It is past time conservatives start running their campaigns with a "third rail" issue - the supposed politically untouchable - as a centerpiece. We're all fully knowledgeable that government spending is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. Our spending levels on government programs that are nothing but wealth redistribution whose costs far outweigh the value received and are completely unsustainable as we saddle future generations with more and more debt.
"Wait!", I hear you say, "Aren't conservatives already fully on board with entitlement spending reform?" Of course they are, for the most part. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about defense spending.
That's right, defense spending. If conservatives are going to truly and honestly stand for fiscal sanity and to win spending arguments in the future, fiscal policy proposals and narratives are going to have to include not just touching a third-rail of conservatism, but seizing it enthusiastically.
Our nation deserves it, our children who are being saddled with more and more debt deserve it, and most importantly, the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our Armed Services deserve the best of each and every dollar we give them to defend us with.
ATTENTION:
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Prediction: Arlen Specter will not be the Democratic candidate in 2010
We're starting to learn more about the background machinations behind Benedict Arlen's party flop. It is real interesting how quickly the Left is throwing him under a bus rather than a bone, now that they've got him.
Who's going to stick their neck out to elect Arlen Specter as a Democrat? Harry Reid? "Chuck You" Schumer? Specter believes only in Specter and political expediency, not in "the cause".
Once the New Soviet Man or his handlers determine who the good, solid, Pennsylvania Marxist is for our 2nd Senate seat, Specter will be dumped by the wayside.
Who's going to stick their neck out to elect Arlen Specter as a Democrat? Harry Reid? "Chuck You" Schumer? Specter believes only in Specter and political expediency, not in "the cause".
Once the New Soviet Man or his handlers determine who the good, solid, Pennsylvania Marxist is for our 2nd Senate seat, Specter will be dumped by the wayside.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Benedict Arlen's getting no love
Tee hee! Arlen Specter has been warmly welcomed by his new, self-described, ideological compatriots - they've stripped him of all his senority, so now he's the most junior Democratic senator.
Great job Senator Specter! Congratulations on your traitors' welcome. I'm sure you thought that the Leftist thugs you've chosen to align with would be in your debt and would want to reward you. However, you've just learned that what Harry Reid, et al.'s sole care is their own personal power.
On the down side, this makes it much less likely that Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe won't make the same selfish jump across the aisle. RINOs beware: the Left still hates you, and we conservatives are going to challenge you with ideals, not try to seduce you with political expediency.
Since Specter is now the most junior, does he come behind Bob Casey in the order of precedence now? Does he have to stand when Casey enters the room? Wouldn't that be sweet justice...
Great job Senator Specter! Congratulations on your traitors' welcome. I'm sure you thought that the Leftist thugs you've chosen to align with would be in your debt and would want to reward you. However, you've just learned that what Harry Reid, et al.'s sole care is their own personal power.
On the down side, this makes it much less likely that Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe won't make the same selfish jump across the aisle. RINOs beware: the Left still hates you, and we conservatives are going to challenge you with ideals, not try to seduce you with political expediency.
Since Specter is now the most junior, does he come behind Bob Casey in the order of precedence now? Does he have to stand when Casey enters the room? Wouldn't that be sweet justice...
Monday, October 27, 2008
New Voters - Not as Democratic as you might think
We've all heard how The New Soviet Man's electoral fraud machine has registered record numbers of first-time, young voters. We heard the same thing back in 2004 - there was going to be record numbers of first-time, young voters and they were going to vote en masse for John Kerry. Well, did they? Let's run the numbers, popular votes only:
2000 Presidential Election Stats:
Bush (R): 50,456,002 - 47.87%
Gore (D): 50,999,897 - 48.38%
Nader (G): 2,882,955 - 2.74%
Fringes: 1,066,246 - 1.01%
Total Electorate: 105,405,100
2004 Presidential Election Stats:
Bush (R): 62,040,610 - 50.74%, +11,584,608 from '00
Kerry (D): 59,028,444 - 48.28%, +8,028,547 from '00
Fringes: 1,198,499 - 0.98%, essentially unchanged from '00
Total Electorate: 122,267,553
The difference in the total size of the electorate between 2000 and 2004 is 16,862,453; that many more people voted in 2004 than 2000.
