

OK Contributors, after MB's rousing success in the Mad Money Challenge, let's give it another shot here in round 2. It's time to play Veep Stakes!

Simply list your top 15 choices for who you think McCain will pick to be V.P., in order. (e.g. 1. Mitt, 2. Rudy, 3. Fred, etc...)

[IMPORTANT NOTE: WRITE DOWN YOUR CHOICES BEFORE CLICKING ON "COMMENTS", SO YOU DON'T SEE OTHER PEOPLE'S PICKS AND "GAME" YOUR CHOICES]

We'll crown 2 winners--first for the person who ranks the ultimate choice highest.

Then a co-champ for the person who gets the most people that ultimately land on McCain's short list. We'll award points in inverse order (15 points if your first choice gets on the short list, 14 points if your second choice gets on the short list, etc.)

It might take a while for the co-champ to be determined, because the short list won't come out until after the decision is made. Before hand there will be some blind speculation and targeted leaks, but not until a couple of weeks after the selection has been made will the dust have settled and we'll probably know who actually made the short list.

So with no further adieu, here are the possibles, and I've included anyone that I've heard any speculation about whatsoever. If you want someone who's not on this list, consider hims part of the "field" option.

Here's the long list of contenders, alphabetical by first name:

Bill Frist, Fmr Sen Maj Ldr (TN)
Bill Owens, Fmr Gov (CO)
Bob Riley, Gov (AL)
Bobby Jindal, Gov (LA)
Charlie Crist, Gov (FL)
Chris Cox, Chairman of the SEC
Condaleeza Rice, Sec of State
Duncan Hunter, Congressman (CA)
"Field" (anyone else)
Frank Keating, Fmr Gov (OK)
Fred Thompson, Fmr Sen (TN)
Haley Barbour, Gov (MS)
Jeb Bush, Fmr Gov (FL)
Jim DeMint, Sen (SC)
Jim Gilmore, Fmr Gov (VA)
Joe Lieberman, Sen (CT)
John Kasich, Fmr Congressman (OH)
John Thune, Sen (SD)
Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sen (TX)
Lindsey Graham, Sen (SC)
Mark Sanford, Gov (SC)
Michael Steele, Fmr Lt Gov (MD)
Mike Bloomberg, Mayor (NYC)
Mike Huckabee, Fmr Gov (AR)
Mike Pence, Congressman (IN)
Mitt Romney, Frm Gov (MA)
Newt Gingrich, Fmr Spkr of House
Paul Ryan, Consgressman (WI)
Richard Burr, Sen (NC)
Rob Portman, Director of OMB
Ron Paul, Congressman (TX)
Rudy Giuliani, Fmr Mayor (NYC)
Sam Brownback, Sen (KS)
Sarah Palin, Gov (AK)
Tim Pawlenty, Gov (MN)
Tom Coburn, Sen (OK)
Tom Ridge, Frmr Sec of Homeland Sec
Tommy Thompson, Fmr Gov (WI)

I have started reading the Chernow bio on Hamilton. It is excellent so far.

but Mary Ann? The nice one? Come on...

Check out this post from RedState. At least someone is keeping tabs on the MSM:

Tricks of the trade [Updated]

By Caiwyn

Posted in Liberals

Check it out: Every single story by CNN about Republican Congressman Rick Renzi's indictment lists his party affiliation in the very first sentence.

But the article on Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer's involvement with a prostitution ring doesn't mention his party affiliation until the second-to-last sentence.

Update: CNN has updated their story. Now the second-to-last sentence has been replaced by the following:

The Republican Governors Association called on Spitzer, a Democrat, to resign to "allow the people of New York to pursue honest leadership."

This is the only sentence in the article that links Spitzer with the Democratic party, and it is not only placed at the end of the article, but couched in an implied accusation of partisanship against the Republicans. Amazing.

...and ya blew it.

This sounds like it should be juicy.

UPDATE/POST PRESS-CONFERENCE:

I can't believe the news conference Spitzer just held. The audacity. Sheer audacity.

