Constitution Club

Click Image To Order

The Beast had to have one, so he ordered it just now with a $25 donation. The link isn’t up at the McCain site so he had to call the NH office and they forwarded it in an email.

This will be a fun keepsake decades from now when he is old and gray and grumpy…

While The Chosen One spent a week and a half hobnobbing with Euro Elites and Hoi Polloi, McCain remained home and ate Obama’s lunch. The lap-dog press waxed rhapsodic over Obama’s ability to speak as an equal with foreign leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Sarkozy, but unlike Obama, those two actually won their elections! The closest analog might have been England’s Gordon Brown, who gained his office through internal party machinations and who came into power with high ratings that have since tanked on broken promises and a string of humiliating electoral defeats. Sound familiar?

Now Obama’s poll numbers are eroding. He received essentially no bounce from his summer vacation and appears to be losing ground faster than the French Army in 1940. The question in this Beast’s mind is how low do his numbers have to go before Hillary gets to step in at the Convention? And would she?

After all, the whole Super Delegate scenario was set up to avoid nominating a candidate with no chance of winning the general election. If Obama continues his slide - or even picks up speed downhill, could Clinton swing the supers her way in Colorado?

Obviously things are not so dire for his campaign right now. Predictions of disaster are just as premature for Obama today as they were for McCain a month ago (remember when he was supposed to be “toast”?). But you know that the Dems are hearing (through back channels) a constant chorus of “I told you so”. A race that was essentially frozen for two months despite a huge cash and media advantage - a $100 million a week burn rate is now beginning to move in the opposite direction. How far will the Dem leadership let it go before stepping in?

As a low level government functionary, the Beast is constantly reminded of his “responsibility” to remain ethical and transparent. One would wish that the folks at the top of the ladder felt similarly, but having worked in both the public and private sectors it’s pretty clear there are two standards. The same corporation that defines an hourly worker coming back from an (unpaid) half hour lunch a minute late as tantamount to theft seems to have no issues with the CEO throwing a birthday party for his second wife on the Island of Sardinia to the tune of two million - all funded through the employee stock purchase (slush) fund and written off as a business expense.

In any event, about once every two months or so the Beast is dragged from his cubicle and forced to watch some videotape or power point presentation about “respect in the workplace”. The general tenor of these videos seems to be aimed at teaching the white guys “How Not To Piss Off The Chicks And Minorities In Your Office”. The minorities seem to find this funny as hell and the chicks don’t care - they know that sometimes it’s impossible NOT to piss them off - and most kind of like to be hit on, as long as it’s from men they like. The only people who take this stuff seriously are the white guys who know they have the most to lose.

The point that gets drilled into us the most - and you may recognize this - is that “offense” is defined by law not as the intent of the speaker, but by the reaction of the listener. You can say something in all innocence and offend a person inadvertently, but that’s no defense! The standard is not what you meant to say but how what you said is received by the thin skinned loonie who gets his/her panties all a-twist.

And conservatives did not set this system up. Libs did this in the 80’s to make Sexual Harassment cases easier to win. remember Clarence Thomas anybody? Lefties swarmed the Networks to make the point that even if Thomas didn’t mean to harass Anita Hill he should still fry because she felt harassed.

A few years later panty chaser Clinton lurched into office towing a trawl of harassment cases and suddenly the “Always Guilty” crowd got a big case of laryngitis. The silence was deafening.

So what does this have to do with Obama?

He has been hinting for months that Republicans will play on racial fear to defeat him. Whether it’s how different he looks “from the other presidents on dollar bills” (Hint - there’s only one President on the dollar bill, but it may have been a while since he looked at such a low denomination) or “did I mention he’s black?” (as if we hadn’t noticed), Obama has been implicitly tarring the GOP with the racial brush.

And if we hold him to his own standard, the issue is not W.O.R.M. (What Obama Really Meant), but how his words are received by his targets. By LAW offense is in the eye of the beholder, and what he really meant is immaterial.

So whether he meant to call the entire GOP racists doesn’t matter. We feel that he has. We take offense - so by the standards put in place by his own party we are right. The ideology that pioneered the concept of “Racial Code” seems to discover nuance (”Obama was referring to the fact that earlier presidents were older and wore wigs, not that they were all white males…) only when it’s their own nuts in the wringer.

Now the only question is what kind of reparation does he owe us?

UPDATE

The Party Of Perennial Offense is now complain that McCain is being too sensitive!

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said McCain’s campaign was “misinterpreting” both the “tenor and the meaning” of Obama’s words.

“I think they should probably be a little less paranoid about parsing every word we say and a little more focused on actually addressing the challenges that Americans expect the president of the United States to take on,” he said.

Sensitivity for me but not for thee. How droll.

