comMITTed to Romney!

This is, by far, the absolute most shocking video about Barack Hussein Obama I have seen yet. I wish I could have embedded the video here for your convenience, but there was no way to do that for this one (that I could figure out, at least). So click on the link below for a real reality check. [Editors Note From Ann Marie: I was able to get the full embed code that was shown below that Amanda could not find]. Prepare for the worst; you may want to sit down for this. . .

After you’re done watching the clip and you’ve come to your senses (yes, that’s it. . . inhale, exhale–now pick your jaw up off the floor), forward this link to everyone you know–particularly any liberals or moderates who support, or who are even thinking about supporting this man. Too much is at stake. It’s our job to get this information to our fellow Americans since the mainstream media certainly will not. Expose their “teflon candidate?” Their “messiah?”  It’ll just never happen. It’s all up to us now to stop the radical Barack Obama from taking over our great country. We fight on!

Share on Facebook

Share This

.
Do you ever get the feeling that the Republican Party insiders don’t really want to change Washington, D.C.? They absolutely know that Mitt Romney always executes against his promises and strategic plans. WE THE PEOPLE need to deny the establishment types of their bureaucratic brother who will certainly perpetuate the status quo.
.

Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

David Keene of the American Conservative Union (ACU) has a great article entitled “Double-Talk Jeopardy” discussing McCain’s dishonesty in the days leading up to the Floriday Primary. David has endorsed Mitt Romney. Read the whole thing, but here are a couple choice quotes below:

Most politicians who identify their interests with the national interest eventually conclude that whatever they have to do to advance those interests is justifiable; that in their case, the end almost always justifies the means. Such politicians can be dangerous and John McCain is just such a politician. In McCain’s world everything is personal: to disagree with him marks one not just as wrong, but as almost definitionally evil.

Stories of McCain’s intolerance abound in Washington. He’s attacked his fellow senators personally when they have had the temerity to actually disagree with him. Indeed, one Republican senator told me several years ago that he was confronted by an enraged McCain after voting against a minor amendment in committee and dressed down in “language that would be inappropriate in a barroom, let alone in the Senate.”

It is these qualities that concern many who know McCain best. Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran (R) is universally liked and admired by his colleagues. He’s known McCain for decades, and while he’s no camera hog, his colleagues listen when he speaks. In endorsing Romney over McCain in what many now view as a two-man race, Cochran said of McCain, “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Help Mitt Romney win the nomination. Make a donation today and ask your family and friends to turn out for Mitt on Super Tuesday!

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’m updating and bumping this post to highlight an update below. This story is gaining major traction.

From the San Francisco Chronicle on 2/18/2000:

“I hate the gooks,” McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. “I will hate them as long as I live.”

As you can see from my picture, I am Asian by heritage (specifically Korean). I immigrated (legally) with my parents when I was four months old. They had two suitcases, a baby, and hope for a better life for themselves and their future children and grandchildren. We have lived the American dream.

Growing up, I heard stories of what life was like during the Korean War. My parents and grandparents fled down the Korean Peninsula to make it past the Pusan Perimeter with North Korean Communist troops at their backs. Their generation reveres General Douglas MacArthur and loves the United States of America for the brave sacrifices made in the defense of liberty and freedom. These were not small sacrifices: 36,516 American dead, 92,134 wounded, 8,176 MIA, and 7,245 POW in only 3 years.

John McCain was one of 2,459 POW/MIAs from the Vietnam war. I honor his service. I am thankful for his sacrifice in a way that only someone who understands all too well that were it not for the United States and men like John McCain, I would likely be digging trenches for Kim Jong Il in a labor camp or dead instead of sitting here writing this blog post in the comfort of my home here in Silicon Valley.

I can only imagine the pain inflicted upon John McCain and his fellow POWs by his North Vietnamese captors. I can understand his hatred for these evil men. I don’t judge him for his emotions when he remembers his experience.

