About Me

Name: beltway girl
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Operation Chaos: The Donner Party Democrats

Limbaugh is discussing the article by Egan now (Donner Party Democrats), which was interesting (think it was NYT).  Made the analogy that they're now eating their own. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Operation Chaos Update: Bill sings: Grandma Got Run Over...

by Obama
after Rev. Wright was asked to leave
you might think he'd love the one who raised him
but there she is in pieces in the street
 
Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, www.rushlimbaugh.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Democrats' Romance with Precedent

Precedent.
 
Accepted.  Settled law.
 
And Roe has become accepted law, and abortion on demand is the liberals' baby.  Many of them accepted it as settled before the Supreme Court did, and before an overwhelming majority of Americans did.  Today, we hear many of the same disco ball revolutionaries sounding the alarm in terms of safety and security of their baby.
 
The Republicans will put more bad men on the Supreme Court.  And those bad men will kill our baby!
 
They didn't say it like this.  They wrapped their baby up in precedent.
 
This is settled.  And that's it.  And that is why we are for this.  Because it's a done deal. 
 
You see, liberals aren't really about change; they're about the status quo.
 
Remember when owning slaves as a right was precedent?
 
Remember when women and Native Americans not being allowed to vote was precedent?
 
Remember when segregated schools were precedent?
 
Remember when the overwhelming majority of women becoming housewives or librarians...  was accepted?
 
Remember when African Americans couldn't play in professional sports, and that was accepted?
 
Remember when black people sat in the back of the bus, and that found social precedent?
 
Remember how the liberals fought against all of these things because they were settled?  They were done deals?
 
Let's all keep these things in mind now, while the liberals wrap their baby up in the Democratic (Party) American flag of precedence.  And let's all commend these people on this clever satire of making us all open our eyes to the fact that there really is no Democratic candidate in this election.  There couldn't be.  Precedent ruled them out long ago, and the Democrats hold precedent as sacrosanct.
 
Liberals, now in danger of having their baby-in-the-abstract aborted, are in hysterics.  In the meantime, there's an actual cost in real human lives, not abstract ones, being sacrificed at the altar of liberal hypocrisy.  So their abstract baby can continue to be swaddled in an "evolving" and "living" federal constitution.
 
Their precedent. 
 
Their baby.
 
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  If that's not a direct quote, it's very close.  The speaker?  President William Jefferson Clinton.  He said those words many moons ago. 
 
Just words.
 
And guess what?  In this case, that's all they were.
 
What did this person actually do to make abortions more rare?  If you look at his record, he made efforts to make them more available, not more rare.  And now we have the nuts (and bolts) Mrs. Bill Clinton.  So where are the nuts and bolts for these words?  Where are the nuts and bolts for "rare" abortions in the US?  Where is the LBJ of "rare" abortion?
 
Obviously, we all know the Democrats couldn't be this hypocritical.  Maybe they were just words in this case, but that's because it's all about precedent.  It's the precedent, stupid!
 
And they mean it.
 
Okay, we all get the point.  So let's end the satire now.  Get off the stage with Barack, Mrs. Clinton.
 
Because precedent would require that. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Adventures of Obama

So the speech was brilliant.  Brilliant writing and content, brilliant delivery. 
 
It rang true.  And incidentally, race and politics in Chicago arguably transcend religion.
 
But at the end of the day, all the inconsistencies-- taken as a whole-- were simply being further compartmentalized.  And one has to wonder whether many viewers weren't still sitting there, scratching their heads, and wondering...
 
Why did you keep coming back for more of this?
 
What exactly did you hear and not hear?
 
What do you consider "controversial"?
 
What do you consider "anti-American"?
 
What do you think "racism" is?
 
Obama is a sweeping candidate.  He talks often in generalities about universal truths.  He is poetic and moving.
 
But the Wright mess requires more nuts and bolts, more particulars.  Obama had to get down into the boiler room to make this problem go away, and he refused. 
 
And it won't go away.  The Wright controversy is not dangerous solely because of Wright; it is potentially fatal because Wright carries with him-- in his colorful rhetorical baggage-- an unacceptably close association to Louis Farrakhan.  This "lifetime achievement award," the pseudo-endorsement by Farrakhan of Obama, this is not the stuff to be remedied with the most erudite and groundbreakingly honest discussion of race in the US today.
 
Inflammatory racist rhetoric was only a part of Wright's problem.  The more insidious problem is Farrakhan and a presidential contender's friendship with a pastor who travelled to Libya with him. 
 
If Obama's political resume were-- in significant ways-- to diverge from the Farrakhan and Wright menu, people might breathe easier.  But everything Obama says is in perfect harmony with it.
 
Of course, the actual menu is the same menu of the DNC.  So the menu itself is not the bombshell.  No, it is the menu and the Farrakhan association.  Democrats cannot have this; it becomes too alarmingly clear just how far left their party has gone when Farrakhan arrives on the scene. 
 