To get your sticker, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to;
NOBAMA Free Bumper Sticker
c/o Ted Jackson
2306 Frankfort Ave.
Louisville, KY 40206

You can read about Ted Jackson’s plan to distribute up to one million NOBAMA stickers by visiting McCainstore.com (not affiliated with the official McCain campaign).

UPDATE:  Also, be sure to check out the daily musings of Constitution Club as we examine the ongoing Presidential asipirations of the junior Senator from Illinios.  You’ll enjoy Obama’s Rolling Stone edification, the mocking of the Congress controlled by Dems, change we can’t believe in, and the coming fascist state (led by Obama and the Dems). 

Don’t just get the bumper of your car ready for the election, get your mind ready with Conclub!

Hussies? I find that beneath you Dave. Has it gotten so bad that you would stoop to that level of humor?

Since Dave posted a little funny about Obama, which is a contrived attempt at humor at best, I thought I would post a couple of McCain videos that are actual REAL footage of REAL words being uttered by this aging, out of touch,past his political prime and utterly confused REAL candidate. Bush was bad enough at stumbling through Q&As, but I think McCain tops him. Watching this video makes me pull for Obama even more in the hopes that even though “untested” and ultra liberal, he will at least be able to present a speech and not make many of us wince in pain while watching.

This next video is a great one where Dr Paul pwned McCain during one of the debates. It’s been mashed up with Miss Teen SC slaughtering a pagent question. Now this is real Humor, although exceptionally sad when you realize this man is running for president and acts utterly clueless when under pressure. At least Miss Teen SC is a hottie and easy to look at while wincing.

Word of the day:
HUSSIES n. Female Obama supporters changing their middle names to Hussein

The following is what happens when you combine free speech, anti-Obama fervor, modern technology, youtube, and Eastern Europeans. Warning, this is not exactly politically correct.

VIDEO: The OBAMAnable Snowjob (rare uncensored)

Variations of the “NOBAMA” bumper sticker concept are increasingly appearing on a road near you. This  Obamanation site shows a variety of pics of NOBAMA bumper stickers on vehicles. I am going with a different variant that I found on Ebay that should be ordered this week.

I prefer, and will be purchasing, this version for our two vehicles:

Senator Obama is a great unknown. I think seldom, if ever, has anyone gotten this far in the process and we’ve known less about them. He’s new, and he’s inexperienced. That’s one of the things that’s troubling to me, considering the times that we live in and that we’re going to be living in.”

“What we do know indicates that he is very typical. He is a young man on the move, very ambitious politically, been laying his groundwork for a long, long time to run for president. And he is one of the most liberal politicians in Washington. And he walks lockstep with the most liberal positions that come down the pike on every occasion.”

- Fred Thompson

Like most everybody, except McCain and our own DFV, Obama was one hundred percent wrong when it came to “the surge”. In many ways, it was the deciding factor (along with the sometimes maligned Gen. Petraeus and his tactics) that drastically curtailed the violence and bloodshed in Iraq and probably “won” the war for the US and our coalition allies.

 It takes a lot to admit when you are wrong. It takes even more to admit you are wrong when you want to be the leader of the free world. It would take a statesman to embrace the tactics, concepts, ideas and policies that would lead to victory on the battlefield once you had adopted the poor policy of attacking the very tactics, concepts, ideas and policies that had brought success all across the board on nearly every level in a time of war.

Change? Yeah, I want change. I want Obama to change.

Barack on Iraq:

January 2007—”And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000
more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any,
uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh,
privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on
the situation on the ground.”

July 2007—”Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said
today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re
going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the
president’s plan… My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we
will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”

September 2007—”After putting an additional 30,000 troops in… we have
gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable
levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after
all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago… It is a course that will
not succeed.”

January 2008—”I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that
given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops
in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we
would see a reduction in the violence.”

Now: “What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if
you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s
no doubt about that.”

(more…)

When you dare to attack the postions of THE MESSIAH or point out that, indeed, the Emperor wears no clothes these kinds of things are bound to happen. I’m kind of surprised that the New York Times didn’t just outright ask John McCain to withdraw from the race and endore Barack Obama.

The NYT Rejects and then Lectures John McCain

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

(more…)

Recently Watchblog, a site I write for from time to time, had a catastrophic server meltdown. The former site editor decided to take the opportunity to escape from the reservation and start his own website while preserving the original watchblog style, format and concept. He invited yours truly to join his limited stable of writers on the new site named Poliwatch. Today my first post is up. It is a new and improved version of my Top Ten Reasons Barack Obama Should Not Be President. Be sure to check it out on the new site.

