Right Wing Nut House

MUST CREDIT RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE

A secret operative working for this website has gotten a hold of the speech John McCain will deliver to attendees of the Conservative Political Action Conference. She says I shouldn’t ask how she got it although she mentioned that she had a real good time getting it and to thank all the guys in oppo research for the pizza, beer, and for being such good sports when playing “Hide the Salami.”

So here it is. Unedited and uncut. There appear to be some very strange stage directions included. Take them at face value.

====SPEECH FOR THE CONSERVATIVE RABBLE AT CPAC===

My fellow conservatives. (Duck)

My thanks for that warm greeting. I was unaware that the salad portion of the meal would be delivered in such a unique manner although someone should talk to the chef about the freshness of the produce in his kitchen.

I would like to thank all of you for your generous support of my campaign. (Hit the dirt.) For those of you who may not see eye to eye with me on an issue or two, allow me to explain why you are wrong and I am right.

I am always right. It doesn’t really matter why, although I could bring up my many years of experience and the fact that the New York Times agrees with me so often. What matters is that you forget about all the differences we’ve had and simply go to the polls next November and vote for me. (Try not to sneer.)

Trust me. I won’t disappoint you. (Try not to laugh.) Last summer during the debate on my Amne…my Immigration Reform Bill, I heard you loud and clear when you said you wanted the borders closed and protected. And believe me my friends, there will be no backtracking when it comes to me fulfilling that promise.

Of course, I may make some small alterations - like changing the definition of “closing” the borders. And we may want to attend to some small, insignificant details dealing with undocumented workers first - such as giving them some documents. But I can promise you unequivocally that once we take care of that, we’ll close the borders right quick. All I ask is that you put your racist, xenophobic feelings aside so that we can work together.

I’d like to say a few words about Campaign Finance Reform. Get used to it. It ain’t goin’ anywhere. (Try not to gloat.)

Some of you may be worried that I won’t appoint the kind of judges to the federal courts that you can support. Let me put your minds to rest. I will appoint the most conservative judges possible - just as long as they don’t wear their conservatism on their sleeves and as long as the Washington Post doesn’t criticize me too much. But rest assured, the judges I select will be strict constitutionalists - on many things. Oh they may fudge around the edges a bit but after all, the darn thing is 219 years old and sometimes, it’s good to let the old girl have her head so that she can breathe a bit.

I know that many of you doubt my conservatism. I am shocked that you could be so deranged in doing so. I was there at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. I even had my picture taken with The Gipper. (Try and look humble.) Surely that should be enough proof of my conservative bona fides. Are you saying that you doubt the word of Reagan? What kind of conservatives are you?

Of course, there are varying degrees of conservatism. I’m from the “Maverick Conservative” wing of the party. This is the wing of conservatism that believes anything the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news nets will praise me for is probably conservative enough. If it’s not, tough. If you think I’m going to change my position on an issue and get the media upset with me, you’re dreaming.

The Maverick Conservative wing of the party - both of us - want to be clear that we support many of the same issues that you “movement” conservatives support. All we ask is that you ignore us when we thumb our noses at you. You can’t expect us to maintain our status as “Mavericks” with the media without deliberately undercutting your agenda while hinting what barbarians you truly are. Therefore, I ask that you simply accept us for who we are.

And calling us “self aggrandizing media whores who care more for pleasing our liberal friends than in working to enact conservative legislation” may be accurate but please - keep it to yourselves.

We can do great things together - as long as you just shut up and vote for me. After all, if it’s between me and Hillary, are you really going to let the Democrats win in November by staying at home? (Try not to look too smug.) And let me remind you. As the man who has single handedly turned the Iraq War around by my invention of “The Surge,” electing a Democrat will probably mean bringing our troops home too quickly and leaving Iraq in the lurch.

That is, unless I do it first because as you all know, the true mark of a Maverick is unpredictability. Trust me when I say that being unpredictable will be my first priority while in office. I promise to be so unpredictable that you won’t know from one minute to the next just what surprises I will pull out of my hat.