Obama's chances of shaking the Wright factor will be reduced with each passing day.  And then, one day, after many of these days, the chance will be completely gone.
 
Mort Kondracke discussed Obama's speech in a recent column, and his assessment on this is more brilliant than Obama's speech.  Yes, Obama's speech was brilliant.  But talking about a little old white lady afraid of black men was not exactly a head-on broaching of the Farrakhan issue.  Nor did this speech address exactly how Obama's hunger for change squares with his pastor's hunger for change. 
 
The outcome will be that many will fear it's the same hunger.  And that the politician cannot state it so forthrightly and hope to win the election.
 
In the meantime, we have Hillary's nasty NAFTA snafu posed to take center stage when the Uncle Jeremiah story becomes tired.
 
The Democrats are in trouble.  And the problem is not one cadidate with too close an association with Wright and Farrakhan.  It's having an agenda that that both of them can way too easily embrace.
 
Tolerance.
 
Let's all remember our gramdmothers while we contemplate the idea that you really can have too much of a good thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Politics of Religion

And change we're now embroiled in.
 
Okay, first there were just murmurings about Jeremiah Wright and a possible "pastor problem."  They were balanced with Obama's glowing praise about his Audacity of Hope sermon, and it was like a breath of fresh air to see a young presidential candidate actually embracing his spirituality so enthusiastically, rather than running a sprint from it.
 
But it doesn't look so refreshing any longer.  And many are wondering why he wasn't running the sprint.
 
"Goddamn America"
 
This is not exactly the stuff good political campaigns are made of. 
 
It looks...  really bad.  And here's a prediction: It may be looking worse in the weeks to come.
 
Not too many things could have made the Bill and Hillary Show a viable viewing choice, but the Uncle Jeremiah Hour has actually done the trick.
 
It's incredible.  One has to strain to figure out which one is actually running for office.  Will the real politician please stand up?
 
Will he please stand up and walk out of the building where these rants are occurring?
 
But he didn't.  While the Wright Rants can arguably be set aside as Wright's own interpretation of today's events in a religious context (the UCC has come out in his defense), the political half of this duo is likely to be doomed.
 
Why?  Because this is a radical interpretation.  Very radical.  Extremely radical.  Unacceptably radical. 
 
Explosively radical. 
 
Not going to happen radical.  God Bless Louis Farrakhan and Goddamn America radical.  One of these sentiments alone, one alone, might have permitted survival.  But as a pairing, they are almost certainly lethal. 
 
Moreover, the condemnation of African-Americans of the Republican persuasion is especially telling and troubling in terms of Reverend Wright's worldview.
 
Again, is this politics or religion?  To be respected and black, in Mr. Wright's view, is to be an African-American Democrat.  And it appears there are no other options. 
 
This is not a joke anymore.  This really is the Church of the DNC.  And any religion or church that effectively becomes an arm of a political party is straddling a frightening line.  Moreover, we're seeing eye-for-an-eye politics/religion at work with this hybrid, and this becomes clear if you see some of Wright's more dynamic performances, now playing in the mainstream media. 
 
This is tragic, and we can all thank the Democratic Party of today for it.  Outrageous statements are something the Democratic Party has never been a stranger to, and Reverend Wright now is being called to media judgment.  Had such outrageous statements been discouraged by the Democrats, would Wright be in the position he is in today? 
 
When his defenders note his achievements, they are right to do so.  Reverend Wright has done some wonderful things in his ministries, and these things shouldn't be dismissed by anyone.  Success matters for individuals, especially those who have been dealt a bad hand by society.  The world matters to individuals.  Lifting people up matters.  And Wright has done this for many, and for this, he should be applauded. 
 
Unfortunately, words-- one of Obama's great strengths-- are not a strength for Wright.  And the Reverend Wright has not shied away from dealing his own bad hands-- in words-- to individuals like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas.  Thomas, who has given many in the pro-life movement hope, and who is revered based on the content of his message and character, not the color of his skin.
 
Stepping all over other human beings is never right.  It's not right when they're white or black.  There's little possiblity of actual racial healing in such an atmosphere.  If possible, this can only make things worse.  Racism is not an acceptable practice for any individual of any color.
 
Rice and Thomas are not slaves to Reverend Wright's political preferences.  White human beings should not be subject to Reverend Wright's angry social gospel, nor should they become secular martyrs to this nation's racially scarred and deeply flawed racial past.
 
Barack Obama, so charismatic in his own right, offers change we can believe in.  And he says he's never seen any of Wright's more inflammatory rhetoric, but the Kessler story is still circulating, and even if the date is in error, the overall message of the piece is still in tact. 
 
No campaign can survive this.  Huckabee's loaves and fishes are Howdy Doody in comparison.  Can Obama really pick up these pieces?  Trying to paint this relationship as a type of Oscar and Felix from The Odd Couple?  He has tolerated Reverend Wright's darker side and grabbed onto the good?
 