Updated: And I just got ‘fired” for making the mistake of letting the owner of Watchblog know about this and for a couple of other emails that were circulating among the watchblog forum writers in regards to this. Easy come, easy go. I’ve been “fired” before, but never with such hostility, name-calling and false assumptions. Good stuff. Politics and Punditry is not for puffballs and the thin skinned.

As you may have noticed, many of us have been a bit scarce on Conclub and for that we apologize. I for one have been drafted by a variety of my friends, family, coworkers and readers to launch an independent bid for the white house. I may not win, but in this turbulent time of political uncertainty there is still room for a voice of reason and common sense. The truth may hurt, but I believe that the American people deserve better than what they have been receiving from both political parties. My cousin emailed me this clip of a news story about my entrance and progress in the race so far.

Dave for President!

Fred Thompson is no Gandhi

At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?

It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” “Collective suicide,” he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.”

The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When Americans think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.

Gandhi probably wouldn’t approve, but I can live with that.

I couldn’t agree more. I often wonder what a Thompson presidency would have looked like. He’d make a good president but he didn’t have the stomach for the cut throat circus that is the modern day presidential race. The rise and fall of both the Guiliani and the Thompson campaigns was striking to behold and yet little has been written about them. Rarely do you see candidates fall so fast without there being a scandal as the cause (think Gary Hart).

Or perhaps we should call it “The Barries”?

A few months ago the Beast came across a fascinating analysis of this year’s campaign using “Game Theory”. Now, the only game theory the Beast knows is that if you try to take Asia while playing Risk you’re doomed. If you attempt it while playing the drinking game version of Risk, you could well slide into a coma. But we digress.

Here’s the thesis in a nutshell: in a bad year for the GOP, Republican voters chose to play it safe when they picked McCain. Yes, they weren’t going to get the big ideological payoff from him they might have reaped from a more conservative candidate, but that’s still better than losing the election whereupon they get zippo.

Dems, on the other hand sensed the political wind at their back and went with a higher risk candidate - expecting a bigger ideological payoff. The question is, did they go too far away from the center? Is Obama (as the Clintons suggest) unelectable?

Certainly after his campaign oozed across the primary finish line last spring it appeared not to be so. After all, Obama had done what no Republican had ever managed - he killed a Clinton. But just barely. In fact, had the Dems not screwed up their nominating process so totally with oddball “Apportioned” delegates, Obama would be stumping for Hil right now. And the frothy nutroots/black block voters loved him. But was it enough? Just barely: this was the first time in recent history that a breakout candidate in a Primary season actually lost momentum as he came closer to ultimate victory.

So Obama got a slight bump and entered the general election season with a statistical edge that remains tiny, but is real. How has he fared since?

Not well. The baggage he accumulated in the Primary continues to drag at his heels. First problem - he started on the defensive and can’t get out of it. Consider his attempt through surrogates to attack McCain’s war record. How did that go? Obama can’t score points off of his opponent to save his life. For example he refuses to do town hall meetings - no suprises there, McCain is best in a group setting off the cuff, but Obama clings desperately to his teleprompter because he can’t open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.

Because he ran as a “New” kind of politician he can’t turn to the old tactics of going negative without losing yet another layer of gilt. Meanwhile, he continues to score points off himself and even takes the occasional hit from McCain, whose campaign machine sputters along the breakdown lane at fifteen miles an hour with the right directional blinking on and off.

The Dems see this and it’s giving them the cold shivers. A statistical dead heat in July? In a Dem year? Cripes, even Dukakis had better numbers than that and he had decades of executive experience! Obama has been coasting on momentum he built up early in the Primary season when he was largely a Political cypher - a screen upon which voters could project whatever they wished. But it didn’t take long for hint of the real man to begin peeking through and signs of clear buyer’s remorse to start setting in.

Second problem - he’s on the wrong side of Iraq, Oil drilling, campaign finance reform and scads of other issues. But when he attempts to switch over to a less nutty position his lefty base bays and foams at the mouth in fury. They load his website with profane rants. The Hilaryites gloat. He’s pinned to his positions like chloroformed moth. Obama can’t win as a Liberal, but the Liberals won’t let him pivot to the center - even if it’s only for the General Election.

Third problem - money. Money? Yeah you’d not think that a problem considering all the gobs and gobs of it he’s raised so far. But he’s had to spend those gobs as fast as they came in to get past Hilary. And now that he’s eschewed public money he is totally dependent on his supporters, many of whom have become a tad disenchanted. As of this moment Obama and the DNC has an estimated $72 mil in the bank after reporting (two weeks late) $52 mil raised in June. McCain? With $22 mil last month he and the RNC have $95. Hmmm…

Forth problem - the MSM. They’re getting tired of having to drag his sorry ass past every self-made slip up. Of course he and they both know that no matter what he does the fawning press will provide cover, but this is not a normal political season. In times past when the media favored a Dem all they did was piss off Republicans, whom they had abandoned decades ago anyway and never had to deal with at fancy cocktail parties in Mathattan. This year the Hilary Dems are watching, too. And they do show up at aforementioned parties. How embarassing.

