Right Wing Nut House

I had a dream the other night.

In my dream, I was standing on the curb of a street watching a parade go by. There was something about this parade, though, that wasn’t quite right. The marching bands, the drum and bugle corps, the floats - even the pretty girls twirling batons - all looked pretty much the same. They were vaguely familiar; like you’ve met them in your dreams before but never in real life.

Then it hit me. That high stepping drum major looked just like George Bush. The little girl twirling the baton? George Bush. The beauty queen on the float? Ditto. Even the trained dog looked like Bush.

Everywhere you looked, George Bush looked back. Then I noticed the crowd around me. OmiGod! Those beady eyes. That smirk!

At that point, I woke up in a cold sweat. Thank God. I puttered into my office and turned on the internets, going immediately to Memorandum to see what people were writing about. An article caught my eye and after reading the headline, my blood froze, my mouth opened in a silent scream of anguish and despair.

It can’t be, I told myself. But there it was in black and white - my metaphorical dream come to life:

President Bush was asked by a SkyNews correspondent whether the end of his term marked the end of the Bush presidential dynasty that began with his father’s Oval Office tenure 20 years ago.

In response, Bush singled out his brother, who has often been mentioned as a possible Republican presidential contender. “Well, we’ve got another one out there who did a fabulous job as governor of Florida, and that’s Jeb,” he said. “But you know, you better ask him whether or not he’s thinking of running. But he’d be a great president.”

There had been wide speculation in 2000 that Jeb Bush would enter the Republican primary race that was won by his brother.

During the SkyNews interview, first lady Laura Bush added that public service was an “unbelievable” life.

“One of the reasons George and his brother, Jeb, served in office is because they admired their father [Presient George H.W. Bush] so much,” she said.

Asked whether that meant her husband was not “the last Bush,” she responded: “Well, who knows. We’ll see.”

No, no, and I say no again. I cannot - will not - accept this affront tothe sancity of our republic. Bad enough that Hillary ran this year. But three presidents from one family? Makes us look like a goddamn banana republic. I don’t care how competent Jeb is. I don’t care if people think he’d be the best president to come along since Michael Douglas played that guy who got to do the slap and tickle with Annette Benning (”I’m going to get the guns.”). I will pray to the political gods that they spare us the prospect of another Bush - Jesus I don’t believe I’m saying it - ANOTHER BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

We have suffered through rah rah Bush and now compassionate conservative Bush with a guy possesing the morals of an alley cat and the hormones of a teenager in between. No wonder people are going crazy over Obama. The guy seems almost normal by comparison. Who cares if he hangs around with bigots, crooks, radicals, and terrorists? At least his name doesn’t conjure up nightmares of dynastic wars as one branch of the Bush family eventually splits off and we have our very own “War of the Roses.” Imagine the horror! Legions of Bushbots ravaging the countryside, raping and pillaging in the name of one Bush or another.

Some may bring up the Kennedy’s as a example of true dynastic American politics. They would be right to a point. Many expected Bobby Kennedy to win in 1968, serve for 8 years to be followed by Ted Kennedy for another 8 years. From there, any one of a half dozen of the 2nd generation Kennedy children could have vied for the presidency.

This nightmare never came to pass thank God. But the political success of the Kennedy family nevertheless shows a disconcerting eagerness by the American people to embrace this kind of “royalty in all but name” that we get from the Bush’s and Kennedys.

Witness the goo goo eyes the American people made at that little waif of a princess Diana. I found it creepy that her death would have elicited such an outpouring of grief in this country. The “People’s Princess” indeed. Spoiled, rich, bratty, a shameless publicity hound, the fact that she actually believed that because she was porked by some Duke or other and her resulting whelp was deserving of being King of England just because of who his father was is so un-American that I thought I heard John Adams crying out in pain and anguish from the grave. Diana did absolutely nothing in the entire span of her privileged, sheltered existence to warrant anything except our contempt. She shamelessly used her children in her war with her philandering Dumbo of a husband while jumping from bed to bed herself. The antics of the super-rich may make for interesting tabloid reading but should hardly interest good republicans such as ourselves.