Obama's speech tomorrow could very well end up looking like the climactic final speech from Capra's Meet John Doe.  But life is a funny place.  This is the candidate of hope.  And anything is possible in politics.  Obama doesn't just need change we can believe in tomorrow.  He needs a speech that can be believed.  
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Could Wright Have Come From?

"General Betray Us" -MoveOn.Org
 
"I just want to say something.  655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.  Who are the terrorists?" -Rosie O'Donnell on Iraq
 
"Abortion, it's beautiful, it's beautiful abortion is legal." -Chris Rock
 
"I love Hillary." -Jenna Jameson, porn star
 
"I did not have sex with that woman." -President William Jefferson Clinton
 
"We have to agree it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and speak out." -George Clooney on Iraq
 
"Hugo Chavez is not a dictator...  And he is not anti-American..." -Cindy Sheehan
 
"White people, burning, he was there.  Black people drowning, he don't care..." Chris Rock on George Bush
 
"Bush doesn't care about black people." -Kanye West
 
"It's a question in the back of everybody's head, you know.  Some people, it's further back than others, collecting cobwebs.  But are African-Americans ever going to get reparation for slavery?" -Will from the CNN/YouTube debate
 
"I don't care about motivation.  I care about credibility." -Eliot Spitzer
 
"These were not men who had been tortured.  These were not men who had been starved.  These were not men who had been brainwashed....  Pilots were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic.  I believe that's a lie." -Jane Fonda on Vietnam War returning POWs
 
"Ohhh, War! huh... good God, y'all, What is it good for?  Absolutely nothing, say it again--"  -Edwin Starr and Bruce Springsteen, "War"
 
"I would compare those two.  Yes, definitely."  -Charlize Theron on lack of freedoms in Cuba and United States
 
"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali." -Al Gore on global warming
 
"I love the English lifestyle.  It's not as capitalistic as America.  People don't talk about work and money, they talk about interesting things at dinner."  -Gwyneth Paltrow
 
"I won't be happy till I'm as famous as God." -Madonna
 
"Americans are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thievery, smug pricks.  We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance.  We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country.  Our stupidity is embarrassing." -Michael Moore
 
Right.  So where did this Wright guy come from?
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heaven On Earth: Brought to You by the DNC

Mankind censure injustice fearing that they may be the victims of it, and not because they shrink from committing it.  -Plato, The Republic
 
If one had no idea who Barack Obama was, or who Jeremiah Wright was, and one were to see them both speaking, without knowing who they were speaking to, or where, who would you think was the preacher, and who would you think was the politician?
 
Wouldn't the mild-mannered, gentle, and kindly Obama look more like the cleric?  And wouldn't the rabble-rousing Mr. Wright look more like the candidate, out there trying to fan the flames and move some votes?
 
And this, in a nutshell, is what has gone wrong for the Democratic Party as a whole. 
 
The Dems can't tell the difference between voting and going to religious services any longer.  Indeed, voting Democratic is a religious experience in itself, and a Democratic ballot is a cure-all for every evil at work in the world.  The Democratic agenda is supposedly all about social justice in action, and it is a handmaid of whatever lord you may have in mind.
 
The mutilated women of the pre-abortion-on-demand days have supposedly found friends on the Democratic ticket.  A group of committed combat feminists, anxious to extract justice for these victims, form a part of the secularized sainthood.
 
But do these women, whose lives were destroyed, really find justice with this ticket?  Is their lot improved, is their suffering undone, or are their deaths in any way nullified-- or rectified-- with over a million abortions a year now?
 
Have victimized women found champions in Bill and Hillary Clinton?  Bill, who walked away from the Lewinsky scandal virtually unscathed, and Monica, who was arguably destroyed?
 
Women's rights?  "Social justice"?
 
And now Hillary attempts to ascend to the presidency on Bill's coattails.  Had she not been Mrs. Bill Clinton-- Mrs. Bill to Mr. Bill, who talked women's rights in the abstract but walked his own in the concrete-- had Mrs. Bill Clinton been Mrs. Anyone Else, would she be in the position she is in today? 
 
Is this more "social justice"?  Marrying your resume and ignoring your own husband's inability to convert his grandiose rhetoric about women's rights into reality?
 
The Democratic Party talks the talk on a diverse menu of social issues.  There will be women's rights.  There will be happy, married, family-oriented homosexuality.  There will be a new world for minorities, filled with scholarships and nice jobs and computer terminals.  There will be equal opportunity for all!  There will be universal health care.  There will be no unwanted children.  There will be no war.  There will be no more unnecessary build-up in greenhouse gases.  There will be "Cocoon"-like aging.  There are going to be good jobs with good wages, illegal immigrants will all be wrapped up in an American flag, it won't really cost anything, we'll stamp out domestic violence, and...
 
It's going to be heaven on earth!
 
