One of the fringe benefits of a being a blogger is that you get emails from a handful of left-wing kooks who like to regularly send missives to a gazillion conservative websites. It's not hate mail per se, it tends to be more like articles from ultra-liberal websites that they really want you to see for some reason.
Eventually, if their ISP is on the ball, they have their account suspended for spamming after a few complaints, but that can take weeks or months before it happens. One of the loons that sends me email, (He also sends it to the FBI, DOJ, Charles Krauthammer, and a bazillion other people, too) goes by the handle of Bush-Adm-Planned-911.
Naturally, these emails usually go right into the trash without ever being read, but the title on his latest spam-mail was just too good to resist. It was called, "Do we have to make citizens arrests of Bush & company" and for the most part, the email was leeched from an insane conspiracy website called TvNewsLies.
As you're reading and enjoying the utter lunacy below, remember that this kook sending me email was so impressed with the reasoning displayed below that he actually sent it out to people to read (This is edited down because of fair use, but you can read it all at the link above):
TVNL Editor's Comments: Do we have to make citizens arrests of Bush & company? We have smoking gun after smoking gun and the criminals in charge of our nation do nothing. It is quite clear they are all (with few exceptions) in on the crimes.
We have TONS of EVIDENCE that both presidential elections have been stolen. That alone should be enough to arrest the people who have taken over our nation via electoral coup! But wait.there is more.lots more! We have EVIDENCE that there was inside involvement in 9/11.nothing happens. We have EVIDENCE that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, about what he knew about the potential doom of Katrina in advance, and he knew (and may have been involved) about 9/11.nothing happens. We have testimony that Dick Cheney approved the leaking of top secret information.nothing happens. Do we have to arrest these criminals ourselves? Even if all the EVIDENCE is wrong it only proves that this administration is so incompetent that they should be removed from office for our own safety!
Congress is our enemy; the Justice Department has been compromised in the same way that Police Capt. Mark McCluskey was in the movie the Godfather. Our military have been so blinded with propaganda that they don't realize that they have been mobilized in direct contradiction to the principles for which they believe they are fighting. Our local law enforcement has already taken steps to implement a fascist police state where they view peace groups as the enemy and they enforce the statutes that violate our Constitution. Do we have to carry out justice ourselves? Do we have to revert to the street justice of the wild west? Do we need to form a posse and arrest the criminals ourselves?
....Don't you people realize that the EVIDENCE of all these crimes is right there in front of your face? Forget the media.they are the enemy and they should be first on our list when we clean house! Look at the EVIDENCE! It's out there! I'll pay for the handcuffs.where are all the deputies? Think about it! - Jesse, Editor, TvNewsLIES.org
Viva la Revolution, comrade! It doesn't matter if the evidence behind our crazy conspiracy theories is right or wrong, we must act! Then after we get rid of the Bush Family Evil Empire, next comes Congress, the media, and presumably afterwards, the military, which is "blinded with propaganda" and local law enforcement because they're implementing "a fascist police state." So, who'll be left after all of that? Comrade Jesse, Comrade Bush-Adm-Planned-911, and Comrade Cindy Sheehan who'll set up a collective and Gulags for the dissenters...maybe, who knows how these lunatics think?
Whatever the case may be, the cat is out of the bag, you weirdos! There's a cell in the Haliburton "Patriotic Reeducation" camp set up for you in Montana and after you get out, you'll love Nascar, hunting, and George Bush! Get ready for the men in black to kick in your door at any time and take you away! (Shhh, don't tell them I'm kidding. Maybe this kook will stop sending me email out of fear that the VRWC will find out his location.)
PS: Thanks goes out to Bellsouth, Bush-Adm-Planned-911's ISP. Without their steadfast refusal to block his insane spam, despite multiple emails to abuse, this post would not have been possible.
How about helping me out by taking a looking at all 12 of these ads? Is 12 too many? Well Ok, how about just clicking on 4 ads then? It would really help me out and since these advertisers are supporting a conservative blog like RWN, it would be great if they got a lot of eyeballs on their ads in return for their investment. So, how about clicking on just a few of these advertisers? Please?
RWN now has two banner ad slots available. You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month and if a refund is given for any reason, it will be prorated.
Yesterday, I posted the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground reactions to Zarqawi's death. Well today, I decided to complete the trifecta by posting a few of the reactions from commenters at the The Huffington Post.
The Huffpo comment thread featured crabby liberals, a happy liberal here or there, conservatives pointing out that most of the liberals were unhappy, and liberals getting indignant because the conservatives were pointing out that they weren't happy. Here are just a few of the comments that really stood out:
Reporter: The US creates another martyr. This man was not a soldier in an army that attacked the United States. He was a soldier in an organization that resisted the imperial armies of the Soviet Union and the United States. There are millions more like him ready to take his place and emulate him. Within the next few years these millions will develop their own unmanned killing machines, too, like the one that killed him. Such will be the legacy of the Imperialism as practised by the US in the 21st centrury - unmanned automated killing machines everywhere, all around us.
Thanks, Soviet Russia, Thanks USA. We owe it all to you and your desires to be empires. Welcome to the next chapter of hell on earth.
gopgoingdown: Bush loves to KILL. Two 500 pound bombs, to kill him? How many women, children, old did them two 500 pound bombs kill? Bush the KILLER president, it will go down in history, Bush is the KILLER president!!!
Shoggoth: Al Quaeda no longer needs leaders. Every bad decision Bush makes strengthens their cause. Bush is like Osama Bin Laden's puppet. Now they have a new martyr. America has taken Al Quaeda from obscurity to mainstream in the Muslim world.
Hattor: Sad day for the Spin Masters of the Neocons warmonger. Because they need War an Dead for can make more Money they need a new boogey Man.
And what is with all the terrorists in Uniforms or the Murders who are hired by Halliburton and other murder organisation.
helonias: The good news is al-Zarqawi is dead.
The bad news is can we trust that this as truthful information, coming from Bushco.
The really bad news is that he will now be seen as a martyr by millions of arabs. Shouting remember the Alamo I mean al-Zarqawi, as they set off there explosive backpacks.
confused: Once again, we've killed those who kill to stop the killing? And how many 500 pound bombs did it take? How many innocents died along with Zarqawi? Sorry, no celebration here--only fear of a "retaliation", more hate, more discension, more of our own dead and more others dead and less and less civilization. The US will keep up the killing to stop the killing which will never stop as long as the Neo Con Global Cowboy/Pirate Criminals are in office.
And the really really bad news is that there will be 100 in line to replace him and they will be as effective, if not more so.
SatanLivesinUSA: The US f*cking military can put up any f*cking bullshit headline they want.
There will be lots of litte Zarqawis to follow.
A true reason for celebration would be if the Green Zone was nuked.
