No Neutrality

One of the First Lines of Attack Against Palin

Will be the fact that Sarah Palin was raised in a Pentecostal church in the "backwoods" of Alaska. (As if Wasilla really represents the "backwoods" for anyone that's lived in AK.) The same line of attack was used against John Ashcroft as well. "It's a theocracy! Voltaire, come quickly!"

It IS As Simple As It Looks!

An NPR article that I ran across today via Michelle Malkin. Sounds fair enough:

Well, not exactly Phil. Here what an Associated Press Fact Check has to say on the issue. It is true, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No one does - it's illegal. It's sort of like Obama saying "I don't rob banks to finance my campaign" - that would be illegal too. But he also does not take money from oil company political action committees (PACs) or lobbyists.

But boy, he sure does take money from people who work for oil companies. A lot of money. Not as much, however, as Clinton and Sen. John McCain do.

"As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals."

But then in the comments, one "Philip" added,

Tom, Please condsider two points in your further reporting on this subject.

1. The essential question is whether there is a meaningful difference between taking PAC money and taking individual contributions from people who work for a company. I would argue there is a significant difference. NPR might conclude they are not different and opt to blur the differences Obama is seeking to make. Whatever you conclude, perhaps NPR could explain its approach and not simply report it one way. A few days ago, a seperate story confused the subject by reporting on each candidates' contributions from "investment banks and their PACs" or something similar, when in fact, Sen. Obama does not take PAC money. To use that phraseology is to take a clear position on the question without clearly saying so.

2. On this specific story, taking money from a company PAC is much closer to taking money from a company than taking money from its individual employees is like taking money from the company. The WHOLE POINT of a PAC is to aggregate contributions so that they can be delivered with a "company message." Again, perhaps this could be explored in a NPR story. I would be interested to hear about how major US corporations handle contributions -- from PACs and individuals. My experience is that a company CEO or head of government relations schedules a lunch with the candidate or attends a small fundraiser and hands the candidate a check for $10,000 while asking the candidate to support some company-related project or request. When individuals give, they often do not deliver a company message but rather deliver a personal message.

Sent by Philip | 11:55 AM ET | 04-01-2008 [emph mine]

And what if that "personal message" is part and parcel of the company message? If the individual's financial interests are wholly wrapped up in the company's interests, what then is the "significant difference" that Philip mentions?

That is so completely disingenuous! You know good and well if McCain received money say, from some big wig at Haliburton, the Left would have IMMEDIATELY pounced on the association but Obama hyped followers cannot bring themselves to face the obvious: Obama is just a run-of-the-mill politician like EVERYONE HE DECRIES.

Conyers Promises Civil Unrest

If they do this, I'd be willing to march on Washington. You talk about starting a revolution? They are playing with serious fire here.

(CNSNews.com) - At a gathering of liberal activists in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) was asked if he would commit to holding the Bush administration accountable once a Democrat is in the White House and illegal acts have been pinned on President Bush.

My guess is that an Obama or Hillary will allow the impeachment to get their "tit-for-tat" re: Clinton, but then magnanimously "pardon" Bush for his "crimes."

CNS News

Senate passes bill to change Electoral College process | KOMO-TV - Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional

This is nothing but a thoughtless, emotional reaction to the election of 2000 as the writer acknowledges below. The Framers of this nation, however, arrived at the system of government that we have only after deep learning and earnest reflection.

In a twist of irony, the point of the electoral system, as I understand it, was to safeguard against the majority always trumping the minority. It was an attempt at "fairness" that the Bush-deranged in WA state completely misunderstand:

The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.
The Washington state bill was sponsored by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland.

The laughable part is that under this new rule, Bush would have taken the WA state electoral votes handily as he won the popular vote by some 4 million+ voters.

NOTE: It's the same Sen Oemig that repeatedly keeps pushing impeachment proceedings against the president.

HT DBPJ

Break One Law To Uphold Another

OK, help me out here: the boy is an illegal immigrant, meaning he's not here lawfully (if I understand the story right) and yet he's being encouraged to come back and "cut a deal" that would allow him to break the law with no consequences so they can go after the teacher? Why aren't both the boy and his family AND the teacher prosecuted?