At the same time, I am dismayed by a United States Senator and Presidential candidate’s use of the racial slur “Gook.”

Despite being called out on it by the media and Asian American advocacy groups, he refused to apologize. He claimed that he only uses it in reference to the specific North Vietnamese who were holding him captive, as if this should make it okay.

What an individual former POW says in the privacy of his own home, or amongst his personal friends is their business. What the most famous Vietnam POW in America says to the public using the MSM’s megaphone aboard his campaign bus is not just his business. It’s America’s business.

If John McCain had been beaten and robbed by a couple African American gang-bangers, would he be justified in announcing aboard his campaign bus that he hates niggers? Or what about a couple ’spics or wetbacks? Would it be okay as long as he clarified that he was only referring to those individuals who had robbed and beaten him?

Of course not. Words have meaning no matter how many caveats you put around them. The backlash from black or hispanic groups would have been fast, furious, and justified.

I don’t believe that he is a racist. I believe that he is angry and it is a deep seeded anger which has been refined in the fires of hate deep inside his soul for decades. Nonetheless, a man of John McCain’s position and stature using this kind of language sends the message across the country that racial slurs have an acceptable role in our national public discourse. He is contributing to the coarsening of America and validating the some of the worst instincts of the ignorant among us. Afterall, if it is acceptable for John McCain can use the word “Gook” why should anyone else or society at large be held to any higher standard?

*******************************************

UPDATE: This story is getting major traction. Here’s McCain’s response from the San Francisco Chronicle via Jonathan Martin at the Politico:

“I’m not going to waste my time,” a visibly tense McCain said when reminded of his quotes in the column. “You can say what you want. I’m proud of my record, my service with my comrades. And if anyone has any criticism of that, I can only say I stand on my record and my Silver Star, my three Bronze Stars and my Distinguished Flying Cross.

Huh? What do his medals and commendations have to do with his use of a racial slur? This is the classic McCain response to anything he doesn’t want to discuss…become indignant and hide behind his military service.

Please help Mitt get the nomination. Make a donation to his campaign today.

Share on Facebook

Share This

There is just something endearing about this photograph, wouldn’t you say? In your wildest dreams, could you ever imagine Governor Romney with rage? I cannot.

The first clip below is from the Michelle Malkin site. This buddy of John McCain’s is his Hispanic outreach director. Anybody who thinks that McCain is all of a sudden a reformed shamnesty artist, should watch and listen to these very carefully. “Fool me one time; shame on you! Fool me twice; shame on me!”

In his own words: McCain’s radical Hispanic outreach director
.
.

.
.
These two audio clips are from the Glenn Beck’s radio program; an interview given by Michelle Malkin about McCain’s Mexican buddy Juan Hernandez.
.
Michelle tells Glenn Beck: I won’t vote for McCain over Hillary
.
.
.
.
.
.
To Malkin’s point that she would not vote for McCain if Clinton where the Dem nominee, a reader gave an interesting opinion. He said if it comes down to it, he would rather vote for the Dem and allow her to wreck America than to vote for McCain and have the stain of a Republican doing so.

~ Vic

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GOVERNOR ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN HERE — WE ARE STILL SHORT ON THE COMMITMENT
Please use Source Code: ECA064 (You are making a BIG difference! THANK YOU!)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

H/T: Hotair and a tip from a friend of mine

First, here’s Grahamnesty playing dumb under an onslaught of facts from Sean Hannity and attacking Romney for allegedly supporting a timeline for surrender.

Putting that clip together with this link from Time Magazine from back in September, however, makes me think that perhaps Grahamnesty was just confused and projecting onto Romney his own desire and advocacy for a timeline to surrender.

Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007
Lindsey Graham’s Iraq Deadline
By Michael Duffy/Washington

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a pivotal Republican vote in the U.S. Senate on Iraq policy, is willing to give the government of Iraq until Christmas to get its act together.

But not much more.