That’s all I have to say. I’m glad I came today and I hope you take my words how they were intended - in the spirit of cooperation and friendship (Try not to look too contemptuous.)

Let us begin.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin asks that CPAC attendees not boo McCain when he speaks later this afternoon.

I would like to second that notion although I think hissing might be acceptable if it is done tastefully and as unobtrusively as possible.

John McCain may not have done as well as the media expected on Super Tuesday but he nevertheless acquired a stranglehold on the Republican nomination and only a total, unmitigated collapse by the Arizona senator could possibly deny him the prize awaiting him in the Twin Cities.

To his great credit (and my surprise), Hugh Hewitt sees the writing on the wall and makes a heartfelt plea for unity:

Senator McCain has a clear path to the nomination, Romney a very uphill battle, and Huck is fighting for 2012 at this point and for a win in a major vote outside of the south. Certainly they should all stay in through the primaries ahead because it isn’t over and because our side needs the excitement of a campaign in such key falls states as Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania to keep the MSM from turning 100% of its attention on to growing the Obama phenomenon. They ought to be scheduling three man debates in every state, making their points and taking every opportunity to look ahead to the fall.

At the same time, Romney and Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain’s lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party’s eventual nominee. Senator McCain would do well to make a similar statement though his lead is significant and his collapse unlikely. Putting Humpty Dumpty together again cannot wait for St. Paul. Each of the three need to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is.

Frankly, the way that Hugh and other conservatives had been carrying on since the Florida primary, I thought Hewitt would be with the bitter enders who believe that if Mitt can’t get the nomination, some kind of Republican Götterdämmerung should be initiated and the party and its apostates consumed in some cataclysmic immolation complete with fat ladies in Viking helmets and sturdy, Aryan warriors with great, bushy beards.

Thankfully, Hugh at least has more sense - and class - than that.

For in truth, Mitt Romney is toast. He’s a gone goose. He is finished. Fertig! Verfallen! Verlumpt! Verblunget! Verkackt! .

In fact, this candidate is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!

‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the lectern last night ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!

‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!

‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!

Or, he could be pining for the fjords?

Seriously, Mitt made a good run but anyone who harbors the illusion that the race is not over need only look at the numbers. Come to think of it, if anyone still believes Romney has a chance in hell of winning the nomination, the probability exists that facts won’t matter much to them anyway - only fairy tales and bedtime stories.

That’s okay. I have to put something on the blog today anyway so let’s examine the race from the standpoint of where we are now, how many delegates are left to be awarded, and what that means to the viability of candidate Romney.

With 1191 delegates needed to win, McCain has 615 delegates according to CNN to Romney’s 248. McCain is likely to pick up 20-30 more delegates as soon as California and a couple of other proportional delegate states are completely counted. Romney also should pick up a couple of dozen additional delegates when all is said and done.

With barely 1300 total delegates left on the table, McCain would only need around 550 of those delegates to claim victory. Romney would need to win 900 of the remaining 1300 delegates to overtake McCain.

Can he do it?

McCain would have to totally collapse for that to happen. After next week’s “Potomac Primary” involving Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. - where Virginia and DC are winner take all states and where McCain is comfortably ahead - only Vermont remains as a WTA contest. All the rest of the states in play will award delegates proportionately.

Romney would have to win virtually all the remaining contests by at least a 3-1 margin - and even then you can’t ignore the presence of Mike Huckabee in the race. The Baptist preacher helped put the stake through Romney’s heart last night when he stole 5 southern primaries. This denied McCain the overwhelming victory he needed to put both candidates away but it also killed Romney’s chances of getting close to the Arizona senator.

Not enough states, not enough delegates, and not enough time. The fat lady may not be singing in the GOP race but she’s certainly warming up in the wings.

My latest Pajamas Media column is up and I guarantee controversy.