And that's why there can't be any mention of God in all of this, either.
 
He'd steal our votes.  Because, as you can tell from our agenda, we are God!  We work miracles.  When everyone converts to our religion, whoops, party, we work miracles.
 
And this is what has happened to the Democrats.  Their political agenda is God.  It is heaven on earth.  And you cannot tell the difference, in many cases, between the man of God and the politician.  There is a fusion going on, and a strange hybrid is emerging. 
 
The politician has come out ahead.
 
What did you expect?
 
So please, let's not blame Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama for the circus going on now.  Because what has taken center stage in the media with the Wright mess is not even Wright's fault.
 
It is your Democratic Party at work.  And this is the new frontier.
 
Welcome to the Church of the DNC!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wright's Lewinsky Comments Not All Wrong, But It's Still Not All Right

You know, Bill Clinton is a president who enjoys a legacy.  A respected man.  A man of honor, cherished by the left almost as much as their cherished right to have an abortion.
 
Monica Lewinsky, on the other hand, is the butt of jokes.  She is a mockery, and has been disgraced.  And she will probably never have a normal life.
 
Double standard?  Does that term, "double standard" come to mind for anyone on the left?
 
Evidently not.  Double standard, that cherished term, is reserved for a different type of girl.
 
Like Hillary.  We're hearing all about double standards now, with the press corps "in the tank" for Obama, and discussion of a woman candidate's wrinkles and appearance. 
 
But not a word for the unfortunate Lewinsky.  She got to go and live in the shadows, probably hoping for a driver's license and universal health care that will cover her psychiatric bills.
 
So when Jeremiah Wright raises the spectre of Lewinsky, do I care?
 
No.
 
When he paints her as a victim, do I care?
 
No, because she was one.  Well, let's put it this way.  She is no more or less a victim than President Clinton.  And she has as much claim on exoneration or condemnation as President Clinton.
 
Bill, the looney left will argue, was a great president.  He has earned his forgiveness at the Temple of the Left.  Lewinsky, on the other hand, was no Hillary.  No, she was not, and could never have been, a great president. 
 
So she's not forgiven.
 
See, the double standard isn't because she's a woman; she's just not an important enough woman, and she's up against a man the lefty feminists like.  That is what you need to have a "forgiven" tryst with Bill.
 
Interesting.
 
So I think Wright's comments on Lewinsky are actually valid, and they expose the twisted logic that left Bill walking away into the sunshine while Lewinsky ended up with her name becoming synonymous with various unconventional sexual acts.
 
Wright's style in terms of delivery is up for criticism.  A lot of people don't want to see their pastor getting down with his bad self.  But that has nothing to do with his raising the issue, and the issue is being raised in a climate where there's zero tolerance in terms of brining up Bill's sexual baggage or attacking his legacy.
 
The baggage is a part of that legacy, whether a hypnotized and hypocritical strain of feminism acknowledges it or not.
 
On the other hand, Wright's attacks on Zionsm and "white" America, as well as his remarks about 9/11 and his admiration and appreciation of Louis Farrakhan, are not so right.  They create an aura so inflammatory, and so filled with anger and malice, that, unfortunately, the Tony Rezko story is going to end up buried deep in Section B, while Wright ascends to the headlines on page one.
 
Jeremiah Wright's relationship with Barack Obama is a ticking time bomb, and the fuse is just starting to catch fire and sputter.  If Obama does not dig in hard and act aggressively to diffuse this-- and soon-- this will not end up another Rezko.  The entire election will end up in the hands of the emboldened pro-Clinton-- and shaken pro-Obama-- superdelegates. 
 
This is not going to go away like the Farrakhan "endorsement."  The relationship between Wright and Obama is too pronounced, and Obama has dismissed it too lightly.
 
There are currently about eight million more Democratic voters than Republican in this country.  That ratio works out to 5 to 3, nearly double.  The nation, according to The Wall Street Journal, is in a recession.  Bush's approval ratings haven't significantly improved.  The Democrats should be expecting to sail into the White House on a veritable summer breeze right now.
 
But Hillary hangs in there, with her astronomically high negatives, and Obama sits there, brushing off Wright while he really needs a wind machine in Wright's direction.
 
Up until the Wright moment, it looked like 2008 was going to be Barack Obama's year.  His chances now jeopardized, things could very well turn-- and quickly-- in McCain's favor.  If the Wright connection ignites on Obama, the election will become a blazing hot potato in the laps of the superdelegates, and the result will be a Hillary nomination and a McCain inauguation.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brave New World

Obama's widespread appeal terrifies the establishment Democrats.
 
This is a party that nominated Walter Mondale.  This is a party that nominated Michael Dukakis.  This is a party that nominated John Kerry.  This is a party that loves to lose.  That war-mongerer Patton may have said that America loves a winner; but he didn't know the DNC of today. 
 
Democrats don't really want to win.  "Winners" are not good people.  Winners don't know pain and suffering.  Winners don't accept reality.
 