Graham told TIME Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. “If they can’t do it in 90 days,” he said, “it means the major players don’t want to.”
Graham, who has been to Iraq nearly a dozen times, including spending 11 days in August on duty as a reserve Air Force officer, pointed out that Washington has spent the last few weeks debating Iraq policy and emerged with a commitment to continuing the surge through the spring. That commitment, he said, is the green light for the Iraqis to finally take action on resolving their disagreements.

But Graham, who is up for re-election in 2008, said he will not wait forever. “If they can’t pull it together in the next 90 days,” he said, “I don’t think they are ever gonna do it.” He followed that prediction with a promise: “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote.”

Graham said he believed the “conditions are ripe” for political deals between factions on de-Baathification, which would ease the way for participation of Sunni tribes in local Iraqi politics, and on the holding of local elections, which would allow Sunnis to take a greater role in the Shia-dominated country.

Graham first hinted at a 90-day clock in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee September 19. In his comments before that panel, he merely predicted the world would see progress by Baghdad in the next 90 days.

In his conversation with TIME, he held out a stick in the event that progress does not materialize. Said Graham: “We’ve won the day here politically, to give them the infrastructure they need to do this. It’s been missing up until now. I am vocally saying it’s up to [the Iraqis] to deliver. We’ve done our part.”

Though he would not elaborate on what kind of plan he would push if the Iraqis fail to meet the deadline, Graham did say a change in strategy would be warranted. “If they can’t do it by the end of the year,” he said, “how do you justify a continued presence?”

In response to Graham’s comments, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday, “The President urged the Iraqi government to make progress on the political front in his meeting with Maliki yesterday. The President has also said that Petraeus and Crocker will report back in March, when they will be able to make a further assessment.”

Do McCandidate and his lap dog Grahamnesty really think that Republicans are this stupid?

By way of contrast, here’s the link to Mitt’s interview with Wolf Blitzer today. Note the good nature and humor with which he responds to McCain’s lies. Night and Day.

Share on Facebook

Share This

How do you defend against attacks that are purely dishonest? Barack Obama had to struggle with that issue last week when the Clinton machine went after him. Perhaps we can take solace in his resounding win in the Democratic contest that took place yesterday. But I believe the short answer to that question is: control the message (i.e., change the subject).

Readers here know what McCain said about Mitt’s comments weren’t true. I’d seen the clip McCain was referring to weeks ago, and there was nothing in there about Mitt proposing or supporting a timetable for withdrawal: it was about whether there may be a Bush administration timetable and how if there was one it was important not to share any such timetable with our enemies. So why the manipulation of the facts by McCain? As others have said here, it’s likely that he’s seen his lead slip in Florida and felt he needed to do something to change the subject. So let’s change it back.

Unfortunately, as Senator McCain likes to say when he’s not the source of the attack, “you don’t mud wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it.” Of course it’s quite hyporcritical for McCain to be doing what he did today (e.g., abandoning “straight talk” and his “principles,” going negative, criticizing Mitt for a position McCain endorsed, etc.). But it’s apparent a discussion of any topic but the economy would be an improvement for him.

So let’s remind ourselves of what Mitt’s message is:

1. Washington is broken. Nothing serves as better evidence of this than McCain’s recent attacks. If we want more of the same we can send the same sorts of people back to Washington. McCain has been there 24 years; now he wants to be President. If we obliged, it’s hard for me to see how things would change, in particular given McCain’s legendary inability to work well with others in the Senate and the vendettas / back room favors he’ll owe if he goes back.