Left-wingers love to make up wild accusations about conservatives so that they can then turn around and use those baseless charges to try to justify their own outrageous behavior. Just to give you one infamous example, Michelle Malkin, among many other bloggers, posted some phone numbers on her blog that an anti-military college group had put on a press release and on the front of their website. Next thing you know, you had liberals claiming Michelle had put up private phone numbers and in retaliation, they were posting her phone number, address, and map to her house online, presumably because they were hoping some nutjob would harass or assault her family.
That's why a post by Armando over at the Daily Kos caught my eye -- because it's the same sort of thing some left-wingers have used before as a lame excuse for unexcusable behavior:
" A major Right wing site has chosen to support a troll's campaign started at this site to out me.
The writing is on the wall. I will likely be giving up blogging as a result.
If people were wondering about why I was so adamant about this, I hope this explains it.
I have never written about my clients and whenever I had a conflict, I disclosed it. But people of ill will have no decency or limits."
The "major Right wing site" Armando mentions is apparently a reference to National Review's Media Blog.
Steven Spruiell from Media Blog mentioned that Armando's real name was Armando Lloréns-Sar after getting a tip off from a reader that Armando had allegedly: "wrote a number of pro-corporate articles, of course without disclosing that he is a corporate attorney promoting these same issues for his clients."
Now, at first glance, this might appear to lead to an ethical quandary: on the one hand, you don't want to reveal a blogger's anonymous identity, but on the other hand, if Spruiell believed Armando was pulling an Armstrong Williams and writing favorable articles about someone he represented without revealing it, then that's information that people need to know.
However, here's the rub: as Spruiell pointed out in a later post, Armando's identity wasn't a secret.
"(Armando's) announcement was so unexpected to me because everything I wrote was based on information that Armando himself had shared with other web sites — his full name, his work affiliation, and his role as a blogger at Daily Kos are all listed together on these sites. He also posted his picture on his bio at another high-profile liberal blog. Yet for some reason, many are claiming that until I published this information, Armando's identity was a well-kept secret. That is simply false.
...UPDATE: I didn't link to the other web sites on which Armando shared identifying information because I'm trying not to inflame this situation any further. However, I linked to one of them my original post, and the others are easy to find. As I said, this was all a matter of public record long before I wrote anything."
Spruiell chose not to mention the other blogs that mentioned Armando's real name, but that's information that needs to be out there since Armando is now publicly claiming he has been outed. So, here are a few of the websites that appear to have had Armando's real name listed somewhere prior to Spruiell's article (Note: this info was acquired by doing nothing more than a Google Search):
Clark Community Network, Confirm Them, Democracy for Oregon, Have Coffee Will Write, Majority Report Radio, NPR, Truthout, & Wikipedia.
Furthermore, if you simply do a Google Search for Armando and "Daily Kos," the 4th entry currently shows this from Wikipedia:
"Armando Lloréns-Sar whose screen name is "Armando" at Daily Kos, filled-in for site founder Zuniga as the front page diarist during his book writing hiatus ..."
It's also worth noting that some of these entries, like the one from NPR for example, have been around since the Harriet Miers nomination.
NPR: 'Bloggers' Weigh In on Miers' Withdrawal
Armando Llorens is an attorney who blogs for Daily Kos. ... Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? ...
So, whatever Armando's real reasons are for quitting (could it be that Spruiell's speculation about an ethics conflict was correct?), his decision doesn't appear to be based on any sort of right wing campaign to out him because his real name appears to have been easy to access on the net for quite a while. Let's hope this post sets the record straight, once and for all.
Hugh Hewitt: I am amazed at the reactions today, and I want to read you a few of them, and gather your reactions to the reaction. From Richard Clarke, ultimately for the loved ones of troops in Iraq, (Zarqawi's death) is not going to mean a big difference.
Mark Steyn: No, that is pathetic, because the point of this is that it is good news. You can say that about any stage in the war. You could have said all through the Second World War, you could have said when we liberated the Solomon Islands...well, this isn't going to make a great deal of difference to those of us who are waiting for our troops to come home from Europe. You could say that about every victory in a war. In that sense, every victory is just a pause to take a breath, to cheer the great work that's been done, and then on to the next stage. I mean, this man, Richard Clarke, he's so corroded by bitterness, basically, because people didn't do what he said. And there's no reason to pay any attention to him, as far as I can see.
More Amazing Holes in the Duke Lacrosse Story By Betsy Newmark
Is there anything left to that prosecutor's case? One of the defendant's lawyers has filed a motion that lays bare more inconsistencies and holes in the alleged victim's story. This is amazing stuff.
Osborn's most damaging allegation is a statement from a Durham police investigator summarizing a conversation he had with the second dancer, Kim Roberts, on March 20. Investigator Benjamin Himan says Roberts told him the rape allegation was a "crock." Roberts also told police that she was with the accuser for all but five minutes that night.
The motion also says the alleged victim told Durham police that she had performed for a couple at a Raleigh hotel hours before the Duke lacrosse party. She told police that she used a vibrator. Osborn suggests that could be the source of the vaginal injuries mentioned in the rape kit report.
The defense attorney also takes issue with the rape examination itself, pointing out that the nurse who assisted in the exam was in training. Osborn says the only evidence of physical trauma the nurse could find was a scratch on the accuser's knee and a small cut on her heel, which was not bleeding.
The motion also alleges the police investigator stated the accuser was hit, kicked and strangled, but did not reveal that the examining physician found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness.
Osborn says the accuser gave conflicting accounts of what happened. The motion says medical records indicate she told a doctor that she used no alcohol or drugs. The accuser told the sexual assault nurse that she had consumed one drink of alcohol and was taking Flexeril, a prescription drug used to treat muscle spasms.
The alleged victim told a doctor the next day at UNC Hospitals that "she was drunk and had had a lot of alcohol that night," the motion said.
She later told police that she had consumed a 24-ounce bottle of beer and then told police she had two 22-ounce bottles of beer, according to the motion.
The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer stole her money and property, the motion said.
Osborn says a man named Jarriel Johnson drove the accuser to the Durham Police Department to pick up her belongings March 21. The motion points to a statement from Johnson saying the accuser engaged in sexual activity with at least four different men from March 10 to March 12.
Remember, assuming he reads his own police reports, the District Attorney had to know all this stuff and he still went forward with asking the grand jury for indictments. It is so scary to think of the power that one district attorney can have to bring a prosecution based on such an obviously flimsy story.
I keep coming back to what people would be saying if a prosecutor were going forward with such a tissue of lies against three black men accused of raping a white woman. We would be having marches and riots. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be bruised from elbowing each other out of the way to get to the microphone to decry the racist district attorney who is persecuting these young men. But because the races are reversed we keep hearing about their arrests for public urination and having open bottles of beer as if that was a sign of a deeply evil character.