I take a look at Barack Obama’s candidacy and place it in some historical perspective:

An extraordinary statistic jumped out of the jumble of numbers and percentages that pulled me up short and caused me to reflect on the past as well as the future. In the exit polls from the Democratic party primary in Georgia, nestled in with indicators of age, income, and religion was the vote cast by white males. When you think about it, this is startling:

I suppose it’s no big thing for many younger Americans who weren’t born and raised with the idea that there were limits inherent in the American political system that would prevent a black man from achieving what Mr. Obama has achieved. It is a shameful thing to believe in those limits – bred to it by history and circumstance as we of my generation were.

Read it all before commenting please.

The Rick Moran Show will go live tonight at the special time of 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM Central Time.

Tonight, I’ll have my trusty sidekick and co-host Rich Baehr, Political Correspondent of The American Thinker with me for the entire 2 hours as we examine the Florida results and look beyond to Super Tuesday next week.

Joining me will be Ed Morrissey of Captainsquartersblog.Com and Tom Lifson, Editor in Chief of American Thinker.

For the best in political analysis, click on the button below and listen in. A podcast will be available for streaming or download around 15 minutes after the show ends.

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

If, as expected, John McCain wins a smashing victory tonight and takes an insurmountable lead in delegates, most conservatives will have to face the fact that our influence in Republican party has diminished significantly and that a re-assessment of our relationship with the party is in order. I daresay the most immediate fallout - and most superficial - will be a reduction in donations to the party from conservatives as well as fewer volunteers to fill out the staffs of Republican campaigns.

I realize this kind of talk drives some conservatives who support McCain batty. My good friend Pat Curley left this comment on my post from yesterday where I speculated that McCain would freeze out conservatives from his administration:

Why do you think that McCain will give the deep freeze to conservatives in the cabinet? He may not have a whole lot of support from the electronic conservatives, but he’s got plenty of support from conservatives in the Senate and among the governors.

And you know, it would help if the people griping that McCain’s not conservative enough actually had a pony in the race. The idea that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney is a “real” conservative and John McCain is not is ludicrous. If you really wanted a rock-ribbed con, why didn’t people support, oh, Sam Brownback? Because he wasn’t going to win?

I think I’ll let Bill Quick answer Pat here because he says it better than I ever could:

Do not be fooled. What you are witnessing today is a war for the soul, if it can be said to have one, of the Republican party. One one side is the GOP machine establishment - represented by the Bushes, the Roves, and all the family and political dynasty politicians and their strategists who have tried to keep control of the party over the years.

On the other side are those whom the establishment regards as the barbarians at the gates: the rabble who listen to the conservative talk shows, the talker hosts themselves, the “Reagan Republicans,” the Gingrich revolutionaries, and now the bloggers and their readers.

This is, in a nutshell, a war between those who value principle over power, and those for whom power is first, foremost, and nearly everything.

Pat, God bless him, is willing to sacrifice at least some of his principles in order to support a candidate who feels has the best chance of winning in November. Unlike Bill, I see nothing wrong with political practicality when employed in a judicious and rational manner. Pat mentioned that many of us supported Fred Thompson and wondered why not Sam Brownback. It’s a good question and I would answer it by saying that Brownback was not ever a serious candidate for president or even for the nomination. His was a vanity run or perhaps a bid for the Veep spot. But anyone who considered him presidential material should have their head examined.

Thompson on the other hand was an extremely serious man who sought to revitalize the Reagan coalition. Unfortunately, he was not the man to do so or perhaps time had passed him by on that the very idea and no one could have accomplished the feat.

But McCain’s candidacy is successful largely because he is running as the anti-conservative, anti-Republican. “Maverick” is more than just a cutesy media term for his political actions. It is the core of his belief system. This is a politician who has not relied on the party structure for advancing his notoriety and elevating his profile but rather the small group of reporters and media outlets with a national reach. Because of that, he is literally forced by circumstances to play up his “independence” while sticking it to conservatives and party members.

This is why McCain will freeze conservatives out of the cabinet - or at least the major cabinet positions. If he would dare appoint a conservative Secretary of State, the media would be on him mercilessly for what they would consider “backsliding” or playing the same old party games. He has created a personae that is based on criticizing and marginalizing the Republican party. How can he suddenly switch and defend the party against what is sure to be the rabid onslaughts of the left if he were to win in November?