He starts the press conference by talking about his political goals for NY, and then turns to the topic at hand by stating: "Today, I want to briefly address a private matter."

Umm, gov? Quick question: did the grand jury handing down the federal indictment find it "a private matter"? If you were hiring a state employee, would you discount a felon's criminal history as "a private matter"?

Sorry, El. This ain't merely an extra-marital affair between consenting adults (even though we've all become too desensitized to the scandal that such affairs represent). This is you. Taped on the phone. Working out a deal to fly a hooker from NY to DC. For cash money.

We all know the rules: Democrats don't resign when they are disgraced, only Republicans do. So I look forward to the next 2 and 3/4 years of you further sullying the office you hold, dragging the State of New York through the media circus of your trial.

Today's case in point: MSNBC.

You've got to love this headline, "On the trail, few mentions of McCain’s health"

This is followed up by a discussion of how no one is discussing the fact that McCain hasn't released all his medical records as he did in 2000.

I guess the headline passes muster as legitimate "journalism." After, all McCain is 71. And he has been sick before. And since last releasing his comprehensive medical and psychological records, he's been a hermit. I mean, who knows if he's been sick over the last 8 years? And most importantly, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT. That alone makes in newsworthy, no?

Of course, I could substitute any issue and any person for "health" and "McCain", and as long as some crackpot somewhere has mentioned the problem before, the headline still works. For instance, recalling Obama's first book, MSNBC could go with,

"On the trail, few mentions of Obama's drug use"

Or if they were focused on rumors that the Clinton's are the beneficiaries of the financial largesse of their friends in Dubai, MSNBC could run with,

"On the trail, few mentions of Hillary's Islamic financial backers"

Or if they were focused on Obama's votes in the IL State Senate, they could use this one:

"On the trail, few mentions of Obama's push to legalize infanticide"

Or if they wanted to delve into the deep treasure trove of unsubstantiated whispers that swirl about the Clinton marriage, why not go with,

"On the trail, few mentions of rumors of Hillary's lesbianism"

The options are really limitless, and work well for lazy journalists (so, basically, bloggers) that want to spout off with their own political viewpoints instead of dealing with, well, facts.

Try it! You'll like it!

that Brett Favre was the one superstar athelete I'd most want to go get a beer with (or maybe a wikky, CE?), I do now:

"The Green Bay Packers icon apparently spent the first days of the rest of his life hunting wild boar."

And just to prove the point that the Occasional Observer is at the center of every news cycle, a few friends of the contributors were apparently joining Favre at the hunting cabin. Here's the evidence:



Favre's figure is somewhat obscured behind the cabin's true star and hardest worker, Old #7, as well as the ample profile of this hunter. But trust me, Brett's right there.

My wife, the mother of my two children, was just watching Rock of Love on VH1, as any good consumer of television must. For the uninitiated, it stars Bret Michaels and a gaggle of bimbos.

"I don't even know what band he was in", Mrs. Fredo comments. "Tell me!"

So, so old.

Wherever you are.

It's hard to find the words to explain the gratitude I feel towards Cpl. Frank Buckles, the last of the Doughboys. At the same time, there is a sense of loss at the passing of his generation. It makes me think of what we've already lost, and what we will lose in the future. I'll likely be in my upper 50's when the last remaining WWII vets are passing from the scene.

I've never known a WWI vet, but their contributions have been implanted into the consciousness of our culture. Their wisdom, their experience, and the witness of their lives have been powerful influences. These are men who, by their very being, remind us of the horrors that result when world powers commit to total war. And of what happens when abstract constructs like ideology and nationality (not bad things when placed to the proper use), are prioritized above more intrinsic "goods": virtue, family, and community.

I like to think that these doughboys grew up in a simpler time, when love of country was considered natural, not naive. When belief in God was considered rational, not medicinal. And when duty to family and neighbor was expected, not outdated.

I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who would love to disabuse me of my idealism.

The courage of Frank Buckley and his brothers does otherwise.

If they can't even figure out how to nominate a candidate, how can they run the country? Interestingly, this article in Post indicates why al gore is the only Dem party elder who can break the logjam.