This case should be dismissed and this DA should suffer whatever torments the law provides for a public official who knowingly brings such a clearly dishonest case. The defense lawyer's filing says that the DA deliberately left this information out of his filing to get the warrant for the players' DNA and photos for that improper lineup. The judge who signed off on those warrants should be furious about being deceived. Nifong needs to burn for what he had done to those boys, the team, Duke, and Durham. His behavior is inexcusable.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
Over at the Daily Kos, there are a variety of threads discussing Zarqawi's death and I dipped into one of them, one that is featured on the main page. The initial post featured a post from Bush that was sure to rile up the Kossacks:
It was a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. In a statement President Bush said U.S. forces "delivered justice."
"Delivered Justice," eh? I love it...but, the Kossacks? Not so much. Although there were some people who seemed happy Zarqawi was dead, they were in the minority. Let's just say it was a very cranky thread. Here are a few of the comments that stood out:
Johann: Bush's idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?
OldYellerDog: That phrase, "delivered justice," sent a shiver up my spine.
What was delivered was retribution, not justice. This is plenty biblical, but not "just." Muslims, Christians, Jews -- all the followers of the cousin religions born in those lands -- have heard and ignored divine calls for restraint on revenge. That's what it means to say "[no more than] an eye for an eye."
Confusion between justice -- a dispassionate and methodical determination of guilt or innocence, and retribution -- simply revenge, but with the stench of summary justice, is a hallmark of the fundamentalist mentality.
flo58: For Bush, on whose watch literally hundreds of inmates were executed when he was governor of Texas, seems to equate justice and death. Forget arresting people, just kill them.
Zarqawi was a bad guy and I am glad he is gone, but it really disturbs me that we have become merchants of death in the name of "justice". IMO justice means what happens inside a court room. Call me old-fashioned...
Marc in KS: I suppose this is a good thing, but I'm not sanguine about it helping the situation all that much. I hope I'm wrong. Killing the leaders doesn't really seem to matter that much in this sort of conflict. Others just pop up to replace them.
One sure thing, though, is that all these "al-Zarqawi is dead" diaries will finally stop.
Pragmatic Left: Bin Laden came out to campaign for Bush. Personally, I think they've got him in a cell somewhere, and they trot him out whenever the political situatoin seems dire and let him make a speech.
truong son traveler: beheading very innocent people. Killing innocent people with bombs and sniper rounds. That's okay because we do it. We're Murkans we're the good guys. After all we're bringing them democracy.
meirux: The US already had Zarqawi in custody. He was one of the high-value prisoners kept from Red Cross scrutiny for national security reasons (those reasons being his value for psychological ops like the recently released "bonus" footage that the army showed of Zarqawi not knowing how to properly load or fire his own gun, despite all those years in terrorist training camp). Because there's a lot of political heat on Bush at the moment, they killed him and are now making a triumphant noise about it. This has now crossed the line into blatant treason.
CheChe: This is what we can expect from Bush Inc. and the Texas Death Machine: unilateral death with no possibility of appeal.
Al-Zarqawi should have been placed under arrest and tried in a court of law, preferably the The International Court of Justice at the Hague. He should have been turned over to the U.N. as soon as possible as opposed to what usually happens in these cases: being secreted away to some Rumsfeldian torture chamber where Cheney's fiends can unleash a bloodfeast.
"One of the most brutal, heinous, and horrendous terrorists was killed last night when the U.S. Armed Forces delivered 500-pounds of justice to Iraq’s ‘Prince of Al-Qaeda’ on behalf of Nicholas Berg, Jack Armstrong, Ken Bigley, Jack Hensley and the thousands of others who were beheaded, tortured, and killed by Al-Zarqawi and his henchmen." -- Congressman Jack Kingston
This Is Your Brain. Now, Look At Michael Berg. That Is Your Brain On Liberalism
"I think the news of the loss of any human being is a tragedy. I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," he said. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."
#1) "Woo-hoo, one of the world's worst terrorists is dead!" -- What went through a normal person's brain after hearing about Zarqawi's death.
"I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy." -- What apparently went through the brain of Michael Berg, a liberal, after he heard about Zarqawi's death.
#2) If John Kerry were President, we'd have people with Berg's mentality working in the Department of Defense and making decisions about the war on terrorism.
The folks over at Strategy Page sure helped their already solid reputation by putting this up yesterday, on the very day that Zarqawi was killed:
"Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda's efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future. If handled right it can be made to look like he went out in a blaze of glory fighting American troops or that he was foully murdered. Either way, al Qaeda gets rid of a problem and gains another "martyr."
The Democratic Underground Reaction To Zarqawi's Death
On this happy day, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been declared dead, I thought I'd head over to the DU to watch the grumbling. That's because if there's one thing that I've learned about lefties, it's that good news for America tends to make them unhappy because they're afraid Bush and the Republican party will get the credit.
Don't get me wrong, there were more than a few people who had a normal reaction: "Woo-hoo, Zarqawi's dead," but the majority of DUers were acting like their puppy just died. Here are a few comments I grabbed as I floated around from Zarqawi thread to Zarqawi thread:
Swamp Rat: ...His worthless piece of sh*t *ss is now an asset - a martyr in an asymmetrical war.
Chalk another one up for Osama and all his loose associations around the globe because this is exactly what they wanted.
redirish28: So who else is wondering how much Bush will shoot up in the polls? That was the first thing my wife thought of. They are trying to save his poll rating.
benburch: One terrorist kills another. That's a good thing! Bush got Ak-Zarqawi today. Finally. How many innocent people did we kill in all of the previous attempts, I wonder?
depakid: There'll be 10 more lining up to take his place that's what makes this style of "war on terror" fundamentally self-defeating.
w13rd0: bin Laden...likely just called up Dubya and told him where to bomb. Those two seem to have the same goals, and they both hate gays and "foreigners". Both had hedonistic youths before finding religion. Two peas in a pod.
ShortnFiery: Gawd! Please, no disrespect - but this is only "a tool" that is used by the BushBotBorg to pick-up morale. It sort of equates to 1984 Announcements that our "chocolate rations" will be upped for the next month.
Translation: He's a fictitious character. ;)
Too funny. One each, phony persona, al-Zarqawi functions (for us Peasant Classes) like the Wile E. Coyote of Islamic Terrorists. When the bombs fell, was he holding up a itty bitty umbrella? :P No worries though ---> you can bet that within the next year he'll be resurrected and firing another A.C.M.E. machine gun.
Bullsh*t! Until they pull out remnants of his tiny umbrella, I AIN'T BUYING IT
TheWatcher: *DING! DONG!* THE PHANTOM IS DEAD! The War Was Worth it!
Meanwhile, in the reality based world, the lies, the death, the destruction, the unabated crimes, and the spiraling into hell and fascism for our nation, and the senseless deaths of innocent Iraqi's continues, without end.
