Archive for the ‘2008 Races’ Category

It would be hypocritical for Larry Craig not to resign. Goodbye!

August 29, 2007

Yes, the Senate Republican leadership has called for an ethics investigation.  But, what they need to do is tell Larry to tuck his tail between his legs – no pun intended, much – and slink off.

He has hired counsel to look into his agreement to a plea deal?  Give me a break!  Not only is he a U.S. Senator that has helped pass laws in out country, he was smart enough to plead out to the minor misdemeanor of “Disorderly Conduct“, to avoid the higher misdemenor count of “Interference with Privacy” that could gotten him incarcerated.  Additionally, judges make sure you know what you are doing, before you agree to a plea deal.  This is another stupid move on his part.

It is just as stupid as him blaming the Idaho Statesman for going on a witch hunt to persecute him.  They had information on the incident long before they ever ran the story.  They sat on the story until the disposition of the case.  Craig agreed to a plea deal on a charge in which he was accused of soliciting sex from an undercover male officer in the men’s room at an airport, where they were investigating lewd behavior. 

Now, tell me something.  If you were accused of soliciting homosexual sex from an undercover officer and you really were innocent, would you ever agree to a plea deal to handle it “expeditiously”?  Not me!  If it were me and I were innocent, I would fight it tooth and nail to clear my name, period.

You know Mitt Romney has to be on edge right now.  I wonder why that video on Romney’s YouTube account disappeared?  I don’t guess that takes  rocket scientist, huh?

Fortunately, Allah has it over at HotAir.  Check it out.

Here is Craig’s full statement on the incident at his site.  Video of his press conference is over at HotAir.

Michelle Malkin is probably right, “He’s a lying crapweasel.”

Go way, Larry!  Now!

Others posting on this topic:  JunkYardBlog / Bill’s Bites / Liberty Pundit / Outside The Beltway | OTB / Say Goodbye Larry / The Purple Nation / Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger / Antony Loewenstein / / Neocon News / Think Progress / / Sen. Craig: Fiddle Faddle in a non-Fiddling Party / PAXALLES / Radio Left / Jeremayakovka / Wonkette / Hot Air / Webloggin / the unequivocal notion / On a Quest… / Spokompton / Hot Air / A Blog For All / BIRD / Dust my Broom / Subject to Complete Defeasance  / Right Ringtail / Keith Burgess Jackson / Conservative Musings / Freedom Folks / Hardcore Politics / My Wired News / The Shot! @


A diss or not a diss? That is the question.

August 22, 2007


So, was Michelle Obama, the wannabe first lady, taking a swipe at her husband’s Dem rival, Hillary Clinton?  Via the Chicago Sun-Times.

At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part “to model what it means to have family values,” adding “if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.” She didn’t elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

Honestly, I think Michelle Obama is going to be an even bigger liability for Barack during his campaign in 2008 than Teresa Heinz was for John Kerry in 2004.  Now, that takes some doing.

But, to answer Michelle Malkin’s question, Michelle Obama was dissing Hillary.  It is common practice for the lagging candidates to take jabs at the leader of the pack in a primary.  Obama and Edwards are regularly taking shots at Hillary.  It is a way for them to try to work their way out of a slump in their lagging campaigns.  It happens in both parties.   But, come convention time, once the primaries are over, rivals now will be singing the virtues of their current opponents.  Some may even be

Interestingly, I was listening to The Hallerin Hilton Hill Show this morning on WNOX, I believe it was, and it was mentioned that Barack Obama appeals to young Americans.  It was also noted that young Americans don’t tend to vote.  That could explain some of his slump in the race, so far.  John Edwards, well he is a walking contradiction with the platform on which he is trying to run as a champion of the downtrodden with his expensive haircuts, a mansion for a home, etc.  That could explain his slump.  That may also explain why his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, is fighting for his candidacy.

Sick the ladies on Hillary, so the guys don’t get any backlash for doing it themselves.  Not the dumbest move on the record.