The WaPo took him to task yesterday for his Iraq stance. Amazing, but true. One has to wonder how much love media Obama will lose as he goes on.

Finally, there’s the McCain campaign itself. All it has to do is put down the remote, get off the couch and actually fight a bit (like normal Republicans) to actually beat Obama. We’re starting to see signs that may happen. Stick to the board, fellow gamers - there’s lots of play ahead!

March 20 issue

July 10 issue

Barack Obama graces the cover of Rolling Stone magazine for the second time in the campaign. After the first cover he got, I didn’t think it was possible to give him a more worshipful picture, but they have done so. In the first cover, they create the look of a mythical figure, no doubt the hero of their dreams. In the later cover, it’s as if Obama is too divine to even have words placed around him. Like it would be profane to sully a page containing his visage with normal language. Orthodox Jews won’t write the name “God,” believing it to be too sacred, instead writing “G-d.” How long will it be before the Rolling Stone’s of the world begin to write about the breathtaking virtues of Bar-ck Ob-ma?

BTW, for a hoot, go read the first several comments on this website.

Well, maybe not so much.

I am thinking tonight on behalf of America’s left wing, so preeminently embodied by the leftist blogs, Keith Olbermann, and ConClub’s own Andre the Defiant. (CC’s Wes is a sometimes-member of this fraternity.)

For at least three years now, the American Left has vigorously argued that the anti-terrorism law enforcement efforts of the Bush administration were treasonous and fascist and a threat to the very existence of our democracy. At the time, I laughed off such nonsense as the ignorant rantings of the tendentiously deranged, detailing in a typically lucid and thoughtful post just how silly their arguments were.

On the 4th of July last year, I specifically singled out Keith Olbermann for his latest temper tantrum against seriousness when he yelled:

“I accuse you,” he said, referring to Bush, “of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.”

I knew that his ranting about the Bush/Nazi state was all for show, that no thinking American could believe it, and that it was the modern equivalent of a snake-oil salesman’s pitch.

You see, earlier — in April of 2007, to be precise — I had predicted the coming Democratic capitulation. I knew, as even many Democrats themselves did not at the time, that their position was a loser in terms of politics, constitutional law, and the good of the nation. And contrary to the rage of Olbermann, Greenwald, and Andre the Defiant, the Democratic Party would recognize all of this and completely reverse their position. At the time, I had this to say: 

As proof [of my belief that the Democrats would abandon their position], I openly wrote - in the run-up to the ‘06 elections - that when the Democrats took the Congress, they would do nothing to peel back the administration’s efforts [on wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc.].

Here we are today, and Harry Reid wants to spy on Americans. Nancy Pelosi wants to rifle through people’s library checkouts. Joe Biden helps the government keep track of your bookstore purchases. And Chuck Schumer himself thinks the Pentagon should infiltrate honest groups of American citizens merely trying to assemble.

My predictions were spot on, but only touched the surface of the Democratic roll over. Yesterday, the US Senate voted overwhelmingly to give President Bush the very spy powers which were once derided as Orwellian. It is no surprise that Barack Obama supported this “fascism,” nor that the formerly stalwart leftist media mavens suddenly came around as well. ConClub’s E the Wise wrote about the phenomenon of leftist rationalization and how liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald stood as a voice in the wilderness of liberal excuse-making.

At this point, no one who seeks to be taken seriously argues that the position of the Left circa 2002-2008 with respect to the Patriot Act or wiretapping surveillance is one worth acknowledging.

“Obama’s seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA,
campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What’s
left? Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.”

—Charles Krauthammer 

“Obama’s constant policy adjustments tend to be admired for their alleged
deftness rather than condemned for their obvious cynicism, while his liberal
primary positions are presumed to be sincere—the shifts being carried out
just to trick the foolish old people who wouldn’t vote for such an obvious
liberal.”

—Tony Blankley

It all happened on Bill O’Reilly’s show. I bet Bill, the blowhard got a woody and could barely contain himself over this exclusive.

Jackson thought his mic was off while on Fox news (O’Reilly Factor). Said some things about Obama and now apologizes:

“For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize, My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historical moment.”

Sure you do…. and more in a statement to CNN:

“My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.”
“That was the context of my private conversation and it does not reflect any disparagement on my part for the historic event in which we are involved or my pride in Senator Barack Obama, who is leading it, whom I have supported by crisscrossing this nation in every level of media and audience from the beginning in absolute terms.”