But hey, Goldstien's Dead.
AGAIN.
sfexpat2000: It's unspeakably cruel to do this to military families who must keep hoping that THIS TIME it means something real for them. For that alone, I hope Rumsfeld burns in hell or some equivalent for eternity.
PaDem: Everything he's done over the past 6 years can now be forgiven and forgotten. He will go down in History as the man who rid the world of the elusive yet lethal Al Zarqawi. All the freedom hating Americans on DU need to now fall over each other trying to praise Mr. Bush like the Dems did when Saddam was captured. Of course in the process we'll dutifully ignore the fact that Al Zarqawi and King George have much in common. I suspect they both loathe gays and wide ranging personal liberties. Both have an infatuation with violence and torture and both believe that they are in acting in accordance with God's will.
So, does that mean a real option to the two main parties is about to spring up? No, not at all. It has been roughly 150 years since a third party, the Republicans, metastasized into a power player in American politics at the expense of the hapless Whig party and we’re still waiting for a repetition of history. That’s because the obstacles to putting together a viable third party are practically insurmountable.
First of all, ask yourself, “What platform would this third party run on? What would its guiding philosophy be?” They’d have to come up with something other than, “We’re not Democrats and Republicans.” You don’t know what it would be? Well, don’t feel badly because nobody seems to have a lot of good ideas about the subject which is why we usually hear advocates of a third party simply advocating a “moderate platform.”
However, most “moderates” are either people who break from their respective parties on a few issues or those who just aren’t well informed enough about politics to have a coherent philosophy. So, if you put 10 moderates in a room, you could easily have half of them disagreeing on every major issue. That’s why just trying to build a political party around a “moderate” philosophy won’t work.
Moreover, let’s say a third party were able to somehow find an important issue on which it could better represent the public than the two main parties. What makes anyone believe that either the Democrats or Republicans wouldn’t simply “steal” the issue? There are no issues that one party or the other won’t usurp if it proves to be politically popular.
Setting all that aside, there are the practical issues. Both parties have enormous field operations in every state, legions of volunteers, the capacity to raise almost limitless amounts of money, and all the advantages of incumbency. Some people seem to believe that these advantages can simply be shrugged off because the Internet is growing more useful as a tool for fund raising and organization. However, reality check here, both the Democrats and the Republicans are using the Internet, too. That means structurally, a third party starts out in an enormous hole—and, as a general rule, it needs more money and a better organization than the two main parties to adequately introduce itself to the public and explain its positions.
As a matter of fact, just about the only way a third party can overcome the obstacles in its path, albeit usually temporary, is by running a candidate with high name recognition (and preferably deep pockets as well). However, even that strategy has seldom worked at the national level and it has never worked in a race for the presidency. Given that the men who’ve tried to become President as third-party candidates—and failed—include Teddy Roosevelt, former Vice President Henry Wallace, and billionaire businessman Ross Perot, it becomes clear that we’re talking about an extremely difficult and maybe even nearly impossible trick to pull off.
When you put all of this together, it seems obvious that third parties aren’t going to win much of anything. But unfortunately, they’re capable of doing a lot of damage even when they almost inevitably lose. Just consider what happens when someone votes for a third party. That person actually takes the time to get up, go to the voting booth, and then he casts a vote for a person that he knows has absolutely no chance to win.
But, what about the opportunity cost of that vote? In order to vote for a third party, he’s passing on the candidate closest to his views that actually has a chance to win, which makes it more likely that someone with diametrically opposing views will get into office. We’re talking about Green Party voters helping to put George W. Bush in the White House by voting for someone other than Al “Global warming is the most serious problem we are facing” Gore. We’re talking about, “who knows how many,” fiscal conservatives over the years losing tight races to big-government Democrats because so many small-government aficionados insisted on voting for some Libertarian wonk, whom the rest of the state wouldn’t have voted for if you put a gun to their heads. In other words, the only thing advocates of small parties ever accomplish, if they accomplish anything, is to help put the people who disagree with them the most in office. If the goal of third-party enthusiasts is supposed to be to change politics for the better, that would seem to be a rather perverse way of going about it.
"Given Ted Kennedy's latest comments, it seems that the Democrats aren't just for gay marriage, they believe people who have a traditional view of marriage are bigots.
"'A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,' said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.
"So Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, think Americans who simply believe marriage should be between one man and one woman are bigots. See? This is great information for the American people to have and it's something people should think about before they pull the lever for the Democratic Party . . . which explains why the Democrats are acting as if merely having this vote is some sort of dirty trick."
The big election of the day yesterday was the Bilbray (R) vs. Busby (D) Brawl over who would replace Duke Cunningham in California's 50th district. The polls had been tight all along and Cunningham's corruption and small candidates draining support from Bilbray turned the election into a possible Democratic pick-up even though it's a Republican leaning district.
However, in the end, Bilbray triumphed. Although the two independent candidates raked in a little more than 5% of the vote, Bilbray won by 49%-45%.
Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, had a teleconference about the race this morning. He said the Republican ground game made a big difference and turned a 31% margin for Busby in absentee ballots into a 20% margin, which helped guarantee Bilbray's victory.
I asked Ken if the fact that Bilbray won was an indication that Republican voters and the public in general favored the House plan. Mehlman basically said no -- they really favor the comprehensive plan the President wants and they don't know that much about the specifics.
Let's think about this. Bilbray's top issue was his get tough stance on illegal immigration and he was very vocal about his opposition to the comprehensive illegal immigration reform that came through the Senate. In fact, everyone seems to be willing to acknowledge that is why he managed to win the Republican primary.
Then, Bilbray gets into a race with Busby who strongly supports the comprehensive illegal immigration that came out of the Senate, so much so that she was even inviting illegal aliens to vote and work on her campaign. Then, after a campaign which seemed to revolve around illegal immigration finally ends, Bilbray wins and Busby loses.
Yet, Mehlman looks at all and comes to the conclusion that even though people voted against the candidate who supported comprehensive immigration reform, that's what people really want? Ken, Ken, Ken, you're great, but people aren't going to be fooled by that ridiculous spin.
(See more on the teleconference over at Hugh Hewitt's blog)
cookiesandmilk: "Diebold Express. When you care enough to cheat the very best!"
mstarr77: "this is ridiculous...third world democracy in action"
bronxbayo: "it really is starting to sound as if they are still cooking this meal, and that is why we haven't seen any official results. what's with all this swagger from the Bilbray camp and *ss-kissing from the media? the fix in?"
Young and on the air: "I know people might get mad about this....but I wouldn't put it past these f*cks to be flipping things as we speak. I know I know...it is the dirty little secret we don't talk about here but just consider it for a minute. These f*ckers lied us into a 2 trillion dollar war, are covering up some problems with building 7, and have shown themselves to be very capable of stealing elections accross the state."