The Democrats-- for several deacades-- equate loss at the polls with victories in virtue.  They won't say it.  No, they know the "little people" out there, punching the ballots, wouldn't like it.  These are the delusional Democrats, who think their votes should count.  Who don't think we're in a parliament in Europe running a perpetual opposition party.  Who think that, okay, this is a political race.  The party bigwigs are trying to win this. 
 
Nothing brings home the bacon to voters better than a win, and that includes pork.  There's nothing like winning, and the little people, who actually watch sports and American Idol and Top Chef instead of Tim Russert, know this.
 
The establishment, unfortunately, doesn't share this respect for a winner.  In fact, they have a thriving and completely unwholesome disrespect for one. 
 
Why?
 
Well, "winners" might have their name punched by someone with the mentality of someone...  in a red state.  Someone who actually thinks abortion is wrong!  And not just personally repugnant, but wrong when carried out on a grand (and virtually unchecked) scale.  Worse yet, they might actually be in a red state!
 
It might not be abortion. It could be any of the various social solutions proposed by the left for the plethora of problems that exist in America today.  The solutions that amount to a band-aid on top of a brain hemorrhage. 
 
It might have gotten to the point where it's bad enough where America might be ready, willing, and able to reject the DNC's radical social agenda very soon.  And they know this.  And it scares them.
 
Returning a moment to this theory of the DNC's love affair with losing elections, one has to wonder, then, how Bill Clinton ascended to his throne. 
 
The marriage.
 
It was the marriage, and the Southern charm.  One was just as important as the other.
 
No, no, not Bill's marriage to Hillary.  It was the marriage of the left's radical social agenda to liberal spending policies. This is in place in many of their losing elections, too, but minus Clinton's charm and crucially important regional Southern appeal.
 
Bill didn't break up the marriage.  It would have been to his detriment to do so.  His Southern charm would not have given him the electoral bankroll to dissolve it, even had he wanted to do so.
 
But that doesn't mean it will be unthreatened forever, and who is this Obama, anyway?  And this is where the fear enters in.
 
He's getting big turnouts in these traditionally red states, and in swing states.  What if he turns these states?  Will he feel some affinity towards these voters, should he win?  Will he feel some obligation to them?  Do we of the establishment feel like we can trust him to ignore these voters?
 
Why are they voting for him, and what do they expect in return?  Why does he talk about Reagan like he was actually human?  And what's all this crap about working together to get things done?
 
That's McCain's job!
 
Yes, and it scares them to think it might start to become their job, too.
 
And this is why the party establishment, so in love with losing, is scared to death.  Isn't it better to lose the presidency, but keep that marriage together?
 
Maybe the voters will finally get to answer that question, especially now, when the brave new world isn't looking so brave after all.  The marriage may not fall apart, but the fear of its doing just that will continue to be an overwhelming dynamic in Democratic elections.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eliot Spitzer in an Imperfect World

Last year, there were 1.3 million abortions in the United States.  Since Roe, there have been 40+ million abortions in the U.S.
 
There are 800+ Planned Parenthood facilities across the country, peddling contraceptives and promoting and performing abortions.
 
Tens of millions people in this country use contraceptives every year. 
 
Last year, the pornography industry was worth about $13.3 billion in the U.S. alone.  And Democrats should remember that buying Hustler never fed a hungry child.
 
But much of what we encounter in everyday life-- both in the media and walking down the street-- has become quasi-pornographic.  Indeed, many porno queens are being embraced in avenues of the mainstream culture, and we can see the results of this walking around amongst us in men, women, and their attitudes.
 
There are more strip clubs in this nation than anywhere else in the world.
 
Prostitution is legal in many counties in Nevada. 
 
There are 3.6 divorces per 1,000 total population.  That's the divorce rate.
 
When I was in my all-girls Catholic high school, there was always a car out in the parking lot with a bumper sticker that said, "Virginity Is Curable."
 
Larry Craig was caught doing his thing in an airport bathroom stall.  Everyone in the media was outraged.  One had to wonder if maybe they thought Larry should be forced to make an honest man of the potential stallmate, had he been anything other than an undercover police officer.  Maybe Larry should have proposed, or at least have dates with flowers, candy, and phone calls.  Pajamagrams.  Would this have been acceptable?
 
Then, we had the Bill and Monica romance way back when.
 
And we of course couldn't have some religious zealot nutcase like Mike Huckabee (who was governor of Arkansas for about ten years) in our highest political office.
 
And now, we have the media gasping in disbelief over the unfortunate Spitzer. 
 
"How could such a thing happen?"
 
Okay.  Okay, what do you guys think?  Do you think maybe the abortion-on-demand, strip-club-frequenting, condom-carrying, Playboy-subscribing, Victoria's Secret-shopping, contraceptive-patch-wearing mentality might be slightly involved here?
 