Even his son is outraged. Statement to ABC News:

“I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career. Instead of tearing others down, Barack Obama wants to build the country up and bring people together so that we can move forward, together — as one nation. The remarks like those uttered on Fox by Revered Jackson do not advance the campaign’s cause of building a more perfect Union. Revered Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

Jesse needs to quit being a media whore.

Fox is supposed to air the dirty laundry tonight. Time for more popcorn. Should be intersting to see what the Rev had to say that has him backpedaling so fast.

UPDATE: From the Obama campaign: “As someone who grew up without a father in the home, Senator Obama has spoken and written for many years about the issue of parental responsibility, including the importance of fathers participating in their children’s lives. He also discusses our responsibility as a society to provide jobs, justice, and opportunity for all. He will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and he of course accepts Reverend Jackson’s apology,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

To have been a fly on the wall. I wonder what was said behind closed doors. More popcorn, please.

“Being shot down may not qualify one to be president, as retired Gen. Wesley Clark infamously said recently. But what men do under fire might tell us about the character we may discover in a president. Clark’s precise words, aimed at undermining John McCain’s executive experience, were: ‘I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.’ In fairness, Clark also praised McCain’s heroism, saying that he honored his service as a prisoner of war and even that ‘he was a hero to me.’ Predictably, Republicans were outraged and Democrats were outraged at the GOP’s outrage. For his part, Barack Obama performed the political minuet of condemn ‘n’ distance. He condemned the remarks and distanced himself from his surrogate/general… Clark misses the point of McCain’s story. McCain isn’t a hero because he was tortured. He’s a hero because he declined an offer by his captors to be released, refusing to leave his fellow Americans behind. It may not take much effort to get shot down, but it must take a considerable act of will to consign oneself to more deprivation and torture. It must take a level of courage unknown to most to place concern for others above one’s own interest. Surely self-sacrifice, courage and loyalty figure somewhere in the calculus for selecting a president. We can make no similar analysis of Obama, since he hasn’t fought in any wars in his lifetime. But we have been given a glimpse at how Obama responds to external pressures and where he draws the line on loyalty and self-sacrifice. When it comes to family and friends it seems Obama is first a survivalist… Clark is right that getting shot down doesn’t qualify one to be commander in chief. But it is relevant to wonder with whom one would rather share a foxhole.”

 —Kathleen Parker

Okay, so in the last week Barack Obama has changed his support for FISA telecom immunity, NAFTA renegotiation, handgun bans, and his pledge to take public campaign financing.  Now these aren’t necessarily little things like pandering to religious conservatives by talking about originalist judges.  These are major policy shifts that Obama used to seize the left and win the primaries with.  At this point it is clear that Obama could advocate immediate strikes on Iran and drilling of ANWR and the left would applaud and say, “I told you that’s what needed to be done!  That is leadership!” 

So just where is Obama on the current war?  The conservatives here have said repeatedly that when the Dems win the White House, the reality of the office will show just how foolish their calls for immediate withdrawl were.  The Obama team understands this and have scheduled their man to fly to Iraq very soon.  These events are not lost on McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb (formerly of the Weekly Standard). 

Playing to the Democrartic party’s antiwar base, Obama pledged to withdraw troops regardless of the facts on the ground. He opposed the surge, and even warned that it would make the violence worse. And as progress became apparent, he stubbornly refused to recognize the gains our troops were making.

Yet now that Obama has indicated he will take any position needed to seize the center, it looks like Iraq will be his next flip-flop:

So what issue will he shift on next? After looking at the numbers from yesterday’s Quinnipiac battleground polls, we’re betting Iraq. It turns out that Americans as a whole aren’t nearly so eager for surrender as the left-wing of the Democratic party, and Obama isn’t much for staking out unpopular positions.

I don’t really find the new positions Obama has staked out or will stake out soon, objectionable.  I just find myself repulsed by the way the media and his apologists haven’t the slightest bit of courage to call him on them (except for Glen Greenwald).  Change you can believe in, my ass.

I often rail about the hate-mongers on the left who base their policy support and opposition only on whether or not Bush is for or against it.  Such hacks show no propensity to think outside of what the nutroot blogs tell them to think.  So when Glenn Greenwald has a minor spat with Keith Olbermann over FISA, I am comforted by the fact that the savy Greenwald is at least a man of principle. 

This episode doesn’t really originate with either Greenwald nor Olbermann.  It actually centers around yet another Barack Obama flip-flop (shocker!).  Apprently, after vehement opposition last year, Obama is now planning to vote for an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  The update he supports will give telecoms immunity from prosecution if they cooperate with the government’s Terrorist Surveillance Program.  Greenwald wrongly opposes such immunity and believes that lawsuits are an acceptable way to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citiznes.  Olbermann also opposed such immunity going so far as to rant against it in one of his “Special Comments” last January.  Greenwald details the rest:

In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”

Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.” Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration.