Which way will Dem nominee be selected?
1) Re-votes in FL, MI
2) Use original FL, MI votes
3) Backroom deal gives it to Hillary, with VP option for Obama
4) Backroom deal gives it to Obama, with VP option for Hillary

I say no way it's #2 or #4, I'll bet it's #1. Probably the funds will be taken evenly from Hill and Obama's campaigns, or someone will donate the money, since Dean refuses to have DNC fund it.

Dark Horses because they haven't had nationally high-profile jobs, but there are strong arguments that could land them on the short list. I've mentioned Cox, dismissed Portman, and hadn't thought of Kasich. These 3 are from Quin Hillyer's final short list of 5 over at The American Spectator, and Portman and Cox seem to be the recipients of a little surge in pundit attention:

Former House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich: There is no doubt that Kasich has an appealing and approachable personality, and political skills aplenty. He represented Ohio for eight terms in the House -- and of course, Ohio has been a linchpin for Republican victories for years, but now has turned into a seriously uphill battle for the GOP. Any local boy who can help keep that state in the Republican column would be worth his weight in platinum -- plus, Kasich adds working-class Pennsylvania roots as well. A true fiscal conservative, Kasich received many plaudits for his part in helping balance the federal budget for the first time in more than three decades. On the down side, he often seemed too eager to grab the credit when the more difficult legislative grunt work was done by the Appropriations Committee and the Ways & Means Committee rather than by Kasich's Budgeteers. He also lacks significant non-political experience, and he can come across as a bit hyperactive, which might exacerbate rather than modulate McCain's intensity.

Rob Portman: His twelve years as a highly regarded U.S. House Member from Ohio preceded service as President George W. Bush's Trade Representative and then as his Budget Director. Everywhere he goes, he seems to impress people with his intelligence, his earnestness, and his bearing. He immediately gives forth an air of (that overused word) gravitas, and he seems to be liked and respected by people across the entire ideological spectrum. Then again, he might be too perfect, too preppy, too deeply connected to the Bush family that has always been his biggest political booster from the time he served as associate White House counsel under the elder Bush. But is he a true Reaganite? It's not 100 percent clear. Most people seem to think so, and he certainly would come across as a classy addition to anybody's ticket.

Chris Cox: The best choice, bar none. This thoughtful and reform-minded chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission made his name for 16 years as the brainiest and perhaps most principled Reaganite conservative in Congress, as well as one of the best on TV. In a brilliant column two weeks ago at this site, Lisa Fabrizio laid out the full argument in Cox's favor. Other columnists have also written that he would make a good Veep choice, among them Lisa Schiffren of National Review Online, Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics, and the reviewer for Exurbanleague.com, which is the top-ranked conservative blog in McCain's home state of Arizona. Ditto for an article yesterday in the Financial Times and a column yesterday by John Gizzi of Human Events.

Cox is well thought of by just about every conservative columnist around, and respected by the David Broder institutionalists for his brains, diligence, and decency. He could probably help at least a little in Minnesota, where he grew up, and of course he is a favorite of the Californians he represented in Congress. Of great significance, perhaps, McCain himself was asked two Fridays ago at a bloggers' briefing which states he thought he might be able to move from the Democratic to the Republican column, and his first answer, the one he focused most on, was California. And McCain is sure to appreciate Cox's grit in coming back from a horrendous off-road vehicle accident three decades ago that left him partially paralyzed for a while.

There will be more to say about Cox in the months ahead. The good news is, McCain has a number of excellent choices from which to choose. The better news is that with so many already-excellent choices, there is one, Cox, who excels even those, and who would be capable of handling any job McCain could possibly throw at him.

By the bye, I was advocating for Cox as a Bush Supreme Court nominee over at ConfirmThem.com back in the middle of the Harreit Miers fiasco.

Every so often the Dems manage to gift-wrap one for us. Without further adieu...

but I dig it anyway. The current flash page over at the McCain campaing website looks like this:

The first 50 state tally done by a reputable polling organization, to my knowledge.