Speaking of Adams, his son became president of course. But not until a decent interval had passed - nearly 25 years. Now we are looking at the nauseating prospect of three Bush’s as president in about a generation. And God knows how many lord and lady Bushes are waiting in the wings out there, just waiting for their chance.

True nightmare scenario; Jenna is eligible to run in 2020.

It used to be that children of privilege either spent their lives in dissolute hedonism, burning through the family fortune as fast as their self-destructive behavoir would let them. Or, they were groomed to enter the family business in order to protect the assets of those who came before them.

The Kennedys and Bushes enter politics and run for president for exactly the same reason. And from my point of view, it’s no way to run a republic.

I don’t think Barack Obama would be a good president and am not voting for him. But his speech on the responsibilities of parenthood before the 20,000 member Apostolic Church of God - an almost all-black church near the loop in Chicago - revealed something about the man that I didn’t know was there; a basically conservative outlook on personal responsibility and the importance of family.

Too often, the left dismisses the family as the anchor on which our civilization rests. They are much too busy trying to stretch, twist, or otherwise mutilate the definition of “family” to pay much attention to the impact it has on society and its members.

Far be for me to deny that there may be many definitions of “family” and that some of those definitions includes people of the same sex raising children. The only requirement I’ve ever heard of for a family is that there are loving, caring relationships irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation of the parents or children.

But in seeking to expand the definition of family, the left has chosen to denigrate the traditional nuclear family and traditional family values as somehow poisonous to society rather than embracing them as the central fact of life in any culture. By promoting a culture of permissiveness - which is at odds with the traditional role of the family as a bulwark against chaos and the major force for discipline and prudence in society - the left sacrifices the meaning of family for the abstract and superficial changes in definition that would include gays and gay couples.

Obama didn’t mention gays in his talk on the family yesterday. He didn’t mention alternative lifestyles or that “it takes a village” to raise a child. He eschewed every liberal talking point on the family to ram home the notion that families need fathers to be whole and that those who refuse to take responsibility for fatherhood aren’t real men:

Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children. We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

One commenter at Balloon Juice had an interesting take:

I do think that this is an interesting piece of dog whistle politics. The tough truth is that ninety percent of all male humans can knock a girl up, and that doing your part to raise the kids is what makes you a real man. That’s a message which applies no matter what color your skin is. It’s a dog-whistle to intimate that African Americans or Latinos or other beige folks need to hear it more than the rest of us do.

Do I think that Barack Obama is acutely aware of this? Oh, yes, indeed. Do I think the reporters who are dealing in stereotypes in reporting his sermon are? Not so much.

The question of whether African Americans and Hispanics “need” to hear the message of responsible fatherhood is moot. A few figures courtesy of Presto-Pundit:

The nation’s out-of-wedlock birth rate is 38%. Among white children, 28% are now born to a single mother; among Hispanic children it is 50% and reaches a chilling, disorienting peak of 71% for black children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly a quarter of America’s white children (22%) do not have any male in their homes; nearly a third (31%) of Hispanic children and over half of black children (56%) are fatherless.

This represents a dramatic shift in American life. In the early 1960s, only 2.3% of white children and 24% of black children were born to a single mom. Having a dad, in short, is now a privilege, a ticket to middle-class status on par with getting into a good college.

[snip]

A study of black families 10 years ago, when the out-of-wedlock birthrate was not as high as today, found that single moms reported only 20% of the “baby’s daddy” spent time with the child or took a “lot” of interest in the baby ..

Clearly all races have a percentage of deadbeat dads. But it is equally clear that Obama was targeting African American men in his speech if only because when confronted with a choice of treating a couple of cases of the flu or an epidemic, the good physician triages the situation and treats those most in need. In this case, Obama’s own background with an absent father resonated deeply with his audience:

I know what it means to have an absent father, although my circumstances weren’t as tough as they are for many young people today. Even though my father left us when I was two years old, and I only knew him from the letters he wrote and the stories that my family told, I was luckier than most. I grew up in Hawaii, and had two wonderful grandparents from Kansas who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me - who worked with her to teach us about love and respect and the obligations we have to one another. I screwed up more often than I should’ve, but I got plenty of second chances. And even though we didn’t have a lot of money, scholarships gave me the opportunity to go to some of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids don’t get these chances today. There is no margin for error in their lives. So my own story is different in that way.

Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother - how she struggled at times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle - that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock - that foundation - on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer.

So what do we make of this clear break with liberal orthodoxy on the family? It appears to me to be heartfelt and something that has come to the surface as a result of his own personal experience. The fact that much of what he says reflects conservative orthodoxy regarding the family, African American culture, and personal responsibility will probably raise some grumblings on the left and within the African American leadership which is terrified that any talk of responsibility that does not include white racism as a cause will diminish their roles in the black community.

In fact, this thoughtful rumination on the left and personal responsibility raises many interesting questions:

The big myth lurking around out there in our highly charged partisan war of ideas is that liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility. That we want government to take care of everything while everyone gets to do whatever the hell we want.

Of course this is more caricature than characterization.

One of the things that I was impressed with in regards to Senator Obama early on is his approach to the status of the American family, and we’re not just talking about deadbeat dads either, but the whole deal, from making sure your kids sit down and do their homework, to knowing when to turn the television off, to providing a healthy diet. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote passionately and honestly about the responsibilities of parenthood, and how too many parents aren’t meeting those responsibilities.

And it was these themes that took center stage in Obama’s father’s day address yesterday. I’m sure there’s a way to twist this, but here’s the thing, and perhaps it’s a key difference. Republicans, I believe, too often hide behind a cloak of personal responsibility; a shadow of the small government theme they claim to be so steadfastly for.

But sometimes, and this necessity is apolitical, it takes a leader to stand up and demand from the people that they actually adhere to those precepts of personal responsibility. That Obama is black will likely dominate the coverage from many corners much along the vein of; he’s black, so he can tell this to black people when non-black people can’t.

But the familial problems that face this country are not strictly held within the confines of the African American community, and I don’t think it is the color of Obama’s skin that makes him the best equipped to speak on these issues.

For all the discussion of who is the elitist, and who isn’t, what gives Obama the authority to speak on these topics is not the color of his skin, but instead the nature of his youth. He was not born into a rich family, and his father wasn’t an Admiral. He grew up, like many of us, in a broken home, and worked his way up from humble beginnings. As a boy whose own father in many ways abandoned him, Obama knows exactly the kind of world many children are coming in today, and yet he stands as an example of not only what can be accomplished, but also, well, how to be a father and a man of a strong family.

I would say amen to most of that except the author ducks and dodges the question of where personal responsibility fits in with liberal ideology. He seems to be making the case that Obama has the cred to talk about responsibility because of his life story. Okay, I’ll buy that. But aside from accusing conservatives of “hiding behind” personal responsibility, he is silent on whether Obama’s call for taking responsibility for one’s actions is ultimately a liberal or conservative notion. An ideology that promotes permissiveness almost to the exclusion of everything else can hardly make claim to be promoting personal responsibility when telling males (of all races) “if it feels good, do it” and don’t worry about the consequences.

Nor can an ideology responsible for creating a welfare state that is directly responsible for many of these same ills Obama spoke about yesterday suddenly turn around and embrace Obama’s message unless adherents are willing to alter fundamental precepts regarding personal responsibility and ultimately, the family. What Obama was saying is that poverty and hopelessness are only part of the problem and government solutions, while important, are only part of the answer. Obama has correctly identified the family - with both parents intimately involved in their children’s lives - as the fundamental life preserver for the African American and other disadvantaged communities.

Will the left listen? Or will they simply see this speech by Obama as a political “dog whistle?” If they wish to make the 2008 election a “hinge” election where the political realities are altered and a new, liberal era is ushered in for the next quarter century or so, they best heed Obama’s words and make them their own.

As both the right and left engage in their favorite pastime - The Blame Game - when it comes to assigning responsibility for the mess we’re in with gas prices, I’ve been doing a slow burn about both sides’ singular avoidance of placing blame on the one group who truly deserves it.

Every red blooded American who has voted over the past 30 years - Republican and Democrat - for federal lawmakers who promised, in effect, that this day would come bears the primary responsibility for high gas prices.

