This image was saved from the NY Times website by BoingBoing, who dubs it the best NYT photo caption blunder ever:
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who y’are. Well, maybe not if you’re Hillary. But I bet Bill’s laughing his ass off!
BoingBoing has a capture of the whole screen.
Not happy with the destruction of the American economy, Hillary Clinton now wants to force her high tax nanny care ways on other countries:
In a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the top US diplomat reminded rich Pakistanis that they had a duty to enable their government to fund schools and hospitals and to spend more on other social projects by paying taxes.
“The very well-off” in Pakistan “do not pay their fair share for the services that are needed, in health and education primarily,” she observed.
Hillary, like most Democrats, never saw a rich person they thought wasn’t taxed enough. “Rich” is in the eyes of the beholder, and Democrats behold any American making $31,850 or more per year as rich enough to reach into their wallets and grasp as much as they can. It is not known what Hillary means when speaking of “rich” Pakistani’s, although I suspect that the floor is much, much lower. Perhaps anyone that can afford their own Oxen.
This year’s Rosenmontag fell on 4 February and they celebrated in fine style in Düsseldorf, with a nice paper-maché float as a tribute to US politics:
If someone in America tried to create a float that mocked another country’s election and candidates in such a manner, they wouldn’t be allowed to put it on the streets. Makes you wonder just how free we are, eh?
Who would you rather have in the White House?
That is the question asked by a cute poll over at Swarm, in which you can vote by clicking here.
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who y’are.
The thing is, for a lot of people it’s actually true. Which is why RINO McCain will be our next president.
A week ago I predicted McCain’s victory in November because, with Hillary’s Texas and Ohio victories, the war in the Democrat party will continue with the end game being the complete alienation of half of the voters within the party, no matter who wins in the end.
The best proof that I could possibly ask for comes from the hard-left blog, Tennessee Guerilla Women. Once proud of the party that has both a woman and a black man running for president, the poster finds herself "stunned" that she may not be able to support Obama should he win the nomination:
There have been numerous statements by Barack Obama that have led me to this position. These include the persistent use of rightwing frames, the naive assertion that he can end the culture war, the repeated and absurd claim that the Clintons are to blame for the partisanship of the 1990s, the trashing of the Clinton presidency, the denigration of Hillary’s experience as First Lady, the attacks on her character, and Obama’s repeated use of sexist dog whistles. And then there is the shameful Donnie McClurkin affair, as well as Obama’s pandering to Christians. And especially, there is Obama’s failure to take a stand or speak out against the outrageously sexist media treatment of our first ever viable woman candidate. (To be fair, Obama is not the only one I hold responsible for the failure to stand up for the principles of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean comes to mind.)
There is also Obama’s arrogant assertion that Hillary would have trouble getting the votes of his supporters, while he would have no trouble getting the votes of her supporters. I’m accustomed to having my vote taken for granted, but I am not accustomed to having my face rubbed in it.
Apparently, I am not alone.
Another example from the opposite side of the war comes from a letter to the editor (one of many) in the SF Chronicle:
I served in President Bill Clinton’s administration from 1993-1995 as senior speechwriter for HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. I am appalled by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s repeated insinuations that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Sen. Barack Obama.
I have never before heard a Democratic presidential candidate suggest that their Democratic rival was less qualified to serve as president than a prospective Republican opponent. Drawing sharp comparisons between herself and Sen. Obama is acceptable "hardball" politics. But by implying that Sen. Obama’s credentials are inferior to Sen. McCain’s, Sen. Clinton has crossed the line between acceptable and scurrilous behavior.
Her scorched-earth tactics are absolutely reprehensible.
After a Democrat primary with historically high turnouts, Hillary’s women will stay home in droves should Obama win, and African-Americans will fail to show should Hillary win.
The unfortunate consequence will be that Republicans will retain the White House by instilling John McCain. That will be the day that Republicans learn exactly what "Pyrrhic victory" means.
By simultaneously embracing appeasement, protectionism and retreat, President Obama would manage to make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.
Now that’s just funny, I don’t care who y’are.
The quote is from WaPo columnist Michael Gerson, who writes a hilarious prognostication of Obama’s First 100 Days. Read it all. You’ll find little tidbits like this, as Gerson comments on Hillary’s revived campaign and the resulting continuing war inside the Democrat party:
So now Clinton herself is the most effective agent of the vast right-wing conspiracy — proving just how devious and subtle that conspiracy really is.
Today, Republicans are celebrating Victory over the Democrat Party.
Hillary won both Texas and Ohio, reviving her candidacy and giving her the momentum to keep her campaign going. From this point on, every Democrat primary matters, right down to the 3rd of June when Democrats in Montana and South Dakota go to the polls.
And so we have another three months of sniping within the Democrat Party and another $20 to $30 million in advertising in which Hillary and Obama tear each other apart.