I know you're all shocked out there in the media.  I know you just cannot understand how the governor of New York could start engaging in the same dysfunctional behavior as many of his constituents.  You'll excuse me for saying so, but this is outrageous behavior in some circles, in some areas.  They're called "deep red states."  And you make a racket out of laughting at just this same audience, those raving lunatic "evangelicals," (otherwise known as "religious people" or "enemies of the people," depending on where you are) out there, actually acting like their votes count!
 
We don't want to legislate morality.  Arguably, they can't even legislate morally.  Now, they're actually engaging in immoral acts.
 
What a completely unexpected outcome.  Keep snickering at those wacky evangelicals because this is where it goes. 
 
Spitzer's hypocrisy is nothing compared to the hypocrisy of the media when it comes to issues like this.
You know, because everyone is judged by his or her own individual standards in the media's view, I think Spitzer should now have to prosecute both himself and the prostitute. 
 
It's preferable to having them condemned by the drive-bys, who will sit there, talk about the imperfect world, and stoke the fervor towards making it even more imperfect, if that's possible.  Let's all be realistic.  Spitzer isn't perfect.  As the media will remind us, when it coincides with their own agenda, this is an imperfect world.  And the media isn't perfect, either.  What a shame they can't see parallels between Spitzer's case of moral schizophrenia and their own.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Country for Young Men Running Against the Clintons

The idea of it coming down to a little place like Gettysburg or Vicksburg sounds way, way too much like something out of "Gone with the Wind."
 
But in this case, the civil war is over, and it is now impossible for Hillary to come back.  She would have to go after Obama's character with a hacksaw.  She would have to tear Obama into tiny bits and pieces until he looked like something left by starving wolves in a frozen wood. 
 
And she'd do it, but she's also have to get her second round in Florida and Michigan, saying that she doesn't want these voters not to count, while at the same time leveraging herself with superdelegates in such a way as to suggest many of Obama's voters really shouldn't count. 
 
She'd do that, too, but she'd also have to pull off sweeping victories in the remaining states so she could make her back-by-popular-demand pitch to the superdelegates.  And she'd probably have to start crying again, too.
 
But this time, the superdelegates would be the ultimate judges of Hillary's political viability. 
 
Ah, the superdelegates.  The Party of the People's ultimate check over the judgment of the people.  That touch of political provincialism introduced by the Democrats to protect them from lunatics receiving the nomination.  But this time, that check being exercised not against a Gary Hart, but a Barack Obama.
 
If she ended up "winning" the nomination in this manner, she would alienate a whole constellation of voters to the point where she could never get them back.  The ramifications of such an outcome would make the reaction to the remarks of her husband-- the Lady Macbeth of this election-- after South Carolina look like a virtual love feast in comparison.
 
Even if all the pieces in the unlikely plan fell into place, it's clear that Mrs. Clinton cannot win the nomination without destroying even her own chances in the general election.  Jonathan Chait has discussed many, many aspects of this in a recent column for the New Republic.   Chait said that by the time she was through, she wouldn't be able to beat Hitler's dog in the general election. 
 
One has to agree with that assessment, not only because of the public outcry over the Michael Vick case, but also because of the dynamic Obama has introduced into this race.  He doesn't want the same, old politics.  But here, alas, are the same, old Clintons.  Hillary would take all the unsavory steps necessary to secure the nomination; actually, she's already taken a few of them already.  The Clintons are not above these tactics.  One would think, though, that they are above cutting their own throats on the way to the general election, and this is exactly the outcome that this will produce. 
 
For this reason, and this reason alone, one can assume that the civil war is over.  But it's not any thanks to the Clintons.  They would escalate this to the point that if the Democratic Party had a red phone, it would be ringing at Obama's house at three in the morning, and James Carville would be on the other end of the line. 
 
But it won't happen.  You have to admit, though, that you cannot be completely sure in this case.
 
Will Hillary turn into one of those bad ex-boyfriends people always have horror stories about where if it wasn't going to be him at the prom, it wasn't going to be anyone?  Would the Clintons rather see the Republicans in the White House than a Democrat other than Hillary?  Will Bill end up like the crazy housemaid in Hitchcock's Rebecca?
 
Do they think McCain is a better Democrat than Obama?
 
For answers to these questions, please stay tuned, as the Bill and Hillary Show enters what reasonable people could believe are its last days.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing

It's still curtains.
 
And let me tell you how I know this.
 
You know, I blog for fun.  I'm not a "pundit."  But I watch them all the time.  Sometimes, right before I have to go and take an aspirin so I can come back and watch them some more, they'll say something that interests me.
 
The map, you know?  They pull those maps up all the time to show how Mrs. Clinton has all these blue states, and Mrs. Clinton has won this swing state, and Mrs. Clinton has won that swing state. 
 
Ohio!  So goes the nation(except in 1960)
 
!
 
And Obama's a big loser with all these red states (boo!  hissss...) that the Democrats will never carry in the general election.
 
