26 March 2008
I spend so much time over at Patterico's because the quality of both the posts and the comments is so high (despite my own sometimes inane contributions). I thought about DRJ's comment for quite a while before responding. Afterwards, I decided that a new thread was probably the best avenue to get further opinions from the (extremely discerning) few people who come here semi-regularly, along with maybe some informed opinions from any casual passersby (hello and welcome). Comments are always welcomed and encouraged.
Here is what I wrote back:
24 March 2008
Still, Democrats were stunned one Saturday in late March when, by their account, John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime political strategist, reached out to Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic congressman from Long Island who had become a lobbyist with powerful connections on Capitol Hill. In Mr. Downey’s telling, Mr. Weaver posed a question to him over lunch that left him stunned.
“He says, ‘John McCain is wondering why nobody’s ever approached him about switching parties, or becoming an independent and allying himself with the Democrats,’ ” Mr. Downey said in a recent interview. “My reaction was, ‘When I leave this lunch, your boss will be called by anybody you want him to be called by in the United States Senate.’ ”I've long said that McCain would be more honest to change parties and it would improve the quality of both.
Mr. McCain, who has rarely spoken publicly of his talks with Mr. Kerry, said last month that he had dismissed the vice-presidential offer out of hand. “He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Kerry when he was asked about the episode by a participant at a public forum in Atlanta. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”
Yeah, and I'm an X-man. He's not a conservative, he's not a Republican except in name only, and nobody has multiple talks about something they're not even considering. That John McCain can't be trusted on this type of thing has been demonstrated time and time again. The only thing I trust him completely about is for him to do what he wants... no matter how it impacts others.
23 March 2008
I am not a fan of John McCain. Not at all. I am less a fan of the MSM and hate dishonest smears against anyone., even those I disagree with politically.
McCain wrote two letters in late 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications. He urged quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh, although he did not ask the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal. At the time, one FCC commissioner's formal nomination was pending before McCain's Senate committee, and the FCC chairman complained that McCain's letters were improper.
Why was it improper? Because the FCC chairman felt pressured to do his
job? I think that's an appropriate use of Senatorial influence.
Telling someone it's time to make a decision is much different than telling
them what the decision will/should be.
So who was this FCC Chairman? According to wiki, it was William E. Kennard, a Democrat from California who is now a member of the Board of Directors of Sprint Nextel Corporation, The New York Times Company, Hawaiian Telcom and Insight Communications. Funny how that "reaching across the aisle" only works one way, isn't it? Democrats are all about the "bipartisanship" when Republicans do the reaching... the other way, not so much.
I've got to give McCain a pass on this. The Keating Five scandal is still his to own however.
20 March 2008
I believe Hillary is going to go into the convention still trailing slightly in delegates. Between the superdelegates that honestly believe she is more electable because she has momentum, the ones that she can persuade/pressure/blackmail into backing her, and the ones that won't give their vote to a black candidate under any circumstances, she's going to end up with the nomination.
At that point, watch for the sparks to fly and potential civil disturbance from those who think she was "selected, not elected" to the nomination. As the Reverend Wright might have said, "We reap what we sow." Of course, he would probably be talking about America being attacked, so it wouldn't be quoting... it would be plagiarism. Maybe that's where Obama learned it from.
18 March 2008
If she's going to say she's more qualified based on her experiences as First Lady, there's a lot more that needs to be released. The healthcare reform notes, telephone logs, and anything else where she has claimed to have influenced policy.
16 March 2008
I understand the strategic reasons for doing it and certainly can't dispute the results. This has been as divisive a campaign season as I've ever seen, especially for the Democrats. Keeping Hillary in has helped keep focus on the major flaws of the entire progressive movement. This is fine as far as it goes... the more scrutiny the better. I don't think Obama would have been hit nearly as hard on the Rezko connection, his wife's blunders, or his "spiritual adviser" if Hillary wasn't there to stoke the flames of identity politics.
I'm also going to avoid the, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it" reasoning. You've probably also heard, "We need to be better than they are" speeches, "They do it too" excuses, "Ends justifies the means" platitudes, and the always-ready standby "That's politics" rationalization. All of those have a measure of truth to them and are worthy of consideration. None are very convincing to me however.
This is the biggest reason it is a mistake to cross-over and meddle in the Democratic primary. One of the early statistics that so disheartened Republicans and convinced many that they had no chance in November was the sheer number of Democratic voters. This trend has continued throughout the primary season... Democratic turnout has been pretty consistently twice the Republicans, or higher. That is unlikely to change because the Republican nomination is clinched and the Democrats' is still being fiercely contested.
The media and the nutroots see this huge turnout as validation of the progressive movement and are emboldened. It makes the moonbats look more mainstream than they really are. With "Rush Democrats" adding to these numbers, it's going to be difficult to advance a conservative agenda. The progressives will feel stronger than they actually are and be less likely to give up an inch on any issue. With the encouragement of the MSM at every step, the meme will be, "We're the majority, look at the numbers we turned out in support of our agenda."
With the Republican Party already abandoning conservative principles, why would we conservatives make things harder on ourselves?
12 March 2008
Not yet anyway. Wait until just before the election though. We'll be seeing their "endorsement" very clearly. Why don't I think it will be for the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb.bomb.Iran"? I also don't think it will be a press release... just ask Spain.
10 March 2008
(Notice that the commander-in-chief portion is not within the quotation marks? I wonder what that's about? Creative quoting at its finest... gotta love the MSM.)
Anyway, I don't know what Senator Obama's real reasons are... they may be just as he has stated. I do believe Hillary is too ambitious to accept a VP position on an Obama ticket. If I'm wrong and she did decide to accept a VP slot, I agree with a lot of others that Michelle Obama had best take out some extra insurance, just in case. Why wouldn't she pick him even though she and Bill have publicly floated just that? Because she's also politically vindictive and sees Obama as pushing her out of turn. She was the presumptive nominee for the Democrats for so long that she figures it's hers by right.
Offering the VP slot to Obama is political gamesmanship... I'm just not sure Senator Obama realizes how convoluted the game can really get.
03 March 2008
Zyuganov announced that he would appeal alleged violations in court.or even have the results overturned. I also mentioned that it is starting to happen even before the ballots are cast.
What solutions are there? There is certainly no "one-size-fits-all" answer. How about starting with anyone caught intentionally breaking the rules (committing fraud) being permanently disqualified from seeking office? Anyone casting votes improperly disallowed from voting for three years? Anyone intentionally suppressing legitimate votes disallowed for the same period, with a prison sentence to boot? Developing a voting system with some accountability so that dead people don't vote, live people eligible to vote have their vote counted for who they chose, and live people who are not eligible to vote (illegal aliens, felons, etc...) are identified as such and turned in for violating election law?
Ideas? Because if we don't stop people from undermining Democracy, we're not going to have one.
02 March 2008
Huh? Looking at Wiki I don't see anything about military service. He played a sociopathic Colonel in "A Few Good Men" and a couple of minor roles elsewhere. What does he know about saluting that's real? Nothing.
Welcome to the liberal world where perception equals reality... so they say.
Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008
61 queries taking 0.0951 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.