Now, let's assume that had Ralph Nader not run on the Green Party ticket in 2000, all 2,882,955 of his voters would have voted for the Democratic slate of Al Gore and Joe Liberman (unlikely, since some would have gone off to fringe candidates, but is probably pretty close to reality). As a percentage of the electorate, fringe candidates were essentially unchanged in percentage of votes, so we can discount them for figuring out how the electorate actually changed in the four years from 2000 to 2004.
When you account for Nader's 2000 votes going to Kerry in 2004 - and also assuming that everybody who voted for Bush voted for him again, and everybody who voted for Gore did so for Kerry (probably pretty close; any side-to-side shifts probably would cancel out) - this is what the net change, Republican vs. Democrat, for the 2004 election looked like:
Bush (R): +11,584,608 votes
Kerry (D): +5,145,592 votes
That totals to 16,730,200 more people who voted Republican or Democrat more than who voted Republican or Democrat (plus Green) in 2000. If you recall from above, the total change in the size of the electorate was 16,862,453 - essentially the same number as those who increased the vote totals of Republicans and Democrats. (The difference in "fringe" voting between the two years is identical to the 132,253 voter count differential between D+R in 00-04 vs. the electorate count in 00-04).
So, 16,730,200 more people voted for either George W. Bush or John Kerry in 2004 than voted for the corresponding tickets in 2000. Now, were all of those "new" voters? Considering that the total electorate size in 1992 was 104,423,923 (-981,177 vs. 2000, -17,843,630 vs. 2004) and just 96,277,634 in 1996 (-9,127,466 vs 2000, -25,989,919 vs. 2004), for the purposes of this excercise I think it's safe to say that the net effect is that all of the 16,730,200 new Democrat or Republican voters in 2004 did not vote in 2000, 1996, or 1992.
Now, if you've haven't been calculating this in your head, here's how this works out:
Percentage of "new" voters who voted for John Kerry in 2004: 30.76%
Percentage of "new" voters who voted for George Bush in 2004: 69.24%
In other words, "new" voters to the electorate voted for George W. Bush in 2004 by a 2.25-to-1 margin.
I think it's dangerous to assume that "new" voters are automatically liberals, regardless of who the candidate is. I'm sure that that type of electorate assumption is skewing some of the polls dramatically.
As Sean Hannity would say, "Let not your heart be troubled" - unless you're an Obama supporter, that is.
All of us Republicans and conservatives MUST get out and vote.
Eight days to go...
2000 Presidential Election Stats:
Bush (R): 50,456,002 - 47.87%
Gore (D): 50,999,897 - 48.38%
Nader (G): 2,882,955 - 2.74%
Fringes: 1,066,246 - 1.01%
Total Electorate: 105,405,100
2004 Presidential Election Stats:
Bush (R): 62,040,610 - 50.74%, +11,584,608 from '00
Kerry (D): 59,028,444 - 48.28%, +8,028,547 from '00
Fringes: 1,198,499 - 0.98%, essentially unchanged from '00
Total Electorate: 122,267,553
The difference in the total size of the electorate between 2000 and 2004 is 16,862,453; that many more people voted in 2004 than 2000.
Now, let's assume that had Ralph Nader not run on the Green Party ticket in 2000, all 2,882,955 of his voters would have voted for the Democratic slate of Al Gore and Joe Liberman (unlikely, since some would have gone off to fringe candidates, but is probably pretty close to reality). As a percentage of the electorate, fringe candidates were essentially unchanged in percentage of votes, so we can discount them for figuring out how the electorate actually changed in the four years from 2000 to 2004.