2. The economy needs Mitt. Since the days of Clinton and before, it’s always been about the economy. You can’t have a strong national defense if we dont have manufacturing and a strong economy at home. You can’t be a strong nation if you have to buy all your equipment from your enemies. And the American economy won’t be strong if we can’t keep the jobs from flowing out to our overseas competitors. So we need to send someone to Washington who has an intimate knowledge of the economy and can fix the many manifestations of problems we’ve had recently: stock market crashes, surging oil prices, real estate collapse, mortgage melt down, etc. Unfortunately, John McCain does not have the requisite experience, and has repeatedly said he’d have to find someone else to help him with this issue. McCain didn’t support the Bush tax cuts, then he did. Then he said he wanted to cut government spending to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately in the short run cutting spending would harm the economy and make it more likely to push the country into recession, or at least offset the benefits of any tax rebates. Unfortunately, as he’s said himself, he just doesn’t know enough about economics.

3. Mitt stands for strong families, and he wants to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as the framers intended it, not in a manner that creates new laws without a democratic process. Not all the other candidates have this same priority. McCain in fact has gone up against his own party on the issue of judges being appointed, and has a very spotty record on issues of family values.

4. Mitt stands for legal immigration, but “turning off the magnet” on illegal immigration. McCain very recently proposed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to stay in the country indefinitely. His own party rejected this stance only a few months ago, but he seems ill-at-ease saying he was wrong.

We’ve got lots of positive parts of our own message to spread without getting distracted by McCain’s attack. I’m positive that staying on message will benefit Mitt incredibly (as it’s done in Florida so far), while indulging in mud wrestling allows the media to just report on the wrestling match. I’m hoping that the media really gives it to McCain today for his intentional misrepresentations, but even if they don’t, let’s keep on task and keep spreading our own message.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I was talking with a friend this evening. He’s a McCain supporter. Where I ended up is that I would find McCain marginally acceptable (gritting teeth now…), except that his conduct during this campaign toward Mitt, I find completely unacceptable. Tonights debate really reinforced that for me.

I found this Newsmax article by Ronald Kessler from July 5, 2006 entitled “McCain’s Out-of-Control Anger: Does He Have the Temperament to Be President?” It makes a very comprehensive case that McCain does not have the temperament to be President.

Read it all, but here are a few key excerpts:

McCain’s outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the Republican nomination for president. A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

“The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush,” the former Senate staffer said. “McCain said ‘f— you’ and never spoke to him again.”

**************************

“McCain used the f-word,” the former senator said. “McCain called the guy a ‘sh–head.’ The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you’re still a sh–head.’ That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort of thing happened frequently.”

**************************

But only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal, that ran an Associated Press story reporting McCain’s 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians.

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?” McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. “Because Janet Reno is her father.”

There is a lot more…read the whole thing.

Share on Facebook

Share This

“Mike Huckabee is the candidate that just keeps on giving!” [quote from Jeff Fuller just now after speaking with him]

Does Mr. Huckabee think we are all complete, utter idiots?

[Please forgive me for using the nickname "Duckabee" --- I depart from the normal decorum in this one instance as I believe the label best suits Huckabee as he continues to dodge truth --- I simply could not resist.]

KUDOS to Rusty, Ann Marie, and Mike for getting the Huckabee low-road story up so fast. Is this amazing, or what? Seriously, I think Huckabee woke up this morning and said to his wife,

“I think I want to become the first presidential candidate in the history of the Iowa caucuses to become a certifiable laughing stock of the media and the good folks of Iowa. What do you think darling? What is the best way for me to do that today?”

There are so many words that came to my mind after seeing all the reports today on this. I chose the title of this post from a line in Rusty’s post. Here are the words that came to my mind after watching all of these reports on Duckabee:

— CUNNING — INDECISIVE — MANIPULATIVE — CRAFTY — DISENGENUOUS — UNSOPHISTICATED — BACK-WATER — DISHONEST — CORRUPT — DECEITFUL — FRAUDULENT — DOUBLE-DEALING — UNPRINCIPLED — UNSCRUPULOUS — GUILE — TWO-FACED — DESPERATE (I could list the other 25 but want to keep this short)

Why the word “dishonest”? Simply because Duckabee absolutely knew that the State of Massachusetts, by law, does not allow capital punishment. Even if the guy feigns ignorance on this, he is inept at the very least. Governor Romney campaigned to add the death penalty in Mass.