So, you know, I got out a big wall map we have here, and I looked at some websites (really hard to understand ones, like Wikipedia), and do you know what I found?
 
True blue (or safe blue) states right now include Washington, Illinois, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, DC, Maryland, and Connecticut.  And Obama has won these.  Safe or true blues also include California, Rhode Island, New York, Deleware, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, and these have gone with Clinton.  Now, pundits, I think the score on that is eight to six.
 
Ah, but the pundits will fall over each other countering with the Super Blue Theory.  Mrs. Clinton has carried the ball for the Democrats in electorate-heavy New York, California, and Massachusetts!  Don't you know what this means?
 
Sure I do.  It means you could run out to the dime store, buy a GE light bulb, paint a smile on it, and dangle a blue tie on it.  And Democrats in these states would vote for it.  In fact, they did just this with John Kerry.  It worked, but you can't win the general election like that.
 
Next, the swing states. 
 
Ohio!
 
So goes the nation(except in 1960)
 
!
 
Right, but Ohio's not the only swing state on the map.  Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Virginia are all swing states, and they've gone for Obama.  Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico (where they were counting, and counting, and counting), Tennessee, and Arkansas are also swing states, and they've gone with Clinton.  Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania haven't voted yet. 
 
(I'm not counting Florida because I think all the cadidates have to agree that an election can be held there before you can call it a win.)
 
(I'm also not including Michigan in here because, unlike the Clinton camp, I think the opponent's name should be on the ballot to count as a win.)
 
Okay, so what I found especially striking about the swing state part is that when you look at the swing states on the map, Obama's home state is stuck right in the middle of a huge swath of them.  And he has already carved into the area pretty substantially.  If you look at Senator Clinton's New York, it's all GE country.
 
You know why the media isn't discussing any of this?
 
Because they're in the tank for Obama.  Thank God we have Saturday Night Live to look out for us!
 
So tell you what.  I'm just going to leave the pundits to muse over the super blues.
 
"But Hillary will deliver the super blues!"
 
And if Hillary is the one to deliver the super blues, the Democrats are going to be using those super blues in more ways than one.  And they will be double-edged.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A BYOB Election: Bring Your Own Ballots

It's still curtains for the Bill and Hillary Show.
 
But it's pandemonium for the Democrats, as Hillary swings through the air, virtually grabs hold of the curtains with her teeth, and bites down, hoping to bring them down with her before she can get back on her feet again.
 
Nothing could possibly illustrate this scenario more clearly than the BYOB election concept.  Candidates, bring your own ballots, and pay for the Florida and Ohio do-overs.
 
Now, how exactly is that supposed to play out?  And who exactly is going to be monitoring the results of these revolutionary new BYOB elections?
 
This sounds more like something out of the Republican playbook.  When Mitt Romney foot the bill for his campaign at different junctures, many of us shook our heads at the idea of Megabucks Mitt trying to buy his way into the White House.  But now, the Democrats have come up with this latest stroke of complete insanity. 
 
"Pay your own way!"
 
"Right, well, if you want it, go and pay for it yourself!"
 
Isn't the Democratic National Committee going to sound like the way Democrats have always portrayed a pair of bad Republican parents?
 
Let's hope it only does end up being Bring Your Own Ballots and not Buy Your Own Comeback. 
 
This entire thing is shaping up into a big, big mess.  Aren't the Democrats-- particularly Mrs. Clinton-- the ones concerned with our image around the world?  How exactly do they think this is going to look?  Even Fidel Castro-- the Mr. Saturday Night of communism-- is going to be scratching his beard at this one, provided he's still alive.
 
But back to Hillary with the curtains in her teeth, what is even more incredible than the BYOB election proposal is Mrs. Clinton's completely objective plan for just seating the delegates.
 
Seating these delegates. 
 
These delegates, from these don't-count elections, from these supposedly nullified contests.  Where (in one state) Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.
 
Is she kidding?  Alas, no, she is quite serious.  We don't want these voters "disenfranchised."
 
No, no, it's much better to disenfranchise the voters who listened, who may not have voted that day, who followed the rules and didn't bother, perhaps. 
 
Let's disenfranchise them!  Voters are sure to be disenfranchised in Mrs. Clinton's scenario, too.  But not the voters that gave her the nullified victories, and this fact may not matter when it comes to principle, but it definitely matters to Mrs. Clinton's campaign.  "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"  And he was borrowing tricks from the Karl Rove playbook.  Well, you have to hand it to the Clintons, I don't even know if you could find a playbook with the tactics they've adopted regarding Florida and Michigan.  The celestial choir is definitely not singing; it's more like the soundtrack from Goodfellas.
 
One might consider asking Mrs. Clinton to meet John McCain in the general election, just as she asked Obama to meet her in Ohio.  But you wouldn't want to count on this happening.  If there actually are re-dos in Florida and Michigan-- one of the only rational alternatives left-- you couldn't know positively that things would go Mrs. Clinton's way. 
 