But as Greenwald notes, that was “five whole months ago.”

Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed.

 Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:

Make no mistake about it; Olbermann, Alter and Obama are snakes.  Obama will say or do anything to get elected.  Alter is perfectly content to whore himself and his magazine out to the left and Olbermann doesn’t have a shred of credibility with his unhinged, hate-filled tirades against George Bush (You SIR!).  But on this issue, they are correct.  Greenwald, on the other hand, is a fringe left constitutionalist who recently wrote a book about manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP ignoring the stellar voting patterns of Democrats. 

But on this issue, at least he is consistent.  I encourage you to pick through the links and the replies by Olbermann on DailyKos.  He only makes more of an ass of himself as he tries to defend his 180 degree turn. 

Just in case you had missed it earlier in the week. This was really one odd piece of campaign strategy. It’s like watching a kid playing president at times. But at least he’ll “slow the rising of the oceans” when he’s POTUS. That will be a good thing, won’t it?

For Dave and his GOP buddies who seem to be scared to death of an Obama presidency.

I love me some RATM.

Can I just get a hat tip?

Meanwhile, the only person bringing up race outside of the media is Barack Obama.  In a foreshadowing of just how low Obama will stoop, on Friday Obama stated that the scary Republicans will try to make voters afraid of him and scare up votes for John McCain.  He cuts right to the age-old Democratic tactics of painting Republicans as racists who are trying to keep the black man down. . .

So now we know what the Democratic response will be should John McCain win the election this November.  It will have nothing to do with Obama’s dearth of foreign policy experience.  It will be totally unrelated to his desire to raise taxes on Americans.  It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has been on the national scene for all of four years.  And his inability to connect to working class white voters and some females will have nothing to do with it.  It will have everything to do with the terrible Republican racists in the U.S. of KKK - A.        Me, June 22, 2008

Of course, if Obama is right that voters reject “that old stuff,” then none of this should matter. You ought to be able to choose between Obama and McCain on their merits, irrespective of race. It is Obama himself who, by calling attention to his race in this way, is employing the “old stuff”: trying to take advantage of white guilt and black fear.     James Taranto  -  June 23, 2008

More proof that the wisdom of Conclub is always ahead of the curve.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” —-C.S. Lewis

If the government gets into the business of regulating and controlling carbon emissions it will be an unparalleled concentration of power far exceeding the New Deal under Roosevelt. The government will be in complete control over what businesses and average citizens consume and produce. It is the gateway excuse to rule, regulate and control your daily life in a fashion that we have never tolerated before but are now expected to meekly accept as we attempt to bailout the bathtub with a teaspoon. Never have Americans been so willing to hand over the most fundamental financial, transportation and quality of life decisions to a central authority on such questionable grounds.

We have been brainwashed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity and that somehow carbon taxes, economic socialism, monitoring lawn mower emissions, criticizing cow flatulence and flailing away at the faceless evil that is “oil” will somehow make a difference on climate changes we are only barely beginning to understand, let alone significantly influence one way or another.

Rather disturbingly, presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama made the following statement while campaigning in Oregon.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” “That’s not leadership,” Obama declared. “That’s not going to happen.”

(more…)

Midway through the primary cycle in March, the race of Barack Obama became a primary topic when Hillary supporter and fellow feminist Geraldine Ferraro claimed that, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”  On this site there was a mixture of opinions on this statement.  My take on it (and the correct take) was that in politics, a candidate is who he or she is and the sum of those parts appeal to a variety of different people.  Being black helps Obama in the way that being a vet helps McCain. 

On the issue of race, one could literally get ten different opinions on how race will affect the election.  An ABC News poll shows that whites are largely unaffected by race.  Similarly, a Fox News poll shows that two-thirds of Americans would be proud to have Obama as president.  The Guardian in the U.K. chose to focus on that other third by saying that “a third of those polled - including both white and African-American voters - admitted to feelings of racial prejudice.” 

And certainly, double standards will permeate the campaign when dealing with race, gender, class, and age.  Dave made a good observation the other day when he noted the chimp moniker for President Bush that would never be tolerated for a candidate/President Obama.  Similarly, it is chic in this campaign to discriminate based on age or gender but don’t you dare make your decision based on race (unless you are a white yuppie liberal that bathes in the muddy waters of racial guilt). 

Meanwhile, the only person bringing up race outside of the media is Barack Obama.  In a foreshadowing of just how low Obama will stoop, on Friday Obama stated that the scary Republicans will try to make voters afraid of him and scare up votes for John McCain.  He cuts right to the age-old Democratic tactics of painting Republicans as racists who are trying to keep the black man down:

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid,” Obama said at the fundraiser. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.”