Phoenix Democrat: "San Diegans who voted for Bilbray are morons. The 50% of San Diegans who voted for Bilbray don't care if the United States gets flushed down the toilet."
Elise: "First of all. A Republican has NOT yet WON a close election in this case!
Secondly, I am suspicious of all the extra time needed to count votes in each of these closely contested races...where somehow, the Repug squeaks out the win by JUST enough. But there are NEVER any delays in any of the other districts...GEE, I wonder the f*ck why?!
Be LOGICAL...THINK CRITICALLY...."
paida: "I AM SICK OF LOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
mikey1ca: "i feel the same way. It is so depressing to get our hopes up every cycle, only to have these idiots keep voting for the crooks."
Ah....good times!
Update #1: Robert Bluey over at Human Event's Right Angle blog now has a post up about the teleconference with Ken Mehlman and he apparently has access to a transcript.
Here's his write-up of my question and Ken Mehlman's answer:
Hawkins kicked off the Q&A portion with an excellent question about Bilbray's decision to strongly support the House bill on immigration reform (whereas Francine Busby favored the Senate's amnesty approach). And while it seems obvious to me (and Newt Gingrich) that this is why Bilbray triumphed, Mehlman wasn't as definitive.
"The public wants illegal immigration dealt with as a serious issue, and I think what ultimately crystallized that choice was that his opponent came out and she encouraged illegal immigrants to illegally vote. If you look at polling across the board, it shows that most Republicans, most conservatives, most Americans believe there ought to be a comprehensive approach.
That doesn’t mean the American people believe in every comma and period of the Senate bill, but they do believe that you need both strong border security and a way to meet our economic needs, and you need a way to have worker verification, and you need a way to deal with the illegals who are here now.
I think the polling show that with this election there was a clear choice between one candidate who said we need stronger border security and another candidate who said illegals, welcome to the voting process. And that’s a very important distinction."
Liberal columnist Richard Cohen, who, judging by his latest column, seems to be an atheist, had this to say in the course of criticizing the Pope's comments at Auschwitz:
"Now, though, Benedict has actually said something. He said more or less what I did after visiting Auschwitz/Birkenau -- and before that, Treblinka, and afterward, Buchenwald and Terezin. He said what I said after reading a shelf of books on the Holocaust and listening to the stories of survivors: "Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?'' Only I put it differently. Where were you, God? I don't think you were silent. I don't even think you were there.
Religious people can wrestle with the pope's remarks. What does it mean that God was silent? That he approved? That he liked what he saw? That he didn't give a damn? You tell me. And what does it mean that he could "tolerate all this''? That the Nazis were OK by him? That even the murder of Catholic clergy was no cause for intercession? I am at a loss to explain this. I cannot believe in such a God.
This is a God who was away from his desk or something and did not notice the plumes of human ash reaching to the heavens themselves. Is that what the pope wants us to believe? No, I think it is something even worse: If God was silent, who could blame the church for being silent, too? Is that what Benedict is saying? If so, he is continuing the tradition of saying nothing.
I know Holocaust survivors who are religious. I don't understand it. I know others who feel that Auschwitz is proof that there is no God. I understand that. I am sure there are people who feel that way about Biafra or Rwanda or even Hurricane Katrina. I can understand all of that, too.
I give Benedict some credit. Not from him do we get the inane god of American optimism, the deity of American politics who is always compassionate and on our side and will make everything just wonderful if only we put our faith in him."
These comments were interesting to me because it actually made me wonder if liberals, particularly the legions of liberals who are hostile to religion, have a different concept of God than conservatives. Moreover, is it possible that these views might parallel our own views of government?
Boiling our ideologies down to their simplest form, liberals believe that the government should do things for people while conservatives believe that government should make it easier for people to do things for themselves.
In Cohen's case, he seems to believe that God simply shouldn't have tolerated Auschwitz. So, presumably He should have come down from heaven and put an end to the whole thing. Same goes for "Biafra or Rwanda or even Hurricane Katrina." In other words, Cohen seems to be saying that he doesn't believe in God because God allows terrible things to happen and therefore, at a minimum, He either isn't merciful or more likely, does not exist.
While I would not presume to speak for anyone else on this subject, that's not how I view God's work. If God, who is omnipresent and omnipotent were to adopt the policies that Cohen would prefer, there would be no point of having a heaven because it would be right here on earth. Is somebody about to have a heart attack? No worries, God will fix it. Is someone about to get killed in a car wreck? No worries, God will step in. Did a kid fall off a bike and skin his knee? No worries, God will be there to kiss the boo-boo and put a band-aid on it. Where's the testing, where are the trials, and how could men prove themselves worthy of entrance to a better place?
This is why I believe God seldom works directly, as He did at Sodom & Gomorrah or by dropping manna from heaven, and instead prefers to let things work themselves out with an occasional nudge or wind at the back of those He favors. We often pray for God to "fix" our problems with a miracle, but if God chooses to answer, it's usually just by giving us a way to clean up our own mess.
Now some people, like Cohen, wouldn't agree with the way God handles things, even if they did believe in Him. But, in my opinion, while it's understandable that we mere mortals may scratch our heads and wonder why God visited so many horrors on Job just to prove a point to the devil or why He chose to use a whale as his instrument to teach Jonah a lesson -- in the end, we just have to accept the fact that He moves in mysterious ways that those of us without his wisdom aren't always able to understand.
That being said, let me add that perhaps it would be easier for us in some way if God chose to operate as Cohen envisions, but would it be better? If mankind were denied its share of toil and trouble, yes, there would have been no Auschwitz, no 9/11, no massacres, no poverty, no pain. But, we'd also probably have ended up as a planet full of imbeciles, sitting in the mud, eating berries, and living in caves. That's because progress is made only because we human beings have strived to eliminate the problems, difficulties, and horrors that we've faced as a species. Take away all the pain and there will be no progress, which perhaps better explains God taking what appears to be, at least from our limited perspective, a laissez faire approach to world events.
Update #1: In the original piece, for some reason, I incorrectly credited the column to Richard Reeves instead of Richard Cohen. That has been corrected.
Discussing Third Parties On Bruno Behrend's Extreme Wisdom Show
On Monday, I was on Bruno Behrend's Extreme Wisdom show, which is out of Illinois, for about an hour discussing third parties.
It was a long, very polite discussion in which I sliced the idea of a third party into about a hundred pieces. Do be forewarned, if you're going to hear what I have to say, that it's more of a debate than an interview format -- which means, in practice, that it's probably 60% Bruno and 40% me.
-- The really ironic thing about this transcript that features Matt Lauer attacking Ann Coulter for ripping on the Jersey Girls is that it proves exactly the point she was trying to make: that Democrats can't compete on the issues, so they have to put forth tragic figures whom you're not supposed to be able to respond to in order to make their points.