When you account for Nader's 2000 votes going to Kerry in 2004 - and also assuming that everybody who voted for Bush voted for him again, and everybody who voted for Gore did so for Kerry (probably pretty close; any side-to-side shifts probably would cancel out) - this is what the net change, Republican vs. Democrat, for the 2004 election looked like:
Bush (R): +11,584,608 votes
Kerry (D): +5,145,592 votes
That totals to 16,730,200 more people who voted Republican or Democrat more than who voted Republican or Democrat (plus Green) in 2000. If you recall from above, the total change in the size of the electorate was 16,862,453 - essentially the same number as those who increased the vote totals of Republicans and Democrats. (The difference in "fringe" voting between the two years is identical to the 132,253 voter count differential between D+R in 00-04 vs. the electorate count in 00-04).
So, 16,730,200 more people voted for either George W. Bush or John Kerry in 2004 than voted for the corresponding tickets in 2000. Now, were all of those "new" voters? Considering that the total electorate size in 1992 was 104,423,923 (-981,177 vs. 2000, -17,843,630 vs. 2004) and just 96,277,634 in 1996 (-9,127,466 vs 2000, -25,989,919 vs. 2004), for the purposes of this excercise I think it's safe to say that the net effect is that all of the 16,730,200 new Democrat or Republican voters in 2004 did not vote in 2000, 1996, or 1992.
Now, if you've haven't been calculating this in your head, here's how this works out:
Percentage of "new" voters who voted for John Kerry in 2004: 30.76%
Percentage of "new" voters who voted for George Bush in 2004: 69.24%
In other words, "new" voters to the electorate voted for George W. Bush in 2004 by a 2.25-to-1 margin.
I think it's dangerous to assume that "new" voters are automatically liberals, regardless of who the candidate is. I'm sure that that type of electorate assumption is skewing some of the polls dramatically.
As Sean Hannity would say, "Let not your heart be troubled" - unless you're an Obama supporter, that is.
All of us Republicans and conservatives MUST get out and vote.
Eight days to go...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In Defense of Michelle Bachmann
Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has come under fire for saying on MSNoBamaC that Barack Obama could be considered to be "anti-American" for his associations and potentially his policies. The blowhard host of Hardball, Chris Matthews, pressed the point and, at least in the context of the program, got Representative Bachmann to extend her sentiment to other liberals in the Congress. (See Power Line for details)
She's now backed off the statement a bit. No surprise there, since the party line is "we don't question patriotism, we question judgement."
So, are our Liberal opponents anti-American or just judgementally challenged? Let's let them speak for themselves:
[Our military is] air raiding villages and killing civilians...
-- Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.
-- Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.
-- Representative John Murtha (D-PA), May 17, 2006; the US Marines he accused of murder in the Iraqi town of Haditha were later completely exonerated; Rep. Murtha has yet to apologize.
[In reference to the Iraq surge] The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.
-- Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.
-- Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (this from over 4 years ago BTW, still no attacks on US soil since 9/11)
I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq. His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor.
-- Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), April 2008
And I could go on, and on, and on. So, do these and other statements rise to the level of "anti-Americanism"? To quote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
In case you don't know, that is the text of 18 USC 2381. All of the Left's anti-American, anti-Military statements rise to the level of "aid and comfort" to our enemies - especially when our enemies quote the Democratic Party and its members when they spout off with their own anti-American scree. When you combine that with their willingness to associate and sit on boards with known domestic terrorist murderers like Bill Ayers - self-confessed purveyors and supporters of insurrection and sedition - then this is not a judgement issue.
It is an issue of patriotism, and the seeming way these individuals trample on their oaths to the Constitution of the United States.
There is a very good reason why, when the oath to the Constitution is administered, that it says: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."
She's now backed off the statement a bit. No surprise there, since the party line is "we don't question patriotism, we question judgement."
So, are our Liberal opponents anti-American or just judgementally challenged? Let's let them speak for themselves:
[Our military is] air raiding villages and killing civilians...
-- Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.
-- Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.
-- Representative John Murtha (D-PA), May 17, 2006; the US Marines he accused of murder in the Iraqi town of Haditha were later completely exonerated; Rep. Murtha has yet to apologize.
[In reference to the Iraq surge] The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.
-- Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.
-- Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (this from over 4 years ago BTW, still no attacks on US soil since 9/11)
I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq. His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor.
-- Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), April 2008
And I could go on, and on, and on. So, do these and other statements rise to the level of "anti-Americanism"? To quote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
In case you don't know, that is the text of 18 USC 2381. All of the Left's anti-American, anti-Military statements rise to the level of "aid and comfort" to our enemies - especially when our enemies quote the Democratic Party and its members when they spout off with their own anti-American scree. When you combine that with their willingness to associate and sit on boards with known domestic terrorist murderers like Bill Ayers - self-confessed purveyors and supporters of insurrection and sedition - then this is not a judgement issue.
It is an issue of patriotism, and the seeming way these individuals trample on their oaths to the Constitution of the United States.
There is a very good reason why, when the oath to the Constitution is administered, that it says: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."
Monday, October 20, 2008
The future SecState?
Rumored to be on the New Soviet Man's short list for Secretary of State, John Kerry (loser, 2004 Presidential Election) shows yet more of his true tact and classiness.
By the way, did you know he went to Vietnam?
Hat tip: Drudge
By the way, did you know he went to Vietnam?
Hat tip: Drudge
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Good Riddance, Plus 41 Years
On this day in 1967 Communist terrorist, murderer, and revolutionary Che Guevara was executed in Bolivia.
By the way, did you know that this enemy of Liberty and Freedom is a favorite of Barack Obama supporters?
Evidence, part 1
Evidence, part 2
Evidence, part 3
Remember that on November 4th...
By the way, did you know that this enemy of Liberty and Freedom is a favorite of Barack Obama supporters?
Evidence, part 1
Evidence, part 2
Evidence, part 3
Remember that on November 4th...
Friday, October 03, 2008
Thank You, Congressman Jason Altmire
As you've probably heard, the massive socialization of the US economy cloaked as a financial rescue has passed both houses of Congress and will be signed into law by President Bush.
171 American Patriots of both parties stood fast and voted NO on this legislative travesty.
One of them was my Congressman, Mr. Jason Altmire (Democrat) of the Pennsylvania 4th District.
I contacted Mr. Altmire's office several times during these past days to first encourage him to vote against any bailout, then to thank him for his original vote on Monday against the bailout, and then to continue to oppose the measure. I'm thankful that many others in our district did the same, and that Mr. Altmire listened to his constituents.
I do not support Mr. Altmire's reelection, but on this day, I am proud he is representing me.
171 American Patriots of both parties stood fast and voted NO on this legislative travesty.
One of them was my Congressman, Mr. Jason Altmire (Democrat) of the Pennsylvania 4th District.
I contacted Mr. Altmire's office several times during these past days to first encourage him to vote against any bailout, then to thank him for his original vote on Monday against the bailout, and then to continue to oppose the measure. I'm thankful that many others in our district did the same, and that Mr. Altmire listened to his constituents.
I do not support Mr. Altmire's reelection, but on this day, I am proud he is representing me.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Pelosi: Democratic Ethics
Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could funnel political donations to our spouses for their personal financial gain?
No corruption here, none at all.
Hat tip: Drudge
No corruption here, none at all.
Hat tip: Drudge
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Taxes are NOT patriotic!
Plagarist and Senator Joe Biden - the Democrats' second fiddle to the New Soviet Man - has the audacity to say that the wealthy show their patriotism by paying higher taxes!
What an absolute crock, at least from a free market, pursuit of happiness and liberty perspective. Those with capital show their patriotism by investing or spending it, thereby creating new markets, new products, new services, and new jobs. Which incidentally, will then create - gasp! - more tax revenues and an expanding tax base!
It's dead on though from the Marxist perspective.
Joe Biden - the Old Soviet Man to Barack Hussein Obama's New one.
What an absolute crock, at least from a free market, pursuit of happiness and liberty perspective. Those with capital show their patriotism by investing or spending it, thereby creating new markets, new products, new services, and new jobs. Which incidentally, will then create - gasp! - more tax revenues and an expanding tax base!
It's dead on though from the Marxist perspective.