So now we know what the Democratic response will be should John McCain win the election this November.  It will have nothing to do with Obama’s dearth of foreign policy experience.  It will be totally unrelated to his desire to raise taxes on Americans.  It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has been on the national scene for all of four years.  And his inability to connect to working class white voters and some females will have nothing to do with it.  It will have everything to do with the terrible Republican racists in the U.S. of KKK - A. 

Is a Democrat and my favorite author. He also in not a big fan of Obama and radical environmentalism. Andre once basically asked (sarcastically) “which is it, is Obama a Muslim or a nutty Christian?” Card believes the answer is that Obama’s true religion is environmentalism. He is probably right.

Obama’s Real Religion

No, what troubles me most is what he said right after that, while campaigning in Oregon: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

“That’s not leadership,” Obama declared. “That’s not going to happen.”

What’s not going to happen? Us continuing to drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes at 72 degrees? Or other nations saying OK?

We already know, from Obama’s comments at a private meeting with big-pocket donors in San Francisco, that he’s an elitist who sneers at the common people who cling to religion and guns because they’re bitter about job losses twenty years ago.

But what this statement reveals is that Obama’s real religion has nothing to do with Reverend Wright.

Obama is a true believer in the religion of Environmentalism.

But at least it’s a start. If I were the Republican strategist running the brain trust for the 2008 elections, there wouldn’t be one interview, one TV spot, or one piece of literature that would not explicitly, boldly, loudly, and bitterly attack the Democrats for soon to be $5.00 a gallon gasoline and the resulting skyrocketing prices of nearly everything that is connected to such prices. Not to mention that I would make the words “Democrats” and more taxes synonymous. Barack has basically promised to raise taxes on just about everything and isn’t feeling overly upset over high gas prices. The GOP, if it was smart, would be able to nail the Dems to the wall on the energy issue. That should be a Republican issue and if presented right would be a brilliant propaganda coup in the fall elections.

Bush to urge lifting of ban on offshore drilling

“With gasoline now over $4 a gallon, tomorrow he will explicitly call on Congress to also pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said on Tuesday.

 Republicans have called for ending a ban on offshore drilling that has been in place since 1981, but Democrats have repeatedly rebuffed such attempts on environmental concerns.

Israel Developing Consensus In Favor Of Iran Strike -Spiegel

The Israeli government no longer believes sanctions can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons and a broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities - without the U.S., if necessary - is beginning to take shape, according to an article in Spiegel Online. The report cites recent comments by Israeli officials, including comments by deputy prime minister Shaul Mofaz, which were widely dismissed, by the U.S. and others, as electioneering.

“In truth, however, there is now a consensus within the Israeli government that an air strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities has become unavoidable,” Spiegel Online writes.

I think a President Obama destabilizes the Middle East and increased the risk of major conflict in the region. Iran, Syria and their host of proxy armies from Hezbollah to Hamas to Islamic jihad will be emboldened and a more isolated Israel will be more willing to take matters into their own hands if they don’t feel they have “big brother” Uncle Sam ready to take care of things for them. Despite his protestations, Obama is no friend of Israel and appears to be Carter like overly friendly with its sworn enemies who have vowed to finish what Hitler started. We will see increased instability, emboldened terrorist and rogue regimes, a nuclear Iran and far higher gas prices amidst a very jittery world market come next spring if we are not careful.

But then again, the masses cry for change. Be careful what you wish for. He will do it. Yes he can.

I’ve got a buddy who is a big time Nader supporter. I know I know but he means well really. Anyway he’s been bugging me for quite some time to go to one of Nader’s rallies. I must admit it has been a tempting invitation. After all Nader, being a minor candidate despite all of the attention he is given, has a lot of smaller town hall type rallies which afford troublemakers like myself the opportunity to actually ask him a question.

Ralph will be holding a rally in uptown Manhattan on Wednesday. Now I’ll be out of town on busniess out in Dana’s neck of the woods Tuesday and Wednesday during the day but I may be able to make it back to the area in time to attend his little shindig so I ask you, my fellow conclubbers; what would you ask Ralph Nader if given such an opportunity? Please spare me the usual “Why did you ruin the election for Al Gore” claptrap. I don’t support Nader but the man’s got as much right to run for President as Obama, McCain or any other qualified individual. So let’s have it folks. What would you ask Ralph Nader?

Barack Hussein Obama

A privileged African-American, who has not shared the black American experience
By birth, blood and training, a Muslim, who has been a member of a Black-African church for 20 years
A socialist whose politics are rooted in Marx and whose tactics were devised by Alinsky
A master at shaping his own mythology and completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief

More of that independent blogging/researching/campaigning/politicking that we’ve talked about and that the candidates and campaigns hate so much.