-- Katherine Harris, who's turning into the Alan Keyes of the 2006 campaign season, is now complaining that she's just too independent and too dangerous for the Republican establishment to support her:
"Katherine Harris thinks she knows why she's been shunned by her party leadership and shirked by big donors, and it has nothing to do with political platforms.
"Perhaps in some elite circles, the reason I have not gotten more support...is because they don't believe I can be controlled," Harris said today during a speech to the nonpartisan Forum Club of the Palm Beaches."
Please. You know what Harris' problem is?
She's too popular to lose in the Republican primary, too unpopular to win the general election, and has too much pride to bow out and let someone else take a crack at a potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbent.
--- Instapundit quotes the Hotline's Blogometer as saying:
"It's official, nobody in the blogosphere like the Federal Marriage Amendment."
"No major stand alone righty blogger has come out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment."
That's not correct. I strongly support the FMA and said so yesterday. Moreover, not only would I like to see the Constitution amended to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, I love the fact that they're voting on it because it exposes the Democrats as the party of gay marriage. It's worth a vote for that reason alone.
-- I think this quote from Andrew Sullivan fully completes his transformation from a pretend conservative who backed the war as long as it didn't get in the way of his support of gay marriage -- to a completely irrational, blame-America-first liberal deep in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome:
"The United States is a rogue nation that practices torture and detainee abuse and does not follow the most basic principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is inviolation of human rights agreements and the U.N. Convention against torture. It is legitimizing torture by every disgusting regime on the planet. This is a policy mandated by the president and his closest advisers."
-- It's almost hard to believe that something as insane as the Akaka bill would be considered by the US Senate at all, much less voted on. We're talking about a a bill that would,
"(A)uthorize the creation of an exclusively race-based government of “native” Hawaiians to exercise sovereignty over native Hawaiians living anywhere in the United States. This “Native Hawaiian Government” could allegedly exempt these Hawaiians from whatever aspects of the United States Constitution and state authority it thought undesirable."
There are many compelling reasons to vote against this bill: It enshrines a race based government into the law, it clearly appears to be unconstitutional on multiple grounds, and it's even opposed by a majority of all Hawaiians. On the other hand, not only are there no compelling reasons to vote for it, but few uncompelling reasons to support it have even been put forward beyond the fact that some people in Hawaii want to do it.
In a saner world, this bill would be voted down 100-0. But, instead it's overwhelmingly supported by the Democrats and even by a handful of Republicans. In my book, the fact that this bill has not just gotten this far, but that it will likely pass and won't be vetoed, is proof that common sense has become a rarity in Washington. All I can say at this point is cross your fingers and hope for a filibuster or a miracle, because that's about what it will take to stop this atrocious bill.
Excerpt Of The Day: Since You Americans Are About To Surrender Anyway...
"This week the US “is prepared to provide Iran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium, diplomats said Tuesday”.
And if I understand correctly you’re deciding on whether or not to give Hawaii away.
All this in addition to having a debate as to the extent foreigners will be able to freely enter your country and receive various types of benefits, and having a debate about the extent to which they will be encouraged to do so.
Were you invaded? Is surrender on the horizon? If so, can I have the Upper Peninsula of Michigan? I could sneak in from another country, I have some Native North American blood, and I’ll demand assistance in developing nuclear technology. No senator could reasonably object." -- From an unnamed Canadian reader of the Corner
It's Too Soon For A Movie About Snakes On A Plane -- Satire By Frank J.
Hollywood has always ran in conflict with the values of decent, Christian Americans, with its glorification of promiscuity, vulgarity, violence, and "alternate lifestyles." Now, the twisted left-wingers who run Hollywood have declared an open war on Middle America with a summer movie that spits in the eye of anyone who cares for his fellow man. The movie, titled Snakes on a Plane, contains the frank depiction of snakes on a plane. The weirdoes in Hollywood may think this makes for entertainment, but, after less than 103 years since the invention of the plane, less than 58 years since the birth of Samuel L. Jackson, and less the 100 million years since the creation of snakes, it is just too soon for a movie combining the three.
Plane flight is already scary enough. Hardly a flight goes by without huge turbulence or both engines giving out on the plane at least temporarily. Then there is the constant and often realized threat of a cougar escaping from the cargo hold. We just take it for granted that, when you fly coach cross-country, there is a significant chance you will die a brutal death. Thus, the last thing we need is to be reminded of the snakes that could be possibly slithering near our feet as we enjoy some mini-pretzels with a small cup of Coke.
We all know there can be - and probably are - snakes on planes. Is there even one reader of this editorial who hasn't lost a friend or relative to lethal snake bites while he or she was on a plane? Probably a few of you have barely survived on-flight snake attacks yourselves. Thus, it is such a galling insensitivity of the Hollywood elite (who fly in their snake-free first class) to think that snakes on a plane actually passes as entertainment. As someone who once fell asleep on a flight to wake with a boa constrictor trying to crush me, I can tell you it is not entertaining at all.
And think about the snakes. After being used as a vessel of Satan to damn man from paradise - a story recounted in a best-selling book and known to every American - snakes have worked hard to overcome bad publicity. Just when they thought they had finally reached a point where they can live in harmony with the rest of America, now comes a movie once again depicting them as the villains. Did Hollyweird even consider the backlash against snakes - the majority of whom would never harm anyone and actually benefit society by controlling the rodent population? No, the left-coast only cares about a few cheap thrills and the millions of dollars they can make through exploiting tragedy.
At least there is some wisdom in Samuel L. Jackson's already famous line from the movie: "I want these mother@#$% snakes off this mother@#$% plane!" You hear that, Hollywood? We want some decency in our movies, and thus we want those snakes off that plane.
Or add a Chuck Norris cameo.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Engine Failure, Cougars, and No Leg Room: A Frank Guide to Surviving Coach" and "Our Friends, the Snakes: Don't Hate Them Because They're Thin".
"The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They thought--or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.
Something else helped the men of D-Day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''
These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies." -- Ronald Reagan
A Mini-Interview With RNC eCampaign Director Patrick Ruffini
Yesterday afternoon, I did an exclusive mini-interview with RNC eCampaign Director Patrick Ruffini. What you'll see below is an edited, partial transcript of our conversation. Enjoy!
John Hawkins: Does the RNC have any sort of organized method for checking out what the blogosphere is doing on a daily basis?
Patrick Ruffini: Sure! Each morning we start off with a blog report that gets sent out in the morning and afternoon...that tells the entire building what bloggers are talking about that day.
John Hawkins: That goes out to everybody at the RNC?
Patrick Ruffini: Yep. It's what people are saying out there. It's what the conversation is like. I like to read my list of blogs. People here like to read their list of blogs. But, beyond reading the lists of blogs, we go out and use tools like Technorati. (We) use tools like Memeorandum. (We) use...all the various blog search tools out there.