The Republican establishment support for McCain is a mile wide and an inch deep. I doubt whether they would stick with him as most have stuck with Bush for eight years. And when he gets in trouble - as all presidents eventually do - McCain may find himself out on a very long limb with many hands eagerly holding saws ready to cut him loose and fed to the dogs.

The conservatives who support McCain have a right to be upset with those who have threatened all sorts of havoc if McCain is the nominee. But they should also heed the warnings of those who have opposed McCain on principle. This is a man who has demonstrated not once, not twice, but many times that he values media affection over principle or party. In that sense, I trust him even less than I trust Romney whose “conversion” to conservatism is so transparent as to be laughable at times.

A McCain candidacy will probably end up a loss anyway. The enthusiasm of Democrats for their candidates is beyond anything I’ve seen in my 30 years of politics. Even the 1980 boom for Reagan was fraught with angst and uncertainty on the part of the George Bush wing of the party - the establishmentarians who still view the bulk of us “barbarians” as less than equal. But for any Republican running today, it would be a long, uphill climb to win in November.

More than likely, McCain’s victory tonight means the beginnings of a strategic retreat by conservatives - a long march into the wilderness hopefully to emerge in a few years invigorated and strengthened so that our influence will once again count for something.

If, as expected, John McCain pulls away from Mitt Romney in tomorrow’s Super Tuesday primaries making his nomination inevitable, a legitimate question will arise as to who really wields power in the Republican party?

That’s because the movers and shakers we would ordinarily think control the party (or are able to influence it heavily) would have failed utterly and completely in derailing McCain’s Straight Talk Express. Most of the rightosphere on the internet as well as talk radio giants lined up behind Romney while the establishment politicians have swallowed whatever misgivings they have about McCain and sided with him.

Guess who wins that war?

The fact is the Republican party - like the Democratic party - is not one, single entity but rather a host of smaller parties united by electoral expedience. There is the Electronic Conservative Republican party - the aforementioned internet and talk radio bloc. Then there is the Traditional Conservative Party or Main Street Republicans who are closely allied with the Evangelical Republican Party but place less emphasis on social issues. There are Libertarian Republicans, Intellectual Republicans, even Extremist Republicans - smaller entities but present nonetheless. Then there is the Congressional Republican Party and the Presidential Republican Party that make up most of the party establishment.

The glue that held all of these separate parties together was supposed to be conservatism. The problem now is that I believe the Republican party is in a definitional crisis as to what exactly “conservatism” represents. Is it an ideology? Is it simply a label that we use for any pol who mouths allegiance to some core issues like abortion and the war? Or have many Republicans simply “moved the bar” and decided for themselves that being a conservative means supporting campaign finance reform or Kennedy-McCain immigration?

I speculated about this last week in my PJ Media column:

It could very well be that what we are seeing in the Republican party is a redefining – or perhaps more accurately, a “readjustment” – in how people identify themselves as conservatives.

Part of it could very well be based on issues. There may be many moderate and moderately conservative Republicans, as Jennifer Rubin muses in The Observer, who wish the party to do something about climate change despite the adamant opposition of many in the base. It could very well be that there is close to a majority of Republicans who want to solve the illegal immigrant problem by closing the border and then granting some kind of path to legality to those already here.

The proof is in the pudding, friends. John McCain supports those positions and is the presumptive nominee. All other GOP candidates opposed those positions and are toast.

While these positions would have been seen as “moderate” 8 years ago, those McCain supporters who identify themselves as “somewhat conservative” may also hold positions on continuing the mission in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and other issues where they would find agreement with the base.

In other words, the party itself may have been gradually moving toward the center over the last eight years. It is not inconceivable that there remains broad agreement on a host of issues while many conservatives have moderated their views on others.

How else do you explain McCain’s support among conservatives? So many people can’t be that ignorant of his record - not when it is has been plastered all over every media outlet for almost a month and not since Romney went on the offensive against him. We are just going to have to face the fact that a sizable number - perhaps a third - who believe themselves to be “conservative” support McCain’s stance on the issues - despite the fact that most of us can find two or three “deal breakers” when it comes to McCain’s positions on those issues.