But at least he’s modest:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” - Barack Obama

But sometimes it is hard to decipher when he is being honest (then or now):

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

“The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

Why Voter ID laws are fucking stupid:

A 97-year-old Surprise woman who has voted in the past 19 presidential elections said she finds herself a casualty in the voter ID battle.

Shirley Preiss cannot register in Arizona for the November elections without proof of citizenship.

“I’m a legal American,” Preiss said. “I’m born here. Born and raised in America.”

The Arizona law was approved by voters in 2004 as Proposition 200 on that year’s general election ballot. It requires voters to produce specified types of identification when casting ballots at polling places and to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote either for the first time or in a different county.

Preiss was born in 1910 in Clinton, Ky., before birth certificates were issued. She said she no longer has a driver’s license and never had a passport.

This is just sad. How proud the GOP must be, but if it’s the only way you can win…

This election is going to be nasty and very interesting watch. I love the fact that anybody can post their own form of propaganda on the internet. Who cares if it’s right or wrong, it’s entertainment after all right? You know the campaigns just hate this stuff.

Step right up folks to the presidential fun fest. In one corner we have the possibly yellow teethed POW war hero and Senatorial maverick John McCain vs. Barack Obama: Bastard Child?… Or Son of a Bigamist?  We are just really getting started and already it feels like it’s been forever, especially when you throw in the long and nasty Democratic primary battle. But it is my job as a proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to properly vent Senator Barack Obama at every opportunity. And today we are starting with this story from Gateway Pundit.

Barack Obama Sr. left Barack when he was 2. He did come back and visit his son one other time before his death. Obama Sr. had 8 children with 4 different women…

…It is not clear if Barack Obama Sr. and 18 year old Ann Dunham were married when Barrack Obama Jr. was born.
The birth certificate may hold this information.
This may help settle the argument on whether Obama is a illegitimate child or the son of a bigamist.

Why won’t Barack Obama release his birth certificate?

In an uncharacteristically ridiculous column, Peggy Noonan imagines that Democratic voters all sat down at the kitchen table and carefully ruminated upon their electoral decisions, whereupon they collectively concluded that they simply couldn’t countenance the prospect of electing Hillary Clinton. The assertion is absurd and belied by all available data and even a rudimentary knowledge of how the primary played out.

Over the last three months of the campaign, Clinton won 9 of the final 16 primaries, out garnering Obama 189 delegates to 119. All of this, after the media had declared that Obama would be the party’s nominee. In fact, in actual primary elections, Clinton won more votes from Democratic voters than Obama did. This, even though Obama massively outspent her.

The reasons Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee in 2008 are because his campaign was a masterful operation, Clinton’s campaign was a disaster, and the Democratic Party is more radicalized than at any time in American history.

Time’s Karen Tumulty has the story of Team Obama’s dominating organizational advantage.   From the outset, the Chicago team planned better, ran smarter, and raised substantially more money than their counterparts. That it took Obama until June to seal the nomination in spite of these massive advantages speaks to how much better a candidate Clinton is than he.

BACKING THE RADICAL

Of course, even with those advantages, there is no way a Chicago black radical whose associations have run almost exclusively with the most left-wing segment of American society today could compete in any other election. It is only because today’s Democratic Party is more hard-core leftist than at any time prior that Obama could ascend to its helm.

A party that wanted only political combat could not abide a candidate who had actually worked across the aisle with Republicans. A Democratic base that has never believed the American military brings anything other than destruction had no patience for a candidate who insisted that our nation not abandon Iraqis to their fate prematurely.  And the hard left blogosphere that is sickened by American patriotism found their perfect candidate in the man whose own view of the pledge of allegiance, the national anthem, and even little flag lapels was disdainful. (more…)

We actually discussed this at some length at the Conclub conclave on Friday night. Hopefully, the McCain team is actually paying attention to how the game is played and where the end zone is actually located. The Hillary team not only didn’t seem to realize that they were in a contest but what the rules were. Can the Republicans not repeat her mistake and outplay the Obama camp at their own game?

The last two elections have all come down to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. But this election has even more states ‘in play’ than we have seen before and the ability to put together the needed “magic number” of 270 electoral votes can be arrived at in a fascinating number of ways. Unless it becomes a blowout, this will be an interesting, nail-biting, neck to neck race to the finish line.

Each Party Is Set to Hunt The Other’s Usual Ground

Democrats enjoy a highly favorable electoral climate at this start of the general election, created by gloomy attitudes about the state of the country and economy, President Bush’s low approval ratings and negative perceptions of the GOP. But as Obama shifts his attention from his primary victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to his test against McCain, the electoral map nonetheless foreshadows another highly competitive race in November.

McCain and Obama offer a rare combination of nominees able to poach on the other party’s turf. Both have proven appeal to