Others posting on this topic:  Neocon News /

Hillary: “There is only the fight…”

August 22, 2007

Saul Alinsky via 

Our political views tend to evolve slightly over time.  Mine for example, in my younger years, were slightly right-of-center.  As I have gotten older, studied, read (contrary to Pat Schroeder’s position) and researched issues, I have moved farther and farther to the right.  As a result, I am a pretty staunch conservative, both fiscally and socially.

As Maynard points out on Tammy Bruce‘s blog, there are several prominent people whose positions have evolved over the years, including Tammy’s.  But, he also notes that Ronald Reagan and David Horowitz both stood with the Left in their youth, quite the contrary to Reagan as our 40th president or Horowitz as the editor of FrontPage Magazine today.  So, it is not impossible for a person to gradually take on different views.

But, I am not quite sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton has changed that much from her radical youth.  She is trying to convince voters that she is a centrist.  Now, pandering to the nutroots at the YearlyKos would seem rather contradictory to that effort but she professes a centrist position, nonetheless.

But, this may not make any sense to the average reader until they get a chance to look at Hillary’s thesis at Wellesley College in Massachusetts in 1969.  Her paper was on Saul Alinsky and deals with how to change America’s political culture.  The militant title, “There is only the fight…“, speaks to the Alinsky’s approach and, quite possibly, the author’s.

GOPublius has an HTML version of Hillary’s thesis and Freedom Underground has the PDF version of the same.  The HTML is an easier read on the eyes but having to click to get to different pages is a bit time consuming.

Oddly enough, the paper was locked away at the Clintons’ request, when Bill Clinton was elected as the 42nd president.

…the Clintons asked Wellesley [College] in 1993 to hide Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis…

Wellesley’s president, Nannerl Overholser Keohane, approved a broad rule with a specific application: The senior thesis of every Wellesley alumna is available in the college archives for anyone to read — except for those written by either a “president or first lady of the United States.” So far, that action has sealed precisely one document: Hillary Rodham’s senior honors thesis in political science, entitled ” ‘There Is Only the Fight…’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”…

…Under Wellesley’s rule, Clinton’s thesis became available to researchers again when the Clintons left the White House in 2001 — available only to those who visit the Wellesley archives. But few have made the trip, and the document’s allure continued to grow. A purloined copy was offered for sale on eBay in 2001, then withdrawn when Clinton’s staff cited copyright law.

What was with the mystery of the paper written by the young leftwing Hillary?  Why would they want it secured from the public’s eye?  Interesting questions.  Unfortunately, we haven’t gotten any answers.  But, I would suspect that there is information there that they did not want the public to see.  Perhaps it could be Hillary’s fundamental political leanings? 

Does Hillary’s paper give us some deep insight into the aspiring Dem nominee for president?  You will have to read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.  I think it does and I do not appear to be alone in that analysis.  Peggy Noonan, co-author of “The Case Against Hillary Clinton“, referred to Hillary’s paper as “the Rosetta Stone of Hillary Studies.” 

For those a little foggy on the Rosetta Stone, Cassandra has a refresher course on its significance in Noonan’s description.


Happy reading!

Edwards’ wife fights for his candidacy. Why can’t he?

August 17, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards

Elizabeth Edwards takes a “swipe at Hillary” and calls Obama to task on his “holier than thou” attitude, according to NewsMax.

Elizabeth Edwards Takes Swipe at Hillary 

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic candidate John Edwards, lambastes his rival Barack Obama as “holier than thou” on the Iraq war and accuses Hillary Rodham Clinton of failing to show leadership on health care and Iraq.

As her husband trails Clinton and Obama in national polls, Elizabeth Edwards has been an outspoken critic of his opponents. Last month, she said her husband would be a better champion for women as president than Clinton and more recently said, “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”

In an interview published in the August issue of The Progressive magazine, Elizabeth Edwards complained about Obama, who opposed the war when he was a state legislator in Illinois and later as a Senate candidate but has since voted for funds for the military.   more…

I guess the “silk pony”, as Michelle Malkin affectionately calls him, needed to bring out the muscle, since he is too busy with his hypocrisy on taking money, predatory lending and, possibly, conspiring with Henry Reynolds on a smear campaign against an unnanounced Republican candidate. 