You just never know what to expect with a party that might be BYOB.
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dream Is Always the Same, Part II

HILLARY: It's the hat again.
 
DOCTOR: Okay.  Tell me about that.
 
HILLARY: This time, I turn into the hat, and all the cattle start complaining about being taken in boxcars to a brokered convention.  And then, they all start screaming, "Yes, We, Can!  Yes, We, Can!"
 
DOCTOR: Yes, well, we've already discussed the fact that you have deep-rooted anxiety where Obama's charisma, brilliant rhetoric, and ability to connect with the voters are concerned.  It's giving you repressed feelings of guilt.
 
HILLARY: Mmhmm.  Well, one of the cattle that was screaming had a cigar in his mouth, and I think it was Rush Limbaugh.
 
DOCTOR: Yes.  Well, this confirms my theory that much of your guilt since the Ohio and Texas primaries stems from subconscious fears that Limbaugh has made you into a pawn by encouraging crossover voters from his own party to vote for you, thus sabotaging Obama's legimtimate chance for victory in the general election.  Not to mention the damage done to the party by making the voters watch you viciously attack Senator Obama right through to Pennsylvania and perhaps beyond.
 
HILLARY: Mmhmm.  Well, then the Limbaugh cattle pulls out a cell phone.  And all of a sudden, I'm in the White House, and it's--
 
DOCTOR: 3 a.m.?
 
HILLARY: Right!  So I figure it's Limbaugh calling to torture me, and I don't answer it.  But..
 
DOCTOR: Yes?
 
HILLARY: Well, it turned out to be a catastrophic crisis in the Middle East, and Obama ended up taking the call.  So I got impeached and Obama became president.
 
DOCTOR: Interesting.
 
HILLARY: I'm afraid to close my eyes now.  I keep hearing the cattle, "Yes, We, Can! Yes, We, Can!"
 
DOCTOR: Mrs. Clinton, when you were in Ohio, did you eat your way across the state again?
 
HILLARY: Yes I did.
 
DOCTOR: Did you by any chance have...  a steak?
 
HILLARY: Yes I did.
 
DOCTOR: Did you enjoy the steak?
 
HILLARY: Yes I did.
 
DOCTOR: Did you leave a tip this time, Mrs. Clinton?
 
HILLARY, Why, no, I must have forgot--  Oh, oh, I think I see what you're sa--
 
DOCTOR: Yes, You, Can!  Yes, You, Can overcome all of this repressed guilt, Mrs. Clinton.  Yes, You, Can!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dream Is Always the Same, Part I

HILLARY: So, I have this dream, and it's always the same.
 
DOCTOR:  What is it?  The hat?
 
HILLARY: Yes, the hat.  I've turned into a hat.
 
DOCTOR: And this is in the field of cattle.
 
HILLARY: Yes.
 
DOCTOR: We've discussed this before.  This is a reference to your Texas campaign, and how you alluded to the fact that Obama was all hat and no cattle.  Meaning, no substance.  But in reality, you yourself fear you're all style and no substance.  Do you understand?
 
HILLARY: Mmhmm.
 
DOCTOR: Now back to Texas and that 3 a.m. ad.
 
HILLARY: Mmhmm.
 
DOCTOR: Where did the idea for that ad come from?
 
HILLARY: I don't recall.
 
DOCTOR: You don't recall?
 
HILLARY: No.
 
DOCTOR: Think hard.
 
HILLARY: I don't know.
 
DOCTOR: Okay, but you approved the ad.
 
HILLARY: Well, yes.  Listen, you've already disclosed to me that you're an Obama contributor, and--
 
DOCTOR: Hillary, don't you think this ad makes you to appear to be something of a hawk?  And I mean, when you appeal to your base, you're always trying to look dovish.  Why did you run this ad?
 
HILLARY: Because of the state I was in.
 
DOCTOR: But Hillary, John McCain's the hawk.  You're supposed to be the victimized dove.  Are you planning on running this ad in Pennsylvania?
 
HILLARY: No.
 
DOCTOR: Why not?
 
HILLARY: Because of the state I'm in.
 
DOCTOR: Look, Hillary.  The ad isn't in keeping with your statements about wanting to take your vote back on Iraq.  You showed that when the phone rings, you don't know how to answer, or what to say.  Obama, on the other hand--
 
HILLARY:  It's hard.  You know?  It's hard--
 
DOCTOR: Mrs. Clinton, stop crying.  Now, Obama--
 
HILLARY (screaming): Look, you, what state am I in?  Texas is a conservative state!  I need to look like a hawk!  I have to look like a strong woman!  Pennsylvania is a whole different bag of cats!  Now, damnit, what state am I in?
 
DOCTOR: Dissociative state, altered state, it's hard to tell--
 
HILLARY: How many delegates do they have?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive