Note to the Tea Party

Dear Tea Party Folks,

I'll give you credit, last night you won some good victories. You also left a few seat in the other guys hands because of your candidates.

Contrary to the Tea Party/Libertarian philosophies, politics is as much an art of dealing with the distasteful when necessary as it is standing always on one set of principles. If you don't believe that, just look at that huge delegation from the Green Party in congress, or Libertarians for that matter.

Sometimes, and in some places, you are going to have to accept that a "mainstream GOP" candidate is going to BETTER represent your agenda than the Democrat who's sure to win against your next Christine O'Donnell.

No one wanted a Sharron Angle to win more than me, I despise Harry Reid. But the fact is, I never doubted that she'd lose. Nevada is full of good GOP candidates, and you picked the loser.

Again, you get credit, you did better than the Kosite Netroots in 2004, when all of their candidates went down in flames. However, you still have a bunch to learn about politics.

Read The Full Post!

Note to the GOP

Dear GOP,

Last night you won some resounding victories in the election. Four years ago you got your clocks cleaned, and now have made up that ground and more in the House. However, you only control one branch of government, not 3, and will have to do some compromising.

As much as the Tea Party folks want you to repeal anything President Obama has signed in the last couple of years, you can't. What you can do is modify some of it. Some folks in the party might cringe, but you'll have to find some common ground with Obama and Reid if you want to do anything.

Secondly, if you haven't noticed, this is the 3rd election cycle in a row where America has voted for "change". So, doing nothing, or worse; obstructing everything; will probably have you leading the charge out of town again in 2012.

The truth is you have about 16 months to actually accomplish anything. After that we start hitting early caucus' and primary elections for 2012, and as this year proved, nothing happens from the start of the primary season until after the election. No one wants to cast a vote that might kill them come November.

Read The Full Post!

Note to the President

President Obama met with the GOP today, and was angry at them because they've opposed his initiatives. For the most part they've had good reason to oppose them, they aren't the ideals they were elected to congress to support.

Quick note, Prez, maybe you should get your own party in order before you start whining about the "opposition party" opposing you. You've had a year with a super majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the House, yet you've gotten nothing of consequence passed. You can't get your own party behind your ideas, and you are angry the other party isn't supporting them?

You are angry the GOP wouldn't support you on health care reform? They offered over 400 amendments between the two chambers, every one of which was shot down on a party line vote. They attempted to work with your party, your congressional leaders would have none of it. And now they have no bill. Mr. President, when you can't get a single RINO in the Senate to vote on your bill, you know it's too far to the left.

You are angry they wouldn't support the stimulus? CBO now says the bill will cost 850 billion dollars, not 787 billion, and you've had to change accounting methods three times to make it look like it's creating jobs. Yet every independent study so far says it hasn't. Maybe they understood that the bill wasn't about jobs, and that's why they didn't support it.

You don't like extending the Bush tax cuts because "billionaires don't need tax breaks". Here's the truth, Mr. Obama, when rich folks get a tax cut they invest it, providing the capital for other businesses to expand and create jobs. They don't stuff it in mattresses or lock it in a basement to count nightly. Venture capital doesn't materialize out of thin air, it's money that the investor class uses to take a chance on some small start up becoming the next Oracle or IBM. When you confiscate more of that money, that's less start ups that have a chance to suceed.

When you give the same amount to a group of a hundred million people the money is watered down. Some buy things which stimulates the economy, but as was seen last time, most paid their bills which doesn't do the same thing as tossing a hundred million bucks to businesses.

Read The Full Post!

Its Election Time In Illinois

So last week I said I was going to vote for Andy McKenna in the GOP primary for Governor of Illinois. Then this morning I get an e-mail from John Ruberry; The Marathon Pundit; who's a much better political commentator than myself, telling me I should check out this blog post of his.

Columnist: Andy McKenna swipes Notre Dame alumni data which links to a much larger story at The Observer . Basically some McKenna campaign folks circumvented some rules at the ND Alumni Association, and got most of their alumni e-mail addresses and used them to solicit for his campaign.

Is this enough to change my vote? I'm not quite sure yet, but I will say I'm glad I didn't stop at the early voting office here in town earlier this week like I had intended.

I will say this, it does make me wonder. Illinois has a (well deserved) reputation for it's rough and tumble politics, and the less than ethical conduct of it's officials. If McKenna wants to be seen as the outsider; even though he headed the state GOP; he needs to conduct himself, and have his staff and volunteers conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. Anything that looks like "the same old Illinois politics" isn't a good thing.

Read The Full Post!

Adam or Andy

It's primary election time here in the Land of Lincoln. Hard not to notice by the number of increasingly annoying ads being aired. With the latest SCOTUS ruling, that will get even worse this fall.

So now the question comes up, who do I vote for in the primary for Governor? Well, it won't be a Democrat. That party has totally screwed up this state, and I'd be inclined to vote for the Communist candidate in the general election over any of the state's Democratic contenders.

Then when I started looking at the GOP candidates I noticed there are really only two who aren't political insiders who've been hanging around Springfield so long they forget there is anywhere else in the state.

So my choice has come down to Adam Andrzejewski or Andy McKenna. Both are business people, not career politicians, which is a point for each. The fact my middle name is Andrew has nothing to do with those two being the finalists for my vote.

Both have decent plans for curbing state spending, auditing where our money currently goes, and trying not to raise taxes to fix our budget mess.

Both want more accountability from Springfield, more transparency on where our money is going. Andrzejewski wins that fight with his "Every Dime Online, In Real Time" pledge, though I wonder if that will be feasible in a reasonable amount of time.

McKenna's idea to start with the recent Auditor General report for consolidation of programs, and using that report to weed out the unknown programs; those that the head of the agencies couldn't identify; sound like a faster way to getting some of the budget mess solved than a forensic audit. Though that audit is probably necessary, it won't do much to take care of the $10 billion deficit we are currently facing.

Another plus for both is that neither seems to be fixated on Chicago first, then the rest of the state, a major problem with the other party. Yes, Chicago is the first city of the state, but the fact is letting the Rockford's and Peoria of Illinois rot while the legislature debates Chicago issues isn't the way to get the whole state moving.

Taxes are going to be a tough issue. All of the Democrats claim that the only solution to our budget woes is a tax increase. All the Republicans claim it can be fixed without them. I'm not sure that is true, but I think that it should be the last resort. Pat Quinn's idea of a 50% increase is crazy, if the budget is that badly messed up they need to figure out a way to get closer to their means, as opposed to raising taxes that high.

Property taxes are something else that has to be addressed. Unfortunately, while all the candidates claim they will do something about them, the real solution to those problems is going to be local. Excessive numbers of local taxing bodies makes it almost impossible to navigate a tax bill, or figure out how to reduce it. Local government consolidation is probably the most logical choice, starting with schools, park districts and the elimination of townships as taxing bodies.

One thing they could do in Springfield that would help both at the state and local levels would be to change the formula for how State guaranteed pensions are calculated. No where other than government can you sell back all your accrued vacation and sick days and have that counted as salary for determining a pension. Most companies can't afford to allow those days to be carried over more than a year or two because of tax implications.

Secondly, change the retirement ages for teachers and public employees (except firefighters and cops) to 65. If they want to retire after 30 years at 55 and collect a pension, fashion it like Social Security, and pay 60% at that age, 80% at age 60, and 100% of the eligible amount at 65.

Sorry for drifting, back to who will I vote for? Probably Andy McKenna, as of today. I think of the two his life experience has better prepared him to be the Governor, I also think Matt Murphy as Lt. Governor is a good choice. He has enough experience in Springfield to be helpful, but no so much that he's forgotten the real world.

Adam, I think is still a bit too young, and as the guy in DC is proving, novices aren't the best choices in tough times. However, if he does lose the primary I hope he stays involved in Illinois politics and keeps shining the light of openness on Springfield.

Read The Full Post!

60 Seats, So What

Well, the Democrats have what the left has always wanted, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a huge majority in the House. The left's agenda should go through unchallenged, right?

Well, not so fast. Today's news headline is "Democrat says health overhaul needs GOP to pass".

So how does that work? Simply put, there are democrats who are flinching at the costs, government control, and loss of individual freedoms in all of the bills in the House and Senate. In the Senate enough have voiced opposition that there would be no way to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

These are the pragmatists of the Democratic party. They understand that a bill passed on a party line vote could be the anchor that sinks them, and their party, in 2010 and 2012. Unlike the stimulus package, that got a few GOP votes, this one needs to get at least a dozen before the hesitant Democrats are going to vote for it. They know that getting Olympia Snowe to sign off isn't going to be enough to say it was a "bipartisan bill", and save them if the system goes haywire.

Nancy Pelosi has said that her House bill has the votes, and will be passed soon. As soon as it goes to the Senate it will die a quick, ugly death, and both Houses will have to start over. The new timeline is now before January, not by the August recess.

As much as the President and others would like to say the hold up in the Senate is the GOP, the media made much of the fact that with Al Franken in the Senate there is a filibuster proof majority. So the GOP can't be the hold up, and the people know it.

That means it's got to be Democratic jitters about the bill, not GOP stalling killing it's chances. And the public knows that if the Democrats in a solid majority can't agree on something, then they probably shouldn't do anything.

Read The Full Post!

GOP Minority Agenda

Here's a weird thought. The GOP will be in the minority, though I doubt a filibuster proof one in the Senate, come January, and a bigger one in the House.

The first order of business on their plate should be to ALLOW the Democrats, as soon as possible, to pass their new "fairness doctrine" bill. Why would I, a conservative, who knows that the whole idea is to kill talk radio want this to happen? Easy, an Obama president and Senate probably won't get to put anyone on the Supreme Court for the next year, and probably won't replace a conservative for 2 or 3 years. So, you get the law passed while you have a majority on the court who enjoy free speech, and then challenge it.

Once you get something tossed; and I think you would at the first lawsuit in the right district court; and challenged to the top, as with most court precedent, it's hard to overturn.

Secondly, the GOP, as a party, not just a few folks, need to eschew earmarks for the next two years. Not only not ask for them, but vote no on everyone of them, and publicize them. David Obey from Wisconsin was going to champion their reform for the Democrats. He has instead found more new and creative ways to hide them. The GOP needs to avoid them, and point out who's spending the money and where it's going.

Thirdly, they need to be the vocal, annoying minority that the Democrats were for a dozen years. They've wasted the last two years defending George Bush instead of pointing out the hypocrisy of what got the Democrats elected in 2006 and what they've actually done in Congress (nothing).

Finally, they need to clean house on the leadership side. McConnell, Bohner, and the whole crew need to be tossed down the stairs, and get new, young leadership in place.

One of the great things about the 24 hour news cycle, and our collective short memories is that by May of 2010, when races for the House and Senate start heating up, everything will be the new President and Congress's fault. The Democrats will have a hard time blaming a minority party, and President gone for 18 months for all that ails them in Congress.

Read The Full Post!

Bailing Out, On Bush?

Are House Republican's nuts? That seems to be the question this morning as it sinks in that there has been a wholesale defection GOP congressmen over the bailout package. The AP and other news outlets are calling it a huge hit for Bush and McCain.

The question is, if the deal they are trying to broker is better for the taxpayer, instead of the hastily put together treasury deal, then who's it bad for politically? The Treasury deal was on life support two days ago, as conservatives in the House warned because of it's market implications. Add in the pet projects, pork, and other sweetners to get Democrats to buy off on it, and it had no chance. The only folks who didn't see that were.... Everyone.

What the House GOP leadership seems to be working on is a play that isn't politically expedient, but instead, one that's fiscally managable for the government, while still providing a safety net for Wall St. firms and banks.

They need to make sure they kill a few of their pet ideas that are trying to be slipped in if they want it to pass. Now isn't the time to demand that capital gains taxes be suspended, when you are putting the government on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars.