Can’t you fight for yourself, John. 

John Edwards via 

I bet, if he asks, Liz might show him how to stand up for himself, without mussing his mane too much.

Meanwhile, John will keep up with the focus of his campaign from the beginning,…


…himself.  No wonder Liz is having to do the fighting. 

Is Hillary’s cleavage really news?

August 15, 2007

via The Washington Post

Come one, folks.  Is it really news that Hillary Clinton has breasts?  Robyn Givhan at the Washington Post seems to think so.

Now, if the story were broken that she had male genitalia, that might be news. 

Anyhow, Ann Althouse muses some more on Hillary and cleavage, if you’re up to it. (no pun intended…well, maybe a little)

WaPo is even blogging on Hillary’s bosom.  The recent Hillary Clinton fundraising letter is right in that it is “grossly inappropriate.”  It was so gross to me that the one photo of Hillary Clinton and her cleavage was enough to leave my lunch feeling less-than-settled. 

Anyone have a Tums?  Anyone?

Let’s get back to real news.  Let’s hear about Hillary’s socialist healthcare or her more recent venture for billions of dollars to have the government bail out homeowners who over-extend themselves with a socialist housing plan.  Let’s hear about what Hillary is hiding.  Let’s hear about her groveling to the leftwing nutroots and getting booed at the YearlyKos. 

There are too many boobs in government to worry about writing on Hillary’s cleavage or any other candidate’s.  There goes my lunch again.  I may never get these disturbing visions of Hillary and her cleavage out of my mind.  Thanks, guys. :-/

First, “Hillarycare” and now “Hillestate”? What’s next?

August 14, 2007


H/T to Michelle Malkin.

Michelle outlines Hillary’s newest way to redistribute America’s wealth in her dream socialist country.  First, we got “Hillarycare“, with her socialized healthcare program that the other Dems are now tauting as a foundation of their campaign platforms.

Now, she is pledging $1,000,000,000 here and $1,000,000,000 there to underwrite people who are over-extending themselves in the realestate market.  What do we call this one – “Hillestate“? 

Now, folks, that is a lot of zeros.  And, for yours and my tax dollars to underwrite people that aren’t smart enough not to over-extend themselves in the housing market is ludicrous.  Fannie and Freddie have no business being in existence anyhow.  It is just another corrupt beauracracy that eats up our tax money and show nothing for it, except the need to funnel in more money.

You can check out Hillary’s “four-point plan” for yourself.   You can check her out on CNBC pressing her agenda.

Michelle brings us the roundup from some money savvy folks who see the obvious pitfalls with this type of endeavor.

Why not click on over to Hillary’s campaign blog and give her a story of how you chose to live within your means and bought property you could afford.  Apologize to her up front that you cannot give her some sob story, because you were too busy being responsible and not expecting Fannie, Freddie or the like to bail you out.

Can we file this one under “stupid with a huge price tage to the American people”?

Others posting on this topic:  American Pundit / Matt Carrothers / Jonathan Hoenig / SocalMtgGuy /

John, just what all do you consider a “charity”?

August 13, 2007

John “Pretty Boy” Edwards is one of those gifts that just seems to keep on giving. 

Politico reports that Edwards might have been having a problem with the whole truth and nothing but the truth, when he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “Every dime of the money they gave to me has gone to charity.”  Maybe he should have defined “charity” for Wolf and the viewing audience?

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards recently defended taking a lucrative book contract from a publisher controlled by Rupert Murdoch — whose News Corp. empire Edwards has sharply criticized — by insisting that “every dime” of his $500,000 advance went to charity.

Left unmentioned by Edwards, however, was that Murdoch’s HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to Edwards’s daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.

The sums paid to Cate Edwards and Prince, who are listed as co-authors on the little-noticed 2006 coffee table book, “Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives,” have not been made public, but were confirmed by two sources with first-hand knowledge of the book deal.