The power in the Republican party is gravitating toward Senator McCain and his more moderate supporters. And I think we can almost guarantee that any McCain administration would give the deep freeze to conservatives when it came to cabinet appointments and other key policy positions. This may cause Rush Limbaugh to pop a blood vessel but there is little he or anyone else can do about it.

A political party and what it stands for is not set in stone. In my lifetime, Republicans have re-invented themselves twice; once in the 1950’s when the party of the isolationist Taft gave way to the internationalist Eisenhower. Then again in the 1970’s as the seeds planted by Barry Goldwater bore fruit and blossomed into the Party of Reagan.

Could such a shift be happening again? Unless you want to believe that millions of primary voters who will cast their ballot for John McCain tomorrow are idiots and don’t pay attention to what’s going on, you must accept that there has been a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the Republican party away from the old Reagan coalition and toward a still forming mass of more centrist, less doctrinaire conservatives.

Kevin Drum watching the Democrats debate in Hollywood the other night:

Another thing the debate brought home to me is something Matt Yglesias complains about frequently. Both candidates claimed that Democrats understand national security and terrorism issues better than Republicans (”Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation,” as Hillary put it), and both agreed that a successful Democratic candidate would need to be able to make that case to the public. Obama thought he could make that case better because he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, while Clinton thought she could make the case better because she’s better prepared. But neither of them actually made that case. Both Obama and Clinton had a national stage where they had more time than usual to explain the liberal position on how to combat terrorism and make the world safer, and neither of them did it. They just said they needed to do it.

And they’re right. They do need to do that. So why didn’t they start last night?

Democrats “understand” national security issues better than Republicans but the cat’s got their tongue when trying to explain why?

Let’s buy into that dubious formulation and try to ease Kevin’s perplexity. First of all, both Clinton and Obama are hamstrung by one, overriding, overarching reality; they can’t support any policy, strategy, or proposal that has been implemented, offered by, or hinted at by the Bush Administration.

This is the baseline for any policy formulated by the candidates. The deranged nature of their base when it comes to anything Bush precludes the advocacy of some Administration policies that actually may have merit while other Bush policies regarding the use of pre-emptive force and the struggle against Islamic extremism have become an anathema to the entire Democratic party.

That leaves each candidate trying to show how much more accommodating they would be to the cutthroats of the world than Bush - a prospect that no doubt has the Iranians, Syrians, Hamas, and others wishing devoutly for a Democratic triumph at the polls next November but that may leave large segments of the American electorate cold.

Hence, the attempts by both candidates to obscure the truth by mouthing platitudes and offering generalities in lieu of specific ways to deal with the threats that we will face over the next decade. I think both candidate’s emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation is spot on and is something they should probably highlight even more. And I think that Clinton, at least, has a grasp of the nature of the terrorism threat and could be counted on to be creative in confronting it.

But we hear precious little about revitalizing NATO so that Afghanistan can be saved. Nor do we hear anything about regional security regarding our Gulf allies who truly see an existential threat coming from Tehran. Lest anyone doubt that fact, the recent flurry of diplomatic activity by both the United States and France in the region that included Bush’s tour of the region, the sale of sophisticated weaponry to the Saudis, and Sarkozy’s nuclear diplomacy with other Gulf states proves the point.

In the end, the real debate is over the use of force; when, against who, and if ever. Both candidates say they would respond forcefully to a terrorist attack against the United States. Bully for them. If they didn’t, they would be impeached by their own party.

What the American people want to know is would they strike to prevent an attack and what they would do about a regime that planned and/or executed another 9/11? What would be done about an attack that was something far less than another 9/11? Would there be a “proportional response” to such an attack - stopping short of regime change while lobbing a few cruise missiles on to some vital economic or military targets?

And what about regime change? Is there any criteria where it would be justified? Both candidates have roundly criticized - with some justification - Administration policies in Iraq. Would our experience there keep them from taking down a tyrant or regime that threatened America directly?