The best moment of this day with Duck? When he said he made the (”high road”) decision to not run the ad but that he wanted to show it to the reporters so they supposedly would know he made the ad. He made that statement with a complete straight face as if he were serious. Then the entire audience burst out in complete spontaneous laughter and Duckabee stood there with a complete serious face. I totally expected him to burst into laughter himself. That was hilarious!

Carl Cameron, in one clip I saw, said this could end up as a genius move by Duck. If the people of Iowa don’t mind being played the fools by his camp, then maybe. There is a chance that Huckabee has attained “martyr” status in the minds of some in Iowa. If so, then there will be a sympathy following, but still I cannot imagine thinking people backing a person who touts his “Christian values” while his behavior is completely dishonest at best.

No, I think this will sink Huck’s life-raft. Iowans are not fools. Reporters of the MSM are not fools and I think they will turn on Huck. Until about two weeks ago, Huck has gotten a pass from the MSM. His presumptuous, manipulative, and cunning behavior to play all the reporters for fools will backfire. They will shred him in the next few days. Mark my words. It is over for Huckabee. He will get the martyr-sympathy vote, but that is it (credit to Jeff Fuller for this insight). Iowans are too smart to vote for this guy. I think we will see the media eat Huckabee alive over the next three plus days.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of the Republican caucus meeting halls to hear the discussions among voters. Oh, how sweet it would be.

Here is how I would like the results to show three nights from now, in Iowa, on Thursday night:

— Romney: 44%
— Hunter: 18%
— Thompson: 9%
— Keyes: 8%
— Giuliani: 5%
— Paul: 5%
— McCain: 5%
— Tancredo: 4% (yes, he will still get votes)
— Duckabee: 2%

I gave Duckabee 4%, not because I think there are really dumb Iowans, but because I think 4% of the Republican voters of Iowa who liked Duckabee a month ago, will not have gotten the news from today.

IOWANS: Please remember that both Giuliani and McCain abandoned the Ames Straw Poll in August effectively telling you a) your straw poll does not matter, and b) we [McCain/Giuliani] don’t want you to have any of our campaign money for your economy.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

I was disgusted when I saw the video below. How long will Huckabee get a pass on this kind of language? Who wants their President talking this way? Last time I checked, suicide is at best morally ambiguous and at worst a mortal sin. How can a “Christian leader” talk so lightly about such a tragic act that takes over 30,000 lives per year (and another 24,000-750,000 attempted suicides) in the United States and leaves a massive wake of devastation?

“…and the point is, with limited resources, if you look at where we are, even in the national polls, we’ve spent a nickel to the hundred dollar bill of some of these guys. It’s not that I’m depressed thinking where we are, heck, I’m pretty encouraged. If I were some of these guys who spent tens of millions of dollars and weren’t any further ahead, I’d have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with some razor blades in both hands at this point saying how much money does one have to spend uh, you know, to get on track?“

First, let’s set aside that he gets his math wrong by two orders of magnitude (he meant to say a nickel for every dollar unless he believes that Romney has spent $654M in Iowa). Those kinds of gaffes are par for the course for Huckabee.

What is he saying here? Is he saying that Romney should be depressed and commit suicide? Is he saying that if he were in Romney’s place he would be committing suicide? That seems more likely. In that case, what does it say about the moral fiber and character of Romney vs. Huckabee that Mitt is nowhere near considering suicide given that’s where Huckabee would have ended up were their situations reversed? Do we really want someone so unstable and suicidal as our next POTUS?

Huckabee fans, before you accuse me of being willfully literal in my interpretation of Huckabee’s comments, let me assure you that what I think Huck is really saying is that he feels really good about his position in Iowa and that Mitt should feel really bad.