We the voters made concious and deliberate choices to elect presidents, members of Congress, and state legislators who ran on a platform that condemned nuclear power and swore to oppose the building of any more plants. If, over the last 30 years, we had replaced the majority of our oil and coal burning plants with nuclear powered generators, we could have saved about half a million bbl a day or 5% of the total imports of 10 million bbl a day.

That doesn’t sound like much but the “speculation premium” added to the current price of oil - about $40 according to the Wall Street Journal - is based on a perceived tightening of the market by 2-3%. There’s a good chance that premium wouldn’t even exist with the savings realized by using safe, clean nuclear power.

We, the voters, also made conscious and deliberate choices in electing everyone from members of Congress to local selectmen who would oppose the building of new refineries. “Not in my backyard” was the refrain of the last 30 years which has seen exactly zero refineries built in this country and 50 refineries closed down. Incredibly, we import about 3.5 million bbl of finished petroleum products every day. This lack of refining capacity has put pressure on our ability to stockpile gas, deisel, and other products that would also dampen speculation and give us a much needed cushion in supply that would stabilize oil prices.

We the voters also made conscious and deliberate choices to elect members of Congress, governors, and state legislators who promised not to drill offshore of all but a handful of states. How much oil is there just waiting for the drill bit? The government estimates around 20 billion bbl which sounds like a lot but only represents the amount of oil we would use in about 3 years. But other estimates from oil companies and other energy experts puts the amount of oil offshore considerably higher. The point isn’t that it would supply ALL of our needs for just a few years. It could never be pumped out that fast anyway. But no one doubts that it could make a sizable dent in our current 10 million bbl a day fix we need from other countries.

A word about the Bakken field which has been receiving some press lately (for obvious reasons). There is a huge disparity between government estimates of how much oil is under South Dakota and Montana and how much there is according to independent energy groups. The government says 21 billion bbl. Other scientific studies put the number at 500 billion bbls. As contrast, Saudi Arabia has proven reserves of about 260 billion bbls.

What has scientists and drillers so excited about this huge field of oil is that recent advances in oil drilling technology may make a large part of that field available for exploitation. To give you an idea, as recently as 1995, the government claimed the field contained only 150 million bbls of recoverable oil. To raise that estimate to 21 billion bbl astonishing.

The key is a breakthrough in drilling technology known as “sideways drilling.” Apparently, most of the oil is unavailable unless that technology is used to exploit the find. At the moment, no one knows how much of this light, sweet crude could contribute to our stocks of oil. But they are finding ways to extract more and more of the find all the time which can only bode well for the future.

This doesn’t help our immediate pain which brings me back to where the blame should lie for this fiasco. We voters made perfectly rational and logical choices to elect politicians who refused to drill offshore, in ANWR, on federal lands - anywhere one spotted owl or caribu might be affected.

There is nothing wrong with this, I might add. There are many among us who continually pat themselves on the back for being good stewards of the land, fighting the good fight against greedy oil companies who would rape the land and coastline in the name of profit.

These same people are much less willing to pat themselves on the back for getting us into our current dilemma. Again, there is nothing basically wrong with being in favor of protecting the environment at all costs - the most obvious cost being cheap gasoline. The question is why are we not accepting responsibility for what is clearly something that is our collective fault.

It has been proven that environmental protection is a luxury that only rich nation’s can afford. We have been willing to pay this price both because it is the right thing to do and because we could afford a small loss in economic growth in exchange for cleaner air and water as well as protecting wildlife.

But times change. The world is changing. And unless we can find a way to balance legitimate concerns about the environment with our need for more oil, the present situation will continue and get worse. This means that environmentalists have to acknowledge that the policies they support are leading us to ruin while the pro-drilling crowd must acknowledge that we can’t go drilling everywhere there’s a drop of oil to be found.

And we the voter have to start electing politicians to office who are realistic about what needs to be done. Can we maintain our committment to a clean environment while increasing our domestic oil supply? I think it can be done - if the political will to do it can be found.

Watching the cable nets talk about the death of Tim Russert at age 58 - and they are all on the story - you are struck by the sheer number of journalists and on air personalities whose professional lives had been touched by this man.