John Hawkins: What's your analysis of the left side of the blogosphere's impact on the Democratic Party? Do you feel it's out of proportion with their size and do you believe it's positive or negative?
Patrick Ruffini: The question overall is when are they going to be able to start winning elections? We read about the perfect Kos 0-19 record. It's not important how big you are, it's how effective you are, frankly, at winning elections and in all aspects of the campaign, be it money, be it volunteers, be it media buzz.
I think you could point to any number of battles, whether (you) agree with us or disagree with us, and I think the conservative blogosphere has been very effective at creating change within the media, in the government, and in elections.
John Hawkins: Related question: the right side of the blogosphere has been very critical of a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill of late. So, do you think they're more of an asset or a hindrance to the party right now?
Patrick Ruffini: I think you could point to similar things in talk radio, but I don't think any aspect of this is necessarily hurtful to the Party. I think there are certainly going to be times where you agree and times where you disagree, and it comes and it goes. I don't necessarily view that as, "We have this huge problem on our hands." Being realistic, the political environment is tough right now, but we have to keep going and have to work to earn that support every day.
John Hawkins: Are there any issues or ways things were handled internally at the RNC over the last couple of years where you think the blogosphere may have had a particular impact?
Patrick Ruffini: I could probably spew off a few examples...
John Hawkins: Sure! Go ahead.
Patrick Ruffini: ...But, I think it would probably be in the realm of the "inside the playbook" kind of stuff which we generally don't talk about. ...One of the very helpful aspects of the conservative blogosphere is that I think you cover...a wider variety of issues perhaps than your counterparts on the left. The blogs are talking about one thing and the RNC might be talking about something else that day. I don't see that as a weakness, per se.
Politics increasingly isn't command and control anymore, but it is network warfare. So, it's not hurtful to us if you're focusing on topics that aren't necessarily at the top of the mind in the Beltway, because I think if it's important, it will rise to the top of the mind in the Beltway. ...The ability of bloggers to impact the mainstream media stories is increasing, by the day almost.
John Hawkins: Oh, let me just throw this in. Why do you think the left side of the blogosphere has been so much more successful than the right at fund raising (for candidates)?
Patrick Ruffini: To the extent that's true, it's a matter of asking. You can't receive if you don't ask. One of the things the left has been good at has just been asking. When Redstate did something for Van Taylor in Texas, they were very successful.
John Hawkins: I saw that. They raised $10,000 in a very short period of time.
Patrick Ruffini: Now, when you see these candidates on the left (that raise a lot of money), the Francine Busby's of the world, it's because they keep pounding and pounding and pounding away.
Maybe you don't see as much of that on the right, but it's a trade-off. But, if I had to choose between an extra $100,000 on the one hand and a candidate who doesn't have a clear message, goes into places and encourages illegal immigrants to vote, I would take having a good candidate with a solid message, with a solid organization, any day of the week. (That's) as opposed to the ability of perhaps a more extreme candidate, to wrack up some of the larger (fund raising) numbers.
John Hawkins: Thank you! I appreciate your taking the time to do the interview.
For the moment, I'm not going to tell you when this picture was taken, where I got it, whether the woman in it is famous or obscure, or any other details beyond the fact that the woman in the pic is conservative.
So, can you guess who she is? Take a shot at it in the comments section -- but only one guess per person, no more.
When someone finally gets it right, I'll post this woman's identity here on the main page.
Update #1: We have a winner!
"Right Thinking Girl?" -- Don_cos
This is indeed a pic of Right Thinking Girl. Although it looks really old, it's actually just a black and white photo taken a few years ago that was left in a box of pics where it accidentally got marked up. She's planning to put up a few pics for her readers (Yes, I think there will be some more coming up at RTG) and she thought it might be funny to see if people could guess who it was. Since the game would have been given away if she'd put them up on RTG, she asked me to put one up and the rest is history.
Is this another official endorsement of wife-beating from a prominent member of the "religion of peace"? Why, yes it is!
"Following are excerpts from an interview with the Mufti of Egypt Dr. Ali Gum'a, which aired on Al-Risala TV on May 26, 2006:
Ali Gum'a: Wife-beating is associated with the cultural status of women in the different societies. Women in some cultures are not averse to beatings. They consider it as an expression of masculinity, and as a kind of control, which she herself desires. In other societies, it is the exact opposite. We must follow reason. When we are dealing with certain societies...
I got a question from Canada. The man said: "Here, it is a crime to beat a wife, even with a toothbrush. Is this prohibition acceptable in Islam? Yes. Islam accepts that the beating of Canadian wives, in this culture and ambience... From childhood they are taught that beating women is a type of barbarism, savagery, and so on. There is nothing wrong with taking this into consideration, and adapting to society, because Islam did not command us to be aggressive towards women....
But when Allah permitted wife-beating, He permitted it to the other side of culture, which considers it as one of the means to preserve the family, and as one of the means to preserve stability."
You know, the more people learn about other traditions, cultures, and religions, the less plausible multiculturalism seems to get.
Democrats, Like Ted Kennedy, Think People Who Believe In Traditional Marriage Are Bigots
The Senate is poised to vote on a gay marriage amendment again and that's a good thing, despite the regrettable fact that there won't be enough votes to enshrine the protection of marriage in the Constitution.
But, if the good guys aren't going to win, then why have the vote? Because only by voting are we able to draw nice, bright lines that force people to show where they really stand. In this case, we get to see who's really serious about stopping gay marriage and who's just flapping his gums.
So, when the vote happens, we'll find that the overwhelming majority of Republicans believes that marriage should be between a man and woman and that the overwhelming majority of Democrats does not. The Republicans are the party that opposes gay marriage and the Democrats are the party that's for it.
As a matter of fact, given Ted Kennedy's latest comments, it seems that the Democrats aren't just for gay marriage, they believe people who have a traditional view of marriage are bigots.
"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.
So Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, think Americans who simply believe marriage should be between one man and one woman are bigots. See? This is great information for the American people to have and it's something people should think about before they pull the lever for the Democratic Party...which explains why the Democrats are acting as if merely having this vote is some sort of dirty trick.
The 10 Most Dangerous Democratic Candidates In 2008
Just for the fun of it, I decided to put together a list of the Democratic candidates who'd have the best chance to beat a GOP nominee in 2008. This list is based purely on electability, not on the likelihood the candidate will take the nomination.
1) Mark Warner: Warner is easily the best candidate the Dems have to offer. The former Virginia governor has a reputation as a moderate and he "speaks Southern." He would likely take Virginia against any GOP candidate other than George Allen and he could easily bring 3-4 other Southern States into the Democratic column. It's no coincidence that the last two Democratic Presidents have been Southern governors and Warner would have an excellent chance to be the third.