I just object to the way he’s saying it. It is crass, mean spirited, and unbefitting a public office holder, much less a “Christian Leader.”

I sent emails to the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) letting them know about Mike Huckabee’s disgusting and trivializing remarks about suicide. These are leading suicide prevention and issue advocacy organizations.

If you feel similarly, you can email the AAS at info@suicidology.org and the AFSP’s Public Relations Manager, Wylie Tene at wtene@afsp.org.

UPDATE: Apparently, this story first broke back in October. And, it’s not the first time he’s done it, and he’s been called on it in the past. “Razor blades in a bathtub” is a regular part of Huckabee’s repertoire.

Implication? He must actually think that this line is funny and continues to use it despite being made aware that it can be taken the wrong way!

Share on Facebook

Share This

This Op/Ed article by Noonan covers both Huckabee and Clinton. Both halves are great reading. To read the entire article online, click here:

PEGGY NOONAN — The Pulpit and the Potemkin Village — Would Reagan survive in today’s GOP? And is Mrs. Clinton in for a fall this winter? — Friday, December 14, 2007

Noonan makes some great points here regarding Ronald Reagan. In the religious standard Evangelicals seem to have erected this election season, Ronald Reagan most certainly would not have measured up. Aside from his worldly, Hollywood lifestyle most of his life, his father was of a religion many Evangelicals also dubbed “a cult” (I know this because I have seen their literature and Evangelicals have said as much to me). I mean really; there is no way that Ronald Reagan, the product of a father who belonged to a cult could have been elected President today.

But Jimmy Carter could be elected and probably would be by the religious zealots who blindly support Mike Huckabee. Come to think of it, “Duckabee” (the name Laura Ingraham gave Huckabee yesterday when he evaded a question she posed to him on immigration) is much more like Jimmy Carter than he is Ronald Reagan.

Noonan’s rhetorical questions posed in this piece are interesting and very provocative indeed:

What is happening in Iowa is no longer boring but big, and may prove huge.

The Republican race looks–at the moment–to be determined primarily by one thing, the question of religious faith. In my lifetime faith has been a significant issue in presidential politics, but not the sole determinative one. Is that changing? If it is, it is not progress.

Mike Huckabee is in the lead due, it appears, to voter approval of the depth and sincerity of his religious beliefs as lived out in his ministry as an ordained Southern Baptist. He flashes “Christian leader” over his picture in commercials; he asserts his faith is “mainstream”; his surrogates speak of Mormonism as “strange” and “definitely a factor.” Mr. Huckabee said this summer that a candidate’s faith is “subject to question,” “part of the game.”

He tells the New York Times that he doesn’t know a lot about Mitt Romney’s faith, but isn’t it the one in which Jesus and the devil are brothers? This made me miss the old days of Gore Vidal’s “The Best Man,” in which a candidate started a whispering campaign that his opponent’s wife was a thespian.

Mr. Huckabee has of course announced that he apologizes to Mr. Romney, which allowed him to elaborate on his graciousness and keep the story alive. He should have looked abashed. Instead he betrayed the purring pleasure of “a Christian with four aces,” in Mark Twain’s words.

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.

But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.

The great question: Does it make Mr. Huckabee, does it seal his rise, that he has acted in such a manner? Or does it damage him? Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that. And in the deciding they may be deciding more than one man’s future. They may be deciding if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party.

I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I’m just not sure he’d be pure enough to make it in this party. I’m not sure he’d be considered good enough.

In the second half of Noonan’s Op/Ed piece she writes of the Clinton’s and it is all good. Two small paragraphs from that half that say it all:

It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don’t miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don’t actually want Bill back in the White House?

Maybe. But maybe it’s this. Maybe they’d love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don’t want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo’s Nest and they’d love having Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don’t miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE HERE, NOW

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Many articles have recently highlighted Mike Huckabee’s tax-hikes, and lax crime record; but the MSM has failed to point out many of the examples of his lack of ethical standards. Margaret Carlson points out many examples of Huck’s lack of a moral backbone in her recent commentary.