I think over the weekend we'll see a deal happen, and it won't be the one anyone envisioned when Paulson released his proposal a week ago. Hopefully, because of the House GOP it will be one that we can all live with a little better than anything that we've seen so far.

Read The Full Post!

Democrats on McCain

Who do Democrats seem to have a lot of respect for? If you watch his lastest ad, it's John McCain. Hillary's jab at the end is great.

Read The Full Post!

Scared to Debate

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Robert Byrd are so scared of the idea of a debate on offshore drilling on the US Continental Shelf that they've decided to just not allow any debate on it.

Pelosi is going to refuse to bring it up in the House, and Byrd; with Reids consent; has decided to cancel committee meetings for fear that a drilling amendment might get attached to an appropriations bill.

Why the fear? Because gas prices have reached the tipping point, where people are now wanting to put their pocketbooks ahead of the (overblown, my thought) evironmental concerns about such drilling. The general public supports the idea now that they've been hit with $4.00 per gallon gasoline for their SUV and minivan. The money folks behind the Democratic party don't support it, and in politics we know when the choice is $$ or the people, well follow the money.

There are enough "Blue dog Democrats" and oil state Democrats in congress, that when combined with the GOP would pretty well assure passage of an off shore drilling bill. That would be a stunning defeat for the Pelosi/Reid/Obama end of the party, which can't handle the idea of a loss to Republicans on any issue much less a core belief issue of the environmental end of the party. So to avoid the defeat, they'll just dodge the issue.

Hopefully, come November, the folks who are being ignored (you and I) remember this episode show the folks who've decided we don't even need a debate where the door is.

Read The Full Post!

Today's Funny Politics

I got some good laughs, politically, today. The first was listening to Rush Limbaugh nearly in tears declaring the end of the GOP. If, by the "death of the GOP" Rush means lockstep dittoheads who do his bidding, and only his bidding, I hope he's right. It would be the best thing for the GOP.

If he means the "Reagan GOP", that died years ago. That caused the other part of my laughing at Rush. He whined about the loss of Dennis Hastert's Illinois congressional seat to the Democrats. The thing was, Hastert was one of the leaders of the death of the conservative end of the GOP. Dennis, while out of power, talked of fiscal restraint and smaller government. When the GOP got control of the House (and appropriating money) he was one of the fattest pigs at the trough. He never found an earmark he wouldn't toss into a bill.

He could stand to be reminded that under Reagan, who did get tax cuts pushed through, just like with George Bush's time in office spending went up. It took Gramm Rudman and Gramm Rudman Hollings to get spending under control.

If Rush means the GOP that holds it's breath and stomps it's feet when it doesn't get exactly what it wants in Congress, I hope that one is dead. Just like I hope the Pelosi-Reid Democratic party dies. All or nothing politics, which is what it sounded like Rush was lamenting the loss of has done NOTHING good for the country. If that brand of politics goes away we are all better off.
Rush should keep in mind that St. Ronald was not only the great communicator, but the great negotiator, and was able to move things in goverment not by an iron fist but through shrewd give and take since he never controlled both houses of Congress.

The second big round of political laughs today was a two parter with Barack Obama as the star.

After Hillary crushed Obama yesterday in West Virginia I'm sure John Edwards phone started ringing off the hook with DNC big wigs telling him to endorse Obama NOW!!!! That happened this afternoon.

The party wants, desparately, for Hillary to go away, and quit pointing out that Obama can't win white working class votes, no matter how hard he tries. Somehow a millionaire trial lawyer is supposed to make a millionaire latte liberal look like the new champion of the working guy.

Dick Morris does a good job of pointing out why that group isn't voting for Obama, and why many of them still won't when Hillary is out of the race. Sorry Barack, getting the endorsement of Edwards, who didn't even last to Super Tuesday, won't help you much.

For the record, Senator Obama, your "bitter" remarks, your reverend, and your wife have permanently turned them off. Even your new lapel pin won't help much. Now wearing the flag looks like you are pandering to the folks who called you on it months ago.