2) Bill Richardson: Richardson is the governor of New Mexico, is viewed as a moderate, and has some charisma. Although he was the Ambassador to the United Nations and the Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration, he managed to make it out with some valuable experience and without the sort of crushing baggage that Hillary is saddled with.
3) Evan Bayh: Bayh is a moderate Senator from Indiana who's so wildly popular there that he would be able to turn that very red state -- and its 11 electoral votes -- blue. Bayh is a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership conference and has a reputation for being fiscally conservative. Put it all together and you have a candidate who could compete in the South and give the GOP a hard time.
4) Hillary Clinton: Hillary is a smart politician, with high name recognition, a virtually unlimited supply of money, would be guaranteed to get incredibly fawning press coverage (Did you know Hillary would be the first woman President?), and has a reputation for trying to present herself as a centrist. On the other hand, she's also a liberal, from a liberal state, with a liberal voting record; she has enormous baggage, high negatives, isn't particularly charismatic, will increase Republican turnout, and she will have a lot of difficulty winning any states in the South, particularly since she abandoned Arkansas for New York.
5) Al Gore: Gore is a Southerner who doesn't "speak Southern," which explains how he lost every Southern State in 2000, including his home state of Tennessee. These days, Gore seems to have only two methods of communicating: fire-breathing demagoguery or wonky politician speak. Although Gore has tremendous name recognition, plenty of money, and would have lots of left-wing support, it's hard to see how he would be in a better position to win in 2008 than he was in 2000, when he was a sitting veep, riding what people thought was a solid economy, and facing a lightly regarded opponent. The fact that so many Americans probably said, "Thank God, Gore didn't win," right after 9/11 probably doesn't help either.
6) Barack Obama: Obama hasn't said he's running and probably won't get in the race, but since there's a growing amount of chatter about his candidacy, it seemed appropriate to toss his name into the mix. Obama is charismatic, perceived as a moderate, and is treated like a rock star in the Democratic Party. There would be enormous enthusiasm on the left if he were the candidate. On the other hand, "(i)n House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." You have to think that would apply to a run at the presidency as well and it would probably be enough to keep Obama from getting elected.
7) Wesley Clark: It's tempting to dismiss Clark since he proved to be such a raw amateur during the 2004 campaign, but he does have some pluses in his favor. He's had four years to smooth the rough edges off his political persona, he's a former general, he's from Arkansas, there is some netroots enthusiasm for his candidacy, and he's an "outsider" without a voting record, which would probably work to his benefit.
8) John Kerry: The liberal Democratic version of Bob Dole. Despite how close the race was in 2004, Kerry ran an unimpressive campaign, didn't generate a lot of enthusiasm on the left (The enthusiasm was anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry), and was successfully tagged as a liberal who can't even make up his mind about what he's having for breakfast in the morning. After his last run, he really hasn't shown that he deserves another shot at it.
9) John Edwards: Here we have another Southerner who can't "speak Southern." Although Edwards is a nice looking guy with a full head of luxurious hair, he's out of the limelight now and was exposed as a lightweight in the 2004 campaign who added very little to the ticket. Even if you have some charisma, if you have nothing to say, does it really matter?
10) Russ Feingold: There is enormous enthusiasm for Mr. Feingold among the netroots crowd, but Feingold is another Walter Mondale who would scare a lot of Americans with his bodacious liberalism and he would end up getting routed.
Bilbray And Busby Rumble Tomorrow In California's 50th District
The most significant congressional race that you probably haven't heard much about occurs tomorrow: the special election to fill Duke Cunningham's seat out in California. Normally, an election in this district, which is heavily Republican would be about as exciting as watching paint dry, but not this time, buddy.
The Republican candidate, Brian Bilbray, beat out a crowded field in the Republican primary by making illegal immigration his primary issue -- and usually a primary victory would be enough to just about guarantee him a seat.
But, the fact that Cunningham was a crook and the GOP's terrible poll numbers have both combined to hurt Bilbray. Busby also managed to cream Bilbray in fund raising. She has raked in "$1.4 million to Bilbray's $343,000." Of course, that's not the whole story, because both national parties have been wheeling dump trucks full of money in for ads, but let's just say Busby has managed to get in far more advertising than a Democrat normally would in a heavily Republican district.
Just to throw another monkey wrench in the whole works, there have been some other candidates on the right that have been draining off Bilbray's support. Eric Roach was the runner-up in the primary, but he finally decided to throw his support to Bilbray. That's good news, but unfortunately there are two other hopeless candidates also in the running. William Griffith, who sounds like a Paleocon crank and Paul King, the Libertarian candidate, will be in the race. Neither of them have any chance whatsoever to win, but it is possible that they could draw just enough support to hand the race to Busby.
Put all those factors together and you can see why a race that should be a cakewalk for Bilbray, has gone 45-45 and 47 (Bilbray) - 45 (Busby) in the last two polls that I've seen.
However, there is one very recent bit of good news for Bilbray. Remember that I said Bilbray's big issue has been illegal immigration? Well, Busby not only supports the Senate bill, but since those two polls were completed, she has actually invited illegal aliens to vote for her and work on her campaign:
"Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don't have papers.”
It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.”
Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign."
Let's face it: she just made the mistake of publicly saying what so many of these pro-illegals politicians believe and want -- but, it should hurt her and give Bilbray a last minute boost, although, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't had time to put together any ads to hammer Bilbray for her comments.
In any case, this race has major national implications because it will be viewed as a referendum on illegal immigration and a bellwether for the fall elections.
If Bilbray wins, it'll stiffen the spine of the Republicans in the House as they go to committee with the Senate on the immigration bill. But, if he loses, it has the potential to make them more open to compromise.
On the other hand, a Busby victory would hearten the Democrats tremendously. If Busby can go into a solid Republican district and come out with a win, it's going to give them faith that they can pull off a takeover of Congress this November. However, if Busby loses and this turns into another one of those "moral victories" Democrats like to talk so much about, they'll be sighing like Al Gore behind the scenes because it will be a signal to them that they're not going to do as well as they've hoped.
So there's a lot riding on this election and the last two polls show a dead heat and a small Bilbray lead that's not outside the margin of error. So essentially, going by the numbers, it's a toss up. However, because of Busby's, "You don't need no stinkin' papers," error and the Republican slant of the district, I'd have to give a slight edge to Bilbray. We'll find out what happens soon enough.
Update #1: David All, who works for Congressman Jack Kingston is up in California, doing grunt work on Bilbray's campaign on his own time. He sent out an update on the campaign to a few bloggers, myself included, and he gave me permission to share what he was telling us. Here's some of what he wrote:
"...Bilbray is winning. I think he's going to end up 5-6 pts.
Not a lot of visible dem or moveon ground activity.
I'm doing calls now, and I'm actually polling people.
1. Top issue? Every single person has said immig. This is amazing."
Sounds like so far, so good -- and every person say