Some of the good stuff:

In his first losing race for the U.S. Senate, against Dale Bumpers, Huckabee suggested that because Bumpers supported grants to the arts he was soft on pornography, Brantley wrote. He hasn’t backed off from his position that “carriers of the plague” of AIDS should be quarantined. He paid himself (as media consultant) and the family’s babysitter out of campaign funds, according to the reports.

Once in office, Huckabee set up a nonprofit entity so he could give paid “inspirational” speeches without having to disclose the donors. Until exposed by the Arkansas Times, Huckabee used the operating account for the governor’s mansion for personal expenses, charging the public for dry cleaning, his wife’s pantyhose, a doghouse and meals at Taco Bell.

Nine complaints were filed against Huckabee; five resulted in ethics commission sanctions.

Read the entire article here.

Share on Facebook

Share This

It get’s even worse…

Not only did Rudy hide the expenses incurred for his tom-catting trips out to the Hamptons…

Not only did Judith Nathan (the kept woman) use the NYPD as her personal car service…

…she even made the NYPD transport her friends and family when she wasn’t even with them!!

…Six years later, presidential candidate Giuliani is facing questions about that security. A source involved with the mayor’s operations at the time tells CBS 2 HD that Nathan took flagrant advantage of that police car and driver.

The source says Nathan forced police to chauffeur her friends and family around the city — even when she wasn’t in the car.

That set off alarms with ethics watchdogs.

“The rules are clear, you can’t use city resources for private reasons,” said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “And if you’re using a city car, a police driven car to chauffeur around relatives, unless they’re explicitly protected and their deemed to be the subject of potential security threats, it’s just wrong.”

Nathan’s detail was approved by the NYPD after a stranger made an unspecified threat to her. The commissioner at the time was Bernard Kerik, who was recently indicted on tax fraud charges in an unrelated matter.

“It wasn’t about her being the mayor’s girlfriend,” Kerik said. “The person spoke to her by name and made comments to her.”

On Friday, Giuliani avoided reporters’ questions about the security for Nathan back then. He told reporters off camera “we’ve explained it.”

Giuliani’s press secretary, Maria Comella, angrily denounced the use of an unnamed source in this story.

But she did not deny the assertion that Nathan used her police detail to ferry around friends and family.

And she repeated what Giuliani has said about reports questioning how his security detail was financed, saying, “This is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at the Republican front-runner.”

A vote for Rudy = a vote for Rudy
A vote for Huckabee = a vote for Rudy

Do we really want Rudy to represent our party? Can you imagine what Judy will do if she gets a hold of Air Force One and the White House?

Share on Facebook

Share This

In my adult life, I have tried very hard to reserve the use of the word outstanding for those rare, truly amazing situations. Forgive me for not truncating this post. This is one of those Op/Ed pieces that is nothing short of outstanding. Is there any doubt why President Reagan chose Peggy Noonan to be among his talented speech writers?

Click here to read Noonan’s column at the online source:

PEGGY NOONAN — Death, Taxes and Mrs. Clinton — Only two of them are inevitable — Friday, November 30, 2007

[emphasis is mine]

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, “Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you’re ‘for the children.’ I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you.”

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being “manipulative,” using “hot images” and indulging in “the politics of personal destruction.” The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. “I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction–of destroying a person–is what you stand for.”

Oh, I wish I weren’t about to say, “Wait, that didn’t happen.” For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?

It was a good debate, feisty and revealing. It’s not bad that the questions had a certain spin, and played on stereotypes of the GOP. It’s just bad that it doesn’t quite happen at Democratic debates. Somehow, there, an obscure restraint sets in on the part of news producers. Too bad. Running for most powerful person in the world is, among other things, an act of startling presumption. They all should be grilled, everyone, both sides. Winter voting approaches; may many chestnuts be roasted on an open fire.