I suppose it somewhat unfair to ask Democrats to answer these questions when Republican candidates haven’t been very clear themselves although both Romney and McCain have come out in support of pre-emptive war to some extent. But for the Democratic front runners, being obtuse is a survival tactic. If they sound too tough in the primaries, they lose the base. If they sound too weak, the GOP makes hay during the general election campaign.

Hillary Clinton seems to have found the answer to that dilemma simply by speaking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. She can sound as tough as any Republican when she talks about the War on Terror while offering soothing platitudes regarding negotiations and scathing criticism of Bush at other times. This has the dual effect of keeping the Democratic base at bay while not offering an opening for Republicans if she wins the nomination.

So both candidates end up promoting a “Wonder Bread” national security policy; very soft and full of air but tastes good going down. It is enough to satisfy their base but will it work on the voters in the general election campaign? I think that depends on how important national security will be as an issue next fall. If the economy is in the tank, I doubt if people will give much weight to GOP criticisms of the Democrat’s obscurant policy positions. But all bets are off if the United States is attacked again or if the economy isn’t quite as important as it is today. Then the Democratic candidate will be forced to be a little more specific about what they intend to do to protect the US from the threat of international terrorism.

I make no bones about the fact that I am obese. I could lose 50 lbs and just barely get below the standard BMI (Body Mass Index) indicator for obesity. According to this chart, I am “severely obese” which is just a hairsbreadth from me being “morbidly obese.”

My “ideal weight” ranges from an impossibly thin 149 pounds to a reasonable 183 pounds. I spent most of my 20’s in the 160-170’s, most of my 30’s in the 180-190’s and since I was about 42 I have been over 200 pounds.

So yes, I am a enemy of the state - a borderline morbidly obese American who greedily uses health care resources that would be put to better use by thin people. (Haven’t been to a hospital for illness since I was 6 months old.) To make my crime even more heinous, I am a smoker, a couch potato (thus not contributing to the gross domestic product by purchasing all that useless exercise equipment), and a red meat eating, potato chomping, cold cut binging, mayonnaise slathering, coca cola swigging criminal mastermind who wants to overturn the established order in America and corrupt the young.

Fortunately for you, I am not contagious:

It has actually happened. Lawmakers have proposed legislation that forbids restaurants and food establishments from serving food to anyone who is obese (as defined by the State). Under this bill, food establishments are to be monitored for compliance under the State Department of Health and violators will have their business permits revoked.

House Bill 282 was introduced in the 2008 Mississippi legislative session on Friday by Representative W.T. Mayhall, Jr., a retired pharmaceutical salesman with DuPont-Merk. Its co-authors are Bobby Shows, a businessman, and John Read, a pharmacist.

This is a joke, right? In America? How could this happen in the land of the free and the home of the busy-bodying, do-gooding, well meaning health Nazis?

Is this a tongue-in-cheek bill, meant to point out how absurd the war on obesity has become? Or do lawmakers actually believe the myths that gluttony is the cause for obesity and that it is the government’s role to force people to eat and live how it deems best?

I called lead author, Rep. Mayhall, and asked if this was serious legislation or tongue-in-cheek to make a point. He kindly took a moment to answer my question while the legislature was in session. He said that while, regrettably, he doesn’t believe his bill will pass, this is serious. He wrote it, he said, because of the “urgency of the obesity crisis and need for government action.” He hopes it will “call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system.”

Ah, yes. What it is costing the government run health care system. Let’s get a peek of where this kind of deep thinking will lead. Let’s go to Great Britain and look in on their version of Hillarycare or Obamamedicine:

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as “out­rageous” and “disgraceful”.

It may be “out­rageous” and “disgraceful” to contemplate withholding treatment from the obese, the old, those “undeserving” of help in order to allocate resources to the pretty people but that doesn’t mean that Great Britain’s national health care program isn’t headed toward a day when those kind of decisions won’t be necessary.

But the issue here is not so much sticking it to the obese as it is forcing private businesses to enforce the government’s disapproval of obesity.

Should this pass, scales will appear at the door of restaurants, people with BMIs of 30 or higher won’t be allowed to be served. And to comply with government regulations, restaurants will have to keep records of patrons’ BMIs.

The Crusaders who believe they have the absolute right to tell us what we can eat, drink, ingest, or smear on our bodies will never stop. It is not about “health.” Nor is it about “the children.” For them, it has always been about control - the ability to tell others what to do and get the emotional satisfaction of being, in their own mind morally superior to the rest of us.

Their current target is the obese. And as long as they target one minority after another - smokers, fast food overeaters, sugar addicts - they can continue with impunity.

One day, they will come after you - probably for something you can’t imagine being harmful or anti-social. But their need for control knows no logic nor no bounds.

And then where will you be, my friends? Where will you be?

UPDATE

Pretty much of a first. James Joyner is at a loss for words.

And from Misha’s “You just can’t make this sh*t up” file, his highness has some high quality photos of a gaggle of BBW’s doing their best imitation of “piling on.”

Talk about meat on the hoof…

Watching Barack Obama during the debate last night I was struck by the notion that here indeed, the torch of leadership was being passed to a new generation of Democrats. In many ways, it’s the same coalition of unions, special interest groups, and race and class warriors who have dominated the left since the 60’s that make up the bulk of Obama’s supporters. But there is a decidedly centrist thrust to his candidacy - a welcome rejection of some of the outward manifestations of New Left politics in favor of a more inclusive, less abrasive style of governance.

What I find in Obama that I never expected were echoes of the kind of classical liberalism that I admired in my youth but was eventually corrupted by the radicals who captured the Democratic party and turned it into a haven for those who preferred to make America the scapegoat for the world’s ills while playing off one race against another, one class against another.

Where those Democrats sought to divide and conquer, it appears to me that Obama really is making an effort to unite the center and center left - not by trying to hide his true intentions but rather by appealing to what most can agree are broad national interests using admittedly non-specific language and platitudes to get his message across.

Of course, the devil is in the details and Obama’s health insurance plan for example, is just as statist in nature as any other Democrats. But with an almost certainly augmented Democratic majority in the House and Senate being seated in January 2009, one wonders if even a Republican president wouldn’t be forced to deal with some kind of statist approach to health insurance given the huge support for it among voters.

If it sounds like I admire Obama, I do. And given the distinct possibility that John McCain will be the GOP standard bearer next November, I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at my home state senator. If I am going to hold my nose and vote for the GOP nominee, before I punch a hole by his name it makes sense to look closely at the other candidate in the race to see if he is any more viable.

If it were between Hillary and McCain, that would be no contest. But try as I might to dismiss them, there are certain personal and even political aspects to Obama’s candidacy that I find appealing. Would he have a chance to get my vote?

Not likely. Obama would have to demonstrate an understanding of the threat posed by radical Islam and a willingness to confront it before I would seriously consider voting for him. I would guess that there are many who feel the same way - that there are some things about Obama that are deal breakers when it comes to supporting him. For myself, it is the War on Terror. For some it may be national health insurance. For others, it would be his decidedly squishy approach to border security and illegal immigration.

But I feel confident that a Republican minority would be able to block most of the onerous proposals coming from the Democrats. They have proven adept at doing so to date and I have no reason to believe that they wouldn’t be able to muster the unity to defeat mandated health insurance or any kind of amnesty legislation.

When it comes to the War on Terror, however, there is little the Republicans would be able to do to give Obama a different perspective on the nature of the threat and why we must continue to confront it rather than sit back and wait to be hit again. Obama is a weak sister when it comes to the War on Terror and unless he is able to convince me and others that he understands what is at stake and will take the steps necessary to protect us, there is no way I could see myself voting for him.

But he is an interesting politician nonetheless. And if he fails in his bid this time, I fully expect to see him make another run in the future. He is an immensely gifted man with a compelling story. A little more seasoning, perhaps a rethinking of some basic issues, and he could very well make it all the way to the oval office.