The second laugh is Obama campaigning in Michigan. I'm sure that while he was stumping there today, he didn't mention that it was his campaign that kept them from having a new primary where their votes would count. He couldn't, it would have been another example of how the working class whites won't support him.

I'm sure that he didn't mention that at the end of the month, when the rules committee of the DNC meets, his folks are going to fight to keep Michigan and Florida's delegations out of the convention. If those get counted, he no longer gets to claim he won the popular vote.

Read The Full Post!

The Limbaugh Litmus Test

Rush Limbaugh and many other far right pundits have come up with a new litmus test that, they say John McCain fails. So lets look at some of the points on it, and see how other prominent Republican's do on them.

1. Illegal Immigration, we all want secure borders and no guest workers.

Ronald Reagan signed the biggest amnesty bill ever seen, it was extended by George H.W. Bush (and Bill Clinton). It did nothing to secure borders, and required only a six month wait to apply for a green card, and expanded half a dozen different types of temporary worker visas.

George W. Bush championed legislation similar to the 2005 McCain-Kennedy bill that
failed, and the toughened up 2007 bill. Rush didn't rail against him in 2000 or 2004 though, when it was known he wanted to include a guest worker program in immigration reform. He'd said during his campaigns, and as Governor of Texas.

2. Taxes, everyone wants a "Reagan Conservative" to take ahold of the tax problem, and claim McCain isn't one because he wanted spending cuts before tax cuts. Yet he's never voted for a tax increase while in office.

Ronald Reagan signed at least 8 bills that RAISED taxes during his 8 years in office. Yes, he did sign some tax cuts too, but if you are being honest you have to look at it both ways. In 1983 he said we'd get $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. In 1993 he complained that Congress never cut spending. (Bruce Bartlett of NRO wrote a great piece on this in 2003)

George H.W. Bush .... read my lips, this answer is too obvious

George W. Bush, at least he can say that he hasn't raised them, though he only got temporary cuts passed, which look to expire in a few years.

3. Supreme Court Justices. Everyone on the right is screaming for constructionist justices and worried that McCain won't appoint the "right kind" of people. But how did our past GOP presidents do? Not well, of the 6 appointed prior to GWB taking office you have 2 conservatives, 2 liberals and two swing voters.

Reagan appointed three justices, Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia. Of the three Scalia is the only one who has retained his "constructionist" credentials. Both Kennedy and O'Connor turned into swing votes upholding Roe v. Wade and other "liberal" decisions from the Warren Court.

George H.W. Bush put David Souter and Clarence Thomas on the bench. Thomas is possibly the most conservative justice sitting, while Souter is more often than not in the liberal block on the court.

Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens, a Nixon appointee to the appellate bench, and who's the most liberal member of the court by most counts.

4. 1st Amendment. McCain gets beaten on unmercifully for the McCain Feingold measure, yet Rush & Co. didn't have much to say about it in 2004, after George W. Bush signed it into law. While McCain authored it Bush signed it into law, instead of vetoing it, why didn't they cry and vote for John Kerry in 2004?

Spending is an area where McCain bests the above list, for 25 years has championed lower bugets.

Reagan only tried cutting it after the Gramm-Rudman and later Gramm Rudman Hollings acts were passed to try and reign in spending. GHWB did a better job, but still increased spending in many areas. While Democrats point to the "Pay Go" day's of the 1990's as a great spending control, like today's Paygo it's smoke and mirrors. The Pay Go bills of both eras had 4 years life spans, and new programs enacted generally waited (and still do) until the fifth year to have their full costs paid, thereby getting around the tough cuts or tax increases. This years $168 billion unfunded "economic stimulus package" is a great example of the swiss cheese like character of Paygo. We don't even need to get into GWB's spending record and lack of veto pen especially in his first term.

Read The Full Post!

McCain Derangement Syndrome

I just finished watching the video of Ann Coulter saying she'll campaign for Hillary if John McCain wins the GOP nomination and thought to myself, "wow, she's more screwed up than the liberals with Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Micheal Medved had a post up last week entitled "Six Big Lies About McCain" that I don't totally agree with (especially McCain Feingold), but many of his points make sense, and directly attack Coulter's positions. Specifically Ann, and many talking heads including Rush, and Hannity continue to claim McCain wants "higher taxes"; yet in 25 years in public office he's never voted for a tax increase.