The boy remains in Mexico because of his immigration status but might be able to return to Nebraska, at least temporarily, if he is granted a “U” visa. The visas are used to encourage illegal immigrants to report crimes against them.

“To prove their case, they have to have him come back here,” Davis said. “They’re going to have to cut him some deal to have him testify. In exchange for the promise of bringing him into the country, he may be anxious to please them and do what they say.”

MSNBC

What's The Point?

I don't get it. Garrison Keillor and others like him are so worried about waterboarding but yet, ostensibly (from what I know) many of these same folks do think there is a time to fight and kill. Many Libs have a nearly sacred regard for the "Greatest Generation." What was that but a time of TOTAL warfare, complete with the destruction of entire cities filled with men, women, AND children?

So let me get this straight: it's OK to blast a guy with a grenade, maybe even bayonet him in close quarters, or shoot him in the face, or snipe him in the neck or any host of other methods of killing him, but it's "mean" to waterboard??

HT Powerline Blog

I Guess He Really Is the "Terminator"

Of vestiges of biblical influence in the culture, anyway.

In my frustration, I want to lay this travesty at the feet of folks like Hugh Hewitt and the "electability" crowd:

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

WorldNetDaily: 'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

I Call It Treason

Clarice Feldman is a national treasure:

Democrats are playing political games with national security and mongering phony scandal. It amounts to a program of harassment of the Bush Administration's efforts to defend us against attack by uncovering terror plots using intelligence agencies.

American Thinker: Alberto Gonzales Agonistes

A Bona Fide Traitor

And this is one of the key Democrats that Senator Lindsey Graham says that the GOP can work with to get things done?? 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

I confess, we're all sinners, and I am the chief of sinners, but as a national leader, Harry Reid is disgrace. He's a coward and a fool. He voted to confirm Gen. Petraeus (whom he also calls a "incompetent" in the same article) and yet when things are perfect in mere weeks, he calls him incompetent behind his back.

Of course, you won't see this prominently featured by any of the mainstream media...

H/T - The Corner on National Review Online

Trent Lott - Exhibit A For Why We Need A New Party

Been saying it forever, and I used to be intimidated into saying it in muted tones, but I'm right. I didn't want too sound too radical, too crazy, too "Losertarian" (to use Michael Medved's term) and I was loathe to part with my cloak of respectability.

But it turned out that I was right when I went against Arnold in favor of Tom McClintock; I was right when I went against Arlen Specter in favor of Pat Toomey and--dare I say it?--I was right when I went against the nomination of George W. Bush in 2000. In each of these areas--as much as I respect him--Hugh Hewitt was wrong. History has borne that out (even Hugh admitted that he had erred in supporting Specter).

So now, even though such an one as the Hewitt probably disagrees, I'm thankfully free of the debilitating timidity that used to have me whisper my opinion (and then only to sworn confidantes) and I am now able to state loud and clear,

WE NEED A NEW PARTY.

That's right. If you haven't been paying attention, let me inform you that the GOP has grown old and sclerotic. Unresponsive. Inward, and more protective of "procedures" and "process" (and "bipartisanship") than the interests of the American people. It's what 35 years of 'public service" does to a man, as exemplified in Trent Lott:

This is time where we are going to see whether we are a United States Senate anymore. Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's, let's let's legislate. Let's vote. I think the majority leader has a right to expect at some point we end it. Try and cover as many objections with as many amendments as we can. But at some point we have got to get this done....

Senator Kennedy, I appreciate the legislative leadership you have been providing. I know it is not easy, you know, and your own colleagues and those of us over here have been beating you up. I mean, your a nice poster child. Thank you very much for what you do. But I'll tell you one thing I have learned the hard way. When it comes to legislating, when you are dealing with Senator Kennedy, you had better bring your lunch, because you are going to get educated, you are going to learn a lot, and you are going to get a result. Hopefully it is going to be a good one. Good luck, senator from Massachusetts. I yield the floor.

Sen. Kennedy: And the senator too. I thank my friend from Mississippi, and I commend him for a constructive and a positive attitude.

Like the old wineskin, the GOP is unfit for the new wine of Conservatism that enlivens the base. It's not an isolated incident. It's not transitory. It's systemic and permanent and the only remedy is amputation. Sorry, Hugh, but

WE NEED A NEW PARTY.

HT: Hugh Hewitt