On the upside, a few states flipping puts us over the top--we're still in the game. On the downside, the Dems have yet to choose a candidate (the winner will get a polling bump), they've yet to utilize their massive funds advantage by running pix of McCain resting his head on Bush's shoulder on the tube, and McCain has yet to pop off in an interview and follow it up with a contrite apology the next day. Expect at least 3 of these over the next few months.

ht: LJ/Race 4 '08

McCain wouldn't respond to questions about whether Crist will be his VP. I don't think he will pick Crist, for a variety of reasons we've already discussed. But he did have this to say:

"I know one thing about Governor Crist," McCain said. "And that is that he is a great governor. He does a great job. And I think that … there are many ways for him to serve the country."

I interpret that to mean Crist will be offered a cabinet position. My guess is they made a backroom deal a month ago wherein Crist gave McCain his endorsement in return for at least a cabinet position. Pure speculation, but that's my hunch.

I can openly share with you our primary and secondary objectives. Please turn your attention to Eighth Directorate Chief Lane of RedState:

VRWC Briefing, 03/05/2008.

By Moe Lane

Transmitted 03/03/2008.

Good job on Ohio, everyone! We're still calibrating the Texas results to ensure the maximum amount of confusion and heartbreak all around, but the centerpiece of last night went off without a hitch, and we should all take this moment to compliment our Freemason division for making sure that Ohio's results reflected our collective Will. We should also note the less less-flashy (but no less valuable) machinations of our Opus Dei division in securing Rhode Island; you guys always come through for us when we need you, and you don't get enough praise for that. Great work.

And let us again offer our sympathies for everybody who argued so passionately for flipping Vermont. Now that it's over, we can say this: we really wanted to, guys. We were pretty sure that we'd get at least three pundit aneurysms on national TV out of it. But we had to go with not being too obvious in our scheming. We're genuinely sorry, and we've decided to make it up to all of you by offering a lottery this election cycle: you folks vote on which state will be the Election Night Surprise, and we'll incorporate the winner somehow. Just don't make it California or Texas, OK? - Just kidding; pick whichever one you like.

Moving on, please review your outline of the Democratic nomination process. As planned, we will be now switching our focus to ensure that Senator Obama "wins" the Wyoming and Mississippi races; this should revive his supporters' hopes sufficiently to maximize Democratic primary voter disillusionment over Senator Clinton's "win" of Pennsylvania. This is the tricky part of the campaign, but we're certain that all of you will rise up to the challenge, even if we hadn't implanted explosive devices in your cerebral cortexes.

Cortexi?

At any rate, good job last night, but we've got more work ahead of us. Remember: every voter that we drive away now is one less vote that the Diebold machines have to change.

Five tons of flax,

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

PS: BINGO NIGHT IS RETURNING! Hey, if we had known that canceling it would have resulted in so many emails, calls, assassination attempts, and hijackings of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, we'd have never have touched it in the first place.

Susan Estrich (just thinking of her makes me throw up a little) has come out supporting a potentially good scenario for us that I alluded to previously (see comment #4).

She notes the following:
But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I’m getting a little bit nervous.

...what I’m worried about is what’s happening at the grassroots level among Democrats who support one or the other candidate and are coming to like their own candidate more, and the other one (and their supporters) less, the longer this goes on.

I remember what it was like in 1980, when the Kennedy and Carter people still were barely speaking to each other within days of the general election.

That’s what Democrats can’t afford.

My Clinton friends are really no different. It used to be that they would just say they preferred Obama. Lately, it’s getting stronger. They’re getting mad.

As the Clinton-Obama saga drags out, if they don't end up merging forces, it is possible that the supporters of the loser will have such vitriolic hatred of the other candidate that they might be willing to go McCain, especially since he intrinsically has some appeal to Dems and Indies anyway.

McCain's campaign strength on foreign policy has largely been linked to his correct backing of the surge in Iraq. This was great in the primaries, but will not work in the general election against Obama. Obama will go to a platform of "I was right before you were right", pointing out that while McCain was correct on the surge, if they had listened to Obama in the first place years earlier we wouldn't even be in Iraq now. And based on all polls, that position will resonate far better with the American voters.