Joe Biden - the Old Soviet Man to Barack Hussein Obama's New one.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Truly he's a friend of the working man
The New Soviet Man, once a devotee of public financing for his campaign, holds an event today which completely and sincerely proves he's one of us and looking out for normal, everyday folks.
And it's priced fairly for the wallets or pocketbooks of proletariat masses at just $31,000.
That's just 592 eight-hour working days at the Federal minimum wage of $6.55/hour, assuming no taxes and the entire amount could be spent supporting Mr. Obama.
With friends like these, who needs...
And it's priced fairly for the wallets or pocketbooks of proletariat masses at just $31,000.
That's just 592 eight-hour working days at the Federal minimum wage of $6.55/hour, assuming no taxes and the entire amount could be spent supporting Mr. Obama.
With friends like these, who needs...
Friday, September 05, 2008
Joe Biden: A Man Who Cannot Tell the Truth
Michelle Malkin has a scathing review of the way Joe Biden is demonizing the unfortunate other driver in the tragic accident that claimed the lives of Biden's first wife and daughter. The Plagiarist claims that the other man was drunk, when none of the contemperaneous information from the police who investigated the accident indicates that.
In Joe Biden's world, everybody is a victim, there always has to be a villian, and true accidents can never be just that.
Disgraceful.
In Joe Biden's world, everybody is a victim, there always has to be a villian, and true accidents can never be just that.
Disgraceful.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Thank you, Joe!
(Image: Yahoo/AP)
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is one of the few Democrats I have any respect for. Since the dark day of 9/11, he has been resolute in our Nation's need to destroy our enemies. He gets it. He knows that without destroying tyrrany, there will be no "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Last night at the Republican National Convention, Senator Lieberman stood up for his colleague John McCain, and chose Nation over party. You can read his speech here, or watch it here. Do so if you haven't seen it.
I am glad we have men of principle and integrity like Joe Lieberman serving our country. It is a shame that of all the Democrats, Senator Lieberman is a lone wolf speaking out against the New Soviet Man in Barack Obama. Some excerpts:
Our Founding Fathers foresaw the danger of this kind of senseless partisanship. George Washington himself - in his farewell address to our country - warned that the "spirit of party" is "the worst eneemy" of our democracy and "enfeebles" our government's ability to do its job...
I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important.
But it is not more important than being an American...
...this is no ordinary election, because these are not ordinary times, and John McCain is no ordinary candidate. You may not agree with John McCain on every issue.
But you can always count on him to be straight with you about where he stands, and to stand for what he thinks is right regardless of politics.
Rock on Joe, ROCK ON!
Friday, March 28, 2008
What a stirring endorsement
Chelsea Clinton has apparently given her mother a true boost towards the Oval Office, saying that she'd be a better President than dear old dad.
Well, that doesn't say a whole lot, does it? Talk about setting low expectations. A flea, if electable, would probably be a better President than Bill Clinton was.
Well, that doesn't say a whole lot, does it? Talk about setting low expectations. A flea, if electable, would probably be a better President than Bill Clinton was.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Saddam's Congressmen
I'm shocked, shocked, to read that a "trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion" was paid for by Saddam Hussein's intelligence service through cut-outs.
The dates of the trip coincide with the trip by Representatives David Bonior (Democrat-MI), Jim McDermott (Democrat-WA), and Mike Thompson (Democrat-CA) in October of 2002. While these fine Americans are not named specifically in the Federal indictment surrounding the case, it's pretty clear that it was them who got their trip paid for on Saddam's dime.
I really don't care whether or not these upstanding patriots knew that the money for their trip came from Iraq or not. Their whole purpose in going was solely to undermine United States foreign policy, President Bush, and the need to insure Iraq's compliance with all of the various UN and other international sanctions against them - and produce compliance by force if necessary. No matter how you cut it, they gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. That's treason in my book. It's just icing on the cake that they were the dupes of the dictator himself.
Bonior, McDermott, Thompson - enemy collaborators.
Michelle Malkin comments here.