As for the Bush tax cuts, he voted against them, yes, but on the floor of the Senate said that he'd vote for them, if Congress first passed spending cuts. That's far from being "liberal on taxes", it's actually the most fiscally conservative position there is. Considering what direction federal spending has gone over the last 20 years, Democrat or Republican's in control of Congress and the White House, it actually sounds like he was the voice of reason.

As for immigration reform, I think Medved did a spectacular job of actually reading what was in the bill that so many folks on the right have been railing against, but so few actually read, or understood. By the way, Limbaugh is at the head of that list. Specifically the fact that the "amnesty" so many railed about consisted of $6000 in fines, all back taxes, and a 6-14 year wait for actual citizenship, with deportation for any criminal offense during that period. And none of it beginning until Congress certified the border secure.

On top of that is the simple math of the immigration problem. Last week 7.7 million American's claimed to be unemployed and looking for work. At the same time between 8.5 and 10 million illegals (of the 12-13 million here) are supposedly holding jobs here. So, if we deport all of the illegals then we have a problem, as there will be somewhere between 800,000 and 2.3 million jobs with no one to fill them. If of course everyone looking for work was actually willing to do the jobs that illegals are currently doing, my guess is there is a fat chance of that happening.
In other words, you can either tell a few thousand employers to do without enough work and probably have some close, or you can have some sort of guest worker program. Again, that's not a liberal or conservative position, that's a mathematical one.

Back to Coulter, do I believe she'd campaign for Hillary instead of either sitting on the sideline or voting for McCain,? I'm not sure, but I do know that it's been a few months since she made a headline, so this is her probably her latest lame attempt to stay in the news. Ann's a lot of things, but mostly she's an attention whore who hates to be out of the news for any length of time.

Read The Full Post!

Congress Cracks Me Up!

The title should be "Democrats in Congress", but Congress as a whole is pretty much a joke lately.

Take for instance, the news that the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was about to ensare 21 million "rich folks" this year has been patched, once again. The "rich folks" I talk about actually could be single and making $40,000 a year and get hit by a tax meant originally to punish millionaires.

Congress' fighting about the fix is over the idea of "income replacement", to congress, for fixing a tax they screwed up in the first place.

You see, the AMT was designed to make wealthy folks in the late 60's pay taxes when they sheltered income. Congress, with it's usual lack of foresight didn't index it to inflation. Now, suddenly it's getting ready to hit millions this year and Congress has decided to fix it.

Here's the problem, Congress like money, even money it's never received, like the billions that the AMT would garner them next year. So Democrats decided that all the income they wouldn't get (and don't currently have) from the tax hit should be replaced by taxing someone else.

Luckily, fiscal conservatives hauled up the BS flag, and tried to get Democrats to explain why they needed to replace income they weren't currently collecting from the tax. In the end, as they've done on everything else, the Democrats caved in.

Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana put the fix into perspective; "It is not necessary to enact a tax increase in order to prevent another tax increase."

Democratic assertations that to abide by the Pay-Go plan they passed (but have ignored often already) they have to increase other taxes is a steaming pantload of something. You see, Pay-Go was designed to offset current revenue losses created by tax cuts or spending increases. What the AMT fix does is prevent a future tax increase, not lose current income.

The fight illustrates why the entire tax code needs to be fixed. Annual patches to keep one tax break (or hit) from expiring, expanding, etc. is proof that the system is broken.

Read The Full Post!

The More I Read about Huckabee

The more I've been reading about Mike Huckabee, the more I'm thinking that having him as the GOP nominee would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP come next November.

Yesterday I heard (part) of Tim Michaels, his Wisconsin committee chair try and explain away the "Tax Hike Mike" nickname he got in 10 plus years as Arkansas Governor. His basic logic for a total tax burden increase of 47% in those 10 years was inflation. 'If inflation went up about 4% a year you'd have to increase taxes by that much to keep up' (paraphrased).