How do you get around this? In his victory speech McCain suggested that all candidates should stop "relitigating the decisions of the past" with respect to Iraq, and what is important is who has the experience to make the right decisions going forward. I think this is a tricky position for McCain, because Obama can simply say what good is your experience if it led us into Iraq in the first place? Again, a very dumbed-down argument but exactly the type of soundbite that wins in today's elections.

A potentially winning position, but even more difficult and complex, would be to convince Americans that Obama's vote not to invade Iraq (which was in a solid minority) was a mistake and an example of naivete. If he could somehow point to the evidence available at that time and say it was a mistake not to invade based on what was known THEN, perhaps he could combine that with Obama's willingness to meet foreign leaders unconditionally and paint him as dangerous. But, the problem is that even if McCain is tactically correct on all these points, I'm not sure that's what Americans want to hear. They seem to want to hear rainbow and sunshine stories about foreign and domestic policies, no matter how disconnected they are to the complex realities on the ground.

So in the end, I'm not sure what is the most effective way for McCain to nullify what is surely an enormous strength for Obama, that he was one of just a handful to originally vote against Iraq invasion.

Barry Obama says he's still got the delegate lead. He does. And the press seems impressed that Hill got off the mat, but fixated on the fact that she cannot catch Barry's delegate totals without winning a large majority of the outstanding votes (read: she can't catch him).

This misses the point entirely.

Hillary will not cinch the nomination based on pledged delegates.

And neither will Obama.

Superdelegates will decide this Dem race, unless something really damaging comes out.

If Obama gets more votes, more states, and more pledged delegates, and Hillary comes away with the nomination, won't that be a fun narrative. The party that cries "voter suppression!" every 4 years will have engineered their winner in a smoke filled room.

And, damn, what a speech!

So the Dems haven't even settled on a nominee yet, and already they've managed to send the international community into an uproar. With all of their talk of using the threat of an opt-out as a "hammer" to renegotiate NAFTA with more favorable terms (presumably for us, which means, well, you get the idea), the Canadians are now giving us the "make my day" argument. Try to renegotiate, they say, and they'll pull out first and start selling their oil to China instead of to us.

Maybe it's only me, but isn't their something a bit contradictory going on here? These are the same Dems who pillory Bush for his "unilateral" approach to international relations, right?

Hmmm. Would that be unilateral like, say, unilaterally threatening to withdraw from a treaty that was negotiated in good faith between the US and one (or maybe two) of our closest allies, and is supposed to reflect a commitment on the part of the particiapting nations, in a transparent effort to drum up a few 11th hour votes in Ohio? Or maybe they mean the other kind of unilateral.

So Joe Kennedy refuses to back down on taking Venezuela's oil. I wonder if this news, that Chavez allegedly gave $300 M to FARC will finally wipe that S-eating grin off Kennedy's face and force him to acknowledge that Chavez is an ass.

And for the record, Joe, in response to your point here:

Listen, 10% of all gasoline that people in the U.S. use comes from Venezuela. A huge portion of the heating oil we use on the East Coast comes from Venezuela. So people should hold themselves to the same moral standard they're going to hold the poor to.

if it were up to me we would be drilling in Alaska to replace oil from Venezuela and Middle East. But the greenies won't let us.

I predict Hillary will do better in the upcoming races than expected by current polls. There have been recent articles questioning the authenticity of Obama's claims of representing "change politics", as well as potential buyer's remorse among Dems. The press is starting to increase their scrutiny of him (lest they be labeled sexist by Hillary's campaign), and I think people will start to wonder if all the pixie dust that is his campaign can really last through November. I'm guessing she still won't win by enough margins to take the nomination (since Dems are proportional in all states), but she'll do better than polls suggest.

An ocean, a continent, and a language away, and they can still pick the moonbat out of the lineup.

To wit: Academy Award Winning Actress Marion Cotillard.

This is one endorsement McCain needs to reject and get in front of, before it becomes an even bigger story in the Catholic community.