These and other details of the deal that have spilled out in recent weeks demonstrate both the complexity of Edwards’ transformation into an anti-corporate crusader, and of Murdoch’s double role as a corporate titan and political player.    more…

Michelle Malkin weighs in on the “silly pony” and even offers up a cool PhotoShop of Edwards’ book giving it a more appropriate title.

Neocon News has a good title rewrite for Edwards, along with the cover change.

Others posting on this topic:  Rhymes with RightJammieWearingFool /

Henry Reynolds and his ill-conceived smear of Fred Thompson

August 10, 2007

Captain Ed has been all over the recent smear tactic attempt against Fred Thompson by Henry Reynolds, Esq. in California. 

It seems to have all started with a website designed to confuse people looking to find Fred Thompson’s official website for his non-official campaign,

Fred Thompson

 It seems Mr. Reynolds registered a domain of which, when originally reported on, had links to the KKK and other things.

Once the backlash started, Mr. Henry apparently got made and started modifying the site’s content, all of which is detailed by Captain’s Quarters through extensive updates, including cached pages of the original content. 

The first step was a change in domain registration from his name to a proxy service in another state.  Too bad Captain Ed cached the original page, huh, Henry?

The second step was to reroute his site to the John Edwards campaign’s site

John EdwardsJohn Edwards 

Talk about identity crisis.  Is he for Fred or John?  If that isn’t confusing enough,…

The third transformation of the site had something to do with grotesque sex act.  Thankfully, Captain Ed spared us a cache of that instance.  But, it seems to have something to do with a liking for goats, from what I can gather. 


Henry is starting to sound like an interesting sort, huh?  But, wait!

Presto!  Chango!  And, Tada!

The fourth time around, it links to a Wikipedia entry on Frederic Jameson, a Marxist literary critic. 

Frederic Jameson via Wikipedia 

Jameson might be one of Henry’s idols but I’m not sure.

Captain Ed has also found, with just a little research, that Henry has a history of donating to Democrat and left-wing initiatives, including John Kerry, and the DNC.  No word yet, if they will give that back. 

Some liberals, as evidenced by the post at Middle Earth Journal, are upset over the tactics employed by Henry Reynolds.   And, I, like Captain Ed, almost fell over laughing at some of the stuff that Jazz and Ron had in their musings on Henry’s escapades.

As I noted in Ed’s comments section, there is more information to be gathered before anyone can be absolutely sure of what’s going on here. I mean, it’s certainly possible that Henry is actually a gay member of the KKK with a life partner named Fred who will celebrate their anniversary in 2008, but somehow it seems to lack the ring of truth.

Henry Reynolds’ real webpage, at least the one he has openly put his name upon, is located here for his law firm.  Now, there is the kind of attorney you want representing you, huh?  How much e-mail do you suspect he has gotten at his law firm over this debacle, so far?

Captain, you have done a fine job of exposing this adolescent act of Henry Reynolds for all to see.  I just can’t believe he kept making it so interesting by doing the subsequent stupid things to add fuel to the fire. 

Why did Henry Reynolds decide to do this to begin with?  You guess is as good as mine.  What did he accomplish?  Well, he has made himself look like some sort of idiot to begin with.  Second, he garnered a lot of attention for Fred Thompson that he otherwise might not have had.

Will the DNC and be sending Henry’s donations back to him?  Who knows?  But, I wouldn’t be holding my breath waiting on it to happen.

Can we file this away under ‘stupid political stunts’?  I think so.

Barack Obama, daft diplomat extraordinaire

August 6, 2007


UPDATE:   It seems that Mitt Romney decided to poke a little fun at the daft diplomat, Sen. Obama, during the Republican debate hosted by George Stephanopolous on This Week.  Via the Washington Post

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), in particular, was singled out for saying last week that he would act against terrorists in Pakistan without the support of its president. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney contrasted those comments with Obama’s remark during a recent debate that he would be willing to meet with all foreign leaders.