Actually, you wouldn't, unless you have zero growth in your states economy over that time, since growth will naturally increase revenue. If that's the case, I'm not sure you would be the person I'd want as President.

Then I read the "Club For Growth" analysis of his record as Governor, and it's not very impressive. It shows a guy who either asked for tax hikes, or acquiesced to them with no fight in many cases.

Finally, the flap over his latest ad in Iowa, which is a Christmas message. I could care less about the religious aspect of that commercial; in it there is was appears to be a cross behind him (it is a bookshelf). Some folks have called him on the fact that it sure looks like a cross floating behind him and he's very defensive about it. I find that rather odd, the ad was basically a plug for Jesus, and then Mike runs from the cross, like he's a vampire. It kind of stinks of using the message in Iowa (and South Carolina) to appeal to evangelicals, but running from it's content on the broader stage.

Ron Pauls reaction to the ad, quoting Sinclair Lewis' "when facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" line cost him any chance of getting me to listen to him on any issue.

Huckabee's lame reaction to Ron Paul, which was to joke that he was blinking morse code messages to evangelicals during the commerical shows how much of a comedian he isn't.

Back to Tim Michaels' interview. The second part of it that got me to laugh was Michaels assertion that evangelical's will bolt if Huckabee isn't on the GOP ticket come November. I can see a number of them staying home if it's Romney/Guliani or Guliani/McCain ticket. However, the idea that they are all going to bolt and vote for the other side is laughable.

Are they all going to suddenly think Hillary Clinton's faith (and social views) are the better choice? Barack Obama's support of abortion on demand will be forgotten? Please, Tim, don't play people for idiots;especially the evangelical base you are trying to swoon; some of them actually smart enough to figure out that even without Huckabee on the ticket the GOP ticket will more likely reflect their overall values than anything on the left.

Read The Full Post!

Bitch Slappin' The Moderator

If you haven't noticed, with the Iowa Caucus' only weeks away I've been pretty apathetic about next year's elections. Quite honestly, being bombarded by 2 jillion candidates for well over a year has caused this apathy.

However, Charlie was nice enough to point out there was another GOP debate yesterday, and link this YouTube clip of Fred Thompson busting the moderators chops. Maybe if more candidates would call bullshit on stupid questions I'd be more interested. Enjoy the clip!.

Read The Full Post!

Politics, Politics, Politics

The Democratic party is the gift that keeps on giving for guys like me. I mentioned that they were "fractured" a few days ago, and they keep on proving it, as usual.

Shoprat, a frequent reader and commenter gets it right when he says that having that many victims groups under the same umbrella makes it impossible to not be fractured.

While everyone expected the GOP to beat on John Murtha's proposal to basically abandon the troops in Iraq with no back ups, no spares, and no hope of winning, who'd have thought his own party would begin beating on him too.

Murtha's problem is while his plan keeps the anti-war activists in the base happy, the coalition of Blue Dog Democrats are balking. They remember that they promised during the election not to let a stunt like Murtha's happen if the Democrats controlled Congress.

The other fun part with the Democrats is the jousting in the run up to next years primary elections. After last weeks jabs from David Geffen the Hillary Clinton camp has let all of the contenders know that Bill's impeachment is subject not to be raised.

According to Hillary's new selective memory, January 1993-January 2001 were Camelot Redux, with only good things happening in government and America. And if you have the guts, as Geffen did, to remind people of the truth, expect the weight of the Clintonista machine to fall on you, quickly.

Geffen got it right, while the Clinton's may be able to bully their own party into amnesia about the problems the White House had in that administration, they'll have no such luck in a general election fight. The GOP will remind people, mercilessly, about guys like Vince Foster, $100,000 profits in one day of trading, and weird land deals that got friends put in jail.

The Democrats are better off defending Obama's lack of experience, than trying to rewrite the Clinton experience. All they need to do is ask John Kerry and Al Gore how well rewriting history works to get you elected.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Murtha, Democrats, GOP, Congress, Iraq, Politics

Read The Full Post!