Come November, three things will depress the Democrat turnout. First, all those young blacks that voted for Obama, and that gave money to a political campaign for the first time in their lives. If Hillary wins (or steals, via superdelegates) the nomination, those disaffected voters will stay home — possibly for several voting cycles.
Second, there’s all those women Boomers that supported Hillary, many of which dug into their fixed-income pockets and gave to her campaign. If Obama wins, look for them to stay home.
Third, enter Ralph Nadir, who will only siphon votes from the eventual Democrat candidate, whomever it turns out to be.
Complicating matters is the possibility of a Democrat primary re-vote in Michigan and Florida and those silly superdelegates. Both issues hold enormous emotional energy, the discharge of which could tear the Democrat Party apart.
Meanwhile John McCain gets to focus on framing his race the way he wants as he stands virtually unopposed. Huckabee has officially dropped out and Ron Paul, even though he gets to keep his day job, long ago became the Ross Perot of the 21st century.
Make no mistake, barring something on a seismic scale that alters the political landscape, John McCain will be our next president. Of the three Democrats running, he is the most electable. I only wish that there was a conservative choice that had a chance of winning.
On the other hand, I think back to the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno last year, when every single panel member said emphatically and with great conviction that Hillary would be our next president, even the revered Captain Ed.
But for now, I’m sticking with my plan to vote for neo-Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root.
Rush Limbaugh is telling Texas and Ohio Republicans to "pimp yourselves for a day" and vote for Hillary in order to keep the war alive in the Democrat party:
I know I’m fighting an uphill battle here, folks, on trying to convince you Republicans in Ohio and Texas to cross over, pimp yourselves for a day, vote for Hillary to keep this campaign going, this Uncivil War, Democrat Party. I know what’s going to happen. Even if I convince you to do it — remember what this is, this is about us winning. You have to understand, it’s not about Hillary winning; it’s about us winning. It’s about our party winning. It’s about those people losing. They’ve got some problems in the Democrat Party. It’s not all sweetness and light over there, and we need them to continue warring with each other. We love these stories of black people claiming they’ve been threatened with violence or their lives because they’re not supporting Obama. We want all this kind of stuff out there. We want the Clinton campaign to keep pumping out these pictures of Obama dressed up as Bin Laden. We want this kind of stuff. If Hillary loses this thing, all of that’s going to come to a screeching halt. We want all the disruption in that party as possible. It’s about us winning. . . .
I also think it’s important here to call out ladies and gentlemen, the media. The media has turned on the Clintons, and the bias and the venom shown toward the Clintons and the favoritism being shown toward Obama is offensive. We need to keep chaos alive. That is the slogan of this program, but we’re not going to be able to keep chaos alive.
Texans and Ohioans have two choices: vote for a Democrat in the Democrat primary, or waste a vote when voting against McCain in the "Republican" primary. If it were me, I would vote for Hillary just to keep the chaos alive.
Hat tip to NewsMax.
As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.
But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?
Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?
Where was I when Reaganism died?
With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning — think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?
Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.
I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.
I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain’s poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.
I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I’m getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don’t like much of it.
I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won’t vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).
And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That’s right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards’ and Hillary’s speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I’m joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can’t find a militia then I’m going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.
Obama’s speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.
One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).
My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]
You often hear people say that they didn’t leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn’t leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.
And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.
Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:
The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don’t think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination. I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let’s see if we can’t have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.
To which Advised by Wolves responds:
Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.
My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together — a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary’s side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won’t come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.
Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.
The Washington Post addresses some of the tales that politicians tell:
Mitt Romney says he "saw" his father "march" with Martin Luther King Jr. Rudolph W. Giuliani claims that he is one of the "five best-known Americans in the world." According to John McCain, the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation." Ron Paul believes that a "NAFTA superhighway" is being planned to link Mexico with Canada and undermine U.S. sovereignty.
On the other side of the political divide, Sen. Barrack Obama says there are more young black males in prison than in college. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claims she has a "definitive timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. John Edwards insists that NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement — has cost Americans "millions of jobs." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. boasts about his experience negotiating an arms-control treaty with Leonid Brezhnev.
All those claims, made over the past four months as part of the presidential campaign, are demonstrably false. . . .
When a candidate is caught making a clearly false statement, embarrassment or ridicule often ensues — and over time a reputation can form. But the electoral rewards derived from stretching the truth or distorting a rival’s record just as frequently outweigh the fleeting political costs.
One would hope that the political cost of telling a lie would be long term and the electoral rewards would be fleeting.
On the good side, however, WaPo also says that blogs, YouTube, information databases such as LexisNexis, and the 24-hour news cycle has resulted in mistakes and inaccuracies (and outright lies) are being identified quicker than ever. The most recent example is Huckabee’s claim that "we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border."