In New York I find more and more people who think this week’s political scandal, Rudy Giuliani and the cost and means of payment of his visits to the Hamptons, following so closely the indictment of his former police commissioner, will fatally damage his candidacy. I don’t know. The specifics on both stories aside, I’m not sure scandal is what it used to be.

Two things are true in the modern media environment, and they collide with each other and may tend to cancel each other out. One is that a scandal makes its way around the world and into the bloodstream right away and with full force, through the Internet and cable. The other is that a lot of scandals have made their way around the world and into the bloodstream in the past 10 years. Immediacy and broad knowledge collide with sheer glut. Everyone has heard so much about so many. At some point, don’t voters start to see all of public life as one big polluted river? And if they do, don’t they stop saying things like “That’s a busted tire floating by” and “That’s an old shoe”? If they’re familiar with the principle, as Thoreau said, don’t they become less attentive to its numerous applications?

Add to that the fact that in the past decade, concurrent with the rise of new media, the Clintons perfected a new method of scandal management that starts with “These are lies spread by a partisan conspiracy,” proceeds to “That’s old news,” and ends a few years later, when detailed books come out, with “That’s rehash for cash.” This strategy is not a constructive contribution to our political culture, but it has worked in the new environment. They’ll teach it in political science media management courses in the future.

Mrs. Clinton is acting as if she’s scared. She insists to Katie Couric that she’s the next president–”It will be me”–and she’s back to using the language of aggression — there’s been a lot of “beat,” as in they’ve been trying to “beat me.” In the first 60 seconds of her Couric interview she used some variation on the word “attack” five times. If Mitt Romney talked like this, they’d be asking who put the Red Bull in his milkshake.

She continues her political kleptomania in terms of themes from the 1988 presidential campaign, which seems to preoccupy her. A few months ago she was saying she was born in the middle of America in the middle of the century, which is what George H.W. Bush said of Dan Quayle. She proceeded to call herself famous but unknown, which is what was said of Mr. Bush at the time. Now she calls herself ready from day one to be president. Old Bush’s tag line in his ‘88 commercials was “Ready on day one to be a great president.”

This is the first time she’s faced a real threat, in Barack Obama, and it’s left me thinking about how being The Inevitable is a high-risk game. You can get far being the inevitable choice. A lot of people will believe it and support you, especially the weak, and the pragmatic. They give you early support and early money. Others see the endorsements and contributions. Another level of giver and supporter kicks in. It starts to show in the national polls. Everyone knows you’re inevitable.

But there are two problems with this strategy. One is that your support is by definition broad but shallow. You have a lot of people, but they won’t crawl over broken glass for you. When I talk to Hillary supporters they mostly enact a facsimile of what they think passion is, and are reduced to a dulled aggression. “We’re gonna win.”

The second part of the inevitability problem is that once you seem no longer inevitable–once the polls stop rising or start to fall, once that air is out of the balloon and the thing that made everyone fall in line is gone–well, what do you do? If the main argument of your candidacy is you’re inevitable and suddenly you’re evitable, where does that leave you? What does it leave you with? Mere hunger. Insistence: “It will be me.”

And anger at this nobody who wasn’t even in the Senate when you took the big votes, this cream puff who was a functionary in Chicago when you were getting your head beaten in by Ken Starr. What does Mrs. Clinton do when she’s feeling angry? What has she done in the past? Goodness, this won’t be pretty.

Inevitable is a good game to play until it doesn’t work anymore. A while back I was speaking to a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, and I mentioned in passing that Obama might win the nomination. “Nothing is written.” The Clinton supporter said, “Well I would love to support Obama if that happens.” It was a standard thing to say, and yet the Clintonite said it awful quick.

In any case, there’s something that comes like relief, like a boost, when politics turns out to be surprising, when the inevitable gets evitable, when the machine is slowed. It reminds you who really runs the place, that for all our mess it still comes down to the perso