The dates of the trip coincide with the trip by Representatives David Bonior (Democrat-MI), Jim McDermott (Democrat-WA), and Mike Thompson (Democrat-CA) in October of 2002. While these fine Americans are not named specifically in the Federal indictment surrounding the case, it's pretty clear that it was them who got their trip paid for on Saddam's dime.
I really don't care whether or not these upstanding patriots knew that the money for their trip came from Iraq or not. Their whole purpose in going was solely to undermine United States foreign policy, President Bush, and the need to insure Iraq's compliance with all of the various UN and other international sanctions against them - and produce compliance by force if necessary. No matter how you cut it, they gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. That's treason in my book. It's just icing on the cake that they were the dupes of the dictator himself.
Bonior, McDermott, Thompson - enemy collaborators.
Michelle Malkin comments here.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Perhaps the Empty Suit isn't so empty...
...instead, he could be full of hatred, whack-job conspiracy theories, and worse. Senator Barack Obama has, on numerous occasions, called attention to his association with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Pastor Emeritus of the Trinity United Church of Christ and spoke of him in complimentary terms.
The Power Line crew has a (to this point) four-part rundown of the situation with links to other contributors:
The Audacity of Hate
The Audacity of Hate, Part Two
The Audacity of Hate, Part Three
The Audacity of Hate, Part Four
There is absolutely NO WAY Senator Obama can be allowed to minimize or weasel out of his association with this Preacher of Hate. Jeremiah Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, baptized their children, blessed their home, and is/was Senator Obama's pastor for twenty-some-odd years.
The Senator's disassociation from his pastor is laughable. If I ever heard such despicable, untrue, vindictive, hateful speech coming from the pulpit of my church, I'd be out of there. I wouldn't be hanging around for years, having the hatemonger baptize my children, or be welcome in my home, much less pronounce a blessing on it.
I can only draw one conclusion, and that is that Senator Obama likely subscribes in full to the Rev. Dr. Wright's scree. That puts them both very close to membership in the category of "enemies domestic."
The Power Line crew has a (to this point) four-part rundown of the situation with links to other contributors:
The Audacity of Hate
The Audacity of Hate, Part Two
The Audacity of Hate, Part Three
The Audacity of Hate, Part Four
There is absolutely NO WAY Senator Obama can be allowed to minimize or weasel out of his association with this Preacher of Hate. Jeremiah Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, baptized their children, blessed their home, and is/was Senator Obama's pastor for twenty-some-odd years.
The Senator's disassociation from his pastor is laughable. If I ever heard such despicable, untrue, vindictive, hateful speech coming from the pulpit of my church, I'd be out of there. I wouldn't be hanging around for years, having the hatemonger baptize my children, or be welcome in my home, much less pronounce a blessing on it.
I can only draw one conclusion, and that is that Senator Obama likely subscribes in full to the Rev. Dr. Wright's scree. That puts them both very close to membership in the category of "enemies domestic."
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Who are the racists?
Another example of how the mainline, Cackler-supporting Democrats - in this case Geraldine Ferraro - view The Empty Suit.
Is it just me, or do you "hear" in Ms. Ferraro's words: "Barack Obama just needs to get back in his place"?
Hat tip: Drudge
Is it just me, or do you "hear" in Ms. Ferraro's words: "Barack Obama just needs to get back in his place"?
Hat tip: Drudge
Monday, March 10, 2008
Culture of Corruption?
Isn't this the kind of story that is supposed - according to Nancy Pelosi anyway - to only be about a Republican? It's about the Democratic "Mr. Clean" too...
UPDATE (3/10 @ 1613): This is a very funny take, found via Google Search...
UPDATE (3/10 @ 1613): This is a very funny take, found via Google Search...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Who's the racist?
I'll let Governor "Less Red" Ed Rendell (D-PA) speak for himself. Interesting that even though the remarks were made to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a Google search for "Rendell" and "Obama" against "post-gazette.com" only produces a reference to Mr. Rendell's slur in a columnist's piece, not as news.
Hat tip: Drudge
Hat tip: Drudge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)