“I mean, in one week he went from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies,” Romney said. “He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”    read more… 

Ouch!  That had to sting.  Well, I guess it did… 

Bill Burton, an Obama mouthpiece responded,…

“the fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn’t agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy.”


via Yahoo! News

Via Yahoo! News: Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

Way to go, Barack!  Flex that diplomatic muscle with the “Macho, Macho Manrhetoric, Senator.  Geez!

Gateway Pundit brings us more images of what Obama’s rhetoric has wrought in Pakistan.

Hmmm?  Do you think this is what Obama had in mind, when he opened his mouth and inserted his foot?

via Yahoo! News

Pakistani tribal protesters gather to condemn the U.S. presidential hopeful candidate Barack Obama’s remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Miran Shah, capital of Pakistan’s tribal area of north Waziristan along the Afghanistan border. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. Speakers told protesters that they will fight back in case of U.S. strikes. (AP Photo/Abdullah Noor)

Now, the Secretary of State is busy trying to smooth things over in the Middle East from Obama’s ill-bred oratory a week ago.

Meanwhile, as Michelle Malkin notes, Sen. Obama is moving on to do his stint on The Daily Show.

In a world of scripted politics, “The Daily Show” offers candidates a chance to show irreverence and a sense of humor. But it also brings a risk if they bomb. 

Oh my!  Did they say “bomb”.  Hasn’t Barack given enough insinuation of bombing for a while? 

And, this man wants to be President of the United States of America?  He looks just like what we need…, if we want to antagonize Al Qaeda into trying even harder to attack us on our own soil.  Quite the uniter, huh?


Others posting on this topic: 

Right Voices / Neocon News / Riehl World View / American Pundit / Bill’s Bites / BitsBlog / Ann Althouse / We the Free /

Macho, Macho Man

August 1, 2007

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has posted the full prepared remarks from Obama’s speech found on his website.


I almost fell out of my chair laughing, not to mention the spewed drink across the room, when I saw Michelle Malkin‘s recommendation for a new campaign theme song for Barack Obama!

The picture on her site is a good one too! 

The Lib of Steel, Barack Obama

Give me a moment………  I had to regain my composure.  Those were just too good.

Look!  It’s a bird!  No!  It’s a plane………..  Sorry.  I digress.

Anyhow, back to business…..

Sen. Obama has decided that we should take a hard line on Pakistan.  This from the guy who the Liberal who was wanting to cut-and-run from the War on Terror?  Maybe Michelle should have used a picture of The Flash, instead of Superman for the senator on this issue?  In the blink of an eye, he jumps from one place to another.

Will this prove to be a chink in the as Sister Toldjah ruminates.

It wasn’t that long ago, back at the CNN/YouTube debate, that Super Barack wanted to hold unconditional meetings with terrorist despots or “leaders”, as it was put, I believe. 

via SouthChild

Clayton Cramer has his own considerations on what Super Uh-oh may have done to his campaign’s chances with the money folks. 

I agree with Jason Smith at Texas Rainmaker – “And he calls the Iraq war a dumb war”.

Allahpundit notes that The Lib of Steel is not plowing new ground with his thoughts on Pakistan and hasn’t considered what his base (Or, at lease what was his base, before talking of attacking sovereign countries that possess nuclear weapons) would think about it.

Sounds like he’s looking to invade a lot more than just Pakistan. Is the left prepared for U.S. special ops incursions into various sovereign countries to attack AQ leadership? They seemed a little jumpy about the operations in Somalia in December, notwithstanding the fact that four of the 1998 embassy bombers were in the crosshairs. And secondly, does everyone realize that Bush has already promised to send troops into Pakistan if they’ve got a bead on Bin Laden? Obama’s not breaking any new ground here unless he means to suggest something grander than a surgical strike of a few hundred troops. Which, given his specific mention of the 2005 shot at Zawahiri that Rumsfeld passed on, he probably doesn’t.   more…

Others weighing in on this topic: Captain’s Quarters, JammieWearingFool, SouthChild, NeoCon News