Tom Brokaw put it well with his typical understatement:

He was “one of the premier political journalists and analysts of his time,” Tom Brokaw, the former longtime anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” said in announcing Russert’s death. “This news division will not be the same without his strong, clear voice.”

In addition to his on-air duties, Russert was a Vice President of NBC News - a position in which he fought almost daily battles with the corporation over what to cover as news. He was a Bureau Chief in Washington as well which made him something of a rennaisance man in the news business handling executive, administrative, and talent duties with a practiced ease.

But Russert will be known for his combative yet polite interview techniques that had the effect of breaking down a target into a quivering hunk of jello while boring in and, with bulldog tenacity, not letting go until a particular question was answered. He would ask the same question a half dozen times until he was satisfied that he had at least a partial answer to his question.

The list of honors is impressive:

Russert’s March 2000 interview of Sen. John McCain shared the 2001 Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence in Television Journalism. He was also the recipient of the John Peter Zenger Award, the American Legion Journalism Award, the Veterans of Foreign Wars News Media Award, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Journalism Award, the Allen H. Neuharth Award for Excellence in Journalism, the David Brinkley Award for Excellence in Communication and the Catholic Academy for Communication’s Gabriel Award. He was a member of the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame.

I really feel like we are losing one of the last of a dying breed with Russert. Only in their dreams can an Olbermann or Matthews or O’Reily or Cooper be the kind of relentless searcher for truth as Russert clearly was. Despite the fact that his background was in politics rather than journalism, it seems he took to journalism like a duck takes to water.

Some may find bias in the way he interviewed conservatives compared to his interviews with liberals. But I didn’t see it. His job was to ask questions and get answers. And few in the business were so relentless in pursuit of answers be they Democrats or Republicans. There was no such thing as a softball interview where Russert was concerned.

According to people who knew him, he was extremely well informed, spending hours every morning scanning the wires and news reports so that he was up to speed with what was going on. Speaking from experience, I can tell you it is no easy task. I might spend 3-4 hours before sitting down to write anything reading MSM coverage as well as blogs. Russert spent that amount of time and more just so that he could do his job.

A life cut short - a well lived life. We mourn the passing of someone and will miss the spice he brought to political journalism.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

On Tuesday, Barack Obama faced the glare of the cameras and tried to deal with what was rapidly becoming one of those “distractions” he so despises.

It turns out that the man he chose to head up the steering committee to help him choose a vice president, Jim Johnson, had a past that was making Obama out to be a hypocrite on the sub-prime mortgage crisis. After Obama skewered John McCain for his connections with sub-prime lenders, it appears that Mr. Johnson made McCain’s connections look positively innocent by comparison.

Johnson, Fannie Mae chief from 1991 through 1998, received more than $7 million in real estate loans from a program open only to “friends of Angelo.” The “Angelo” in question is none other than Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation. Obama, who has heavily criticized Mozilo for accepting hefty bonuses despite the sub-prime crisis, evidently didn’t vet Mr. Johnson thoroughly and failed to discover the sweetheart connection.

It should also be noted that according to the Chicago Tribune, the practioner of “new politics” accepted $1.9 million from sub prime lenders which only goes to show that when it comes to a decision between engaging in the “new poltics” and old fashioned money grubbing, “new politics” gets the shaft.

The revelations about Johnson led to an incredible exchange with ABC News reporter Sunlen Miller who grilled Obama on why the information hadn’t been discovered by the campaign before he hired him. The ensuing explanation by Obama is a jaw dropper.

So without further adieu, I give you, ladies and gentlemen, Barack H. Obama - Columbia University graduate, Harvard Law Summa Cum Laude, President of the Harvard Law Review, and noted American orator:

“Now look, the, the, ah, ah, ah, I mean the uh first of all uh I, I, I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages so you’re going have to uh d-direct… Well, nah I mean becomes sort of a… um… I mean this is a game that can be played everybody… It who is tangentially related to our campaign I think is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to uh vet the vetter.”

Huh?

It gets murkier - or more bizarrely incoherent. The following was cleaned up by the ABC website and made into something printable:

“Jim Johnson has a very discrete task,” Obama continued, “as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate.

“So this - you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me,” Obama said. “They’re not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discrete task that they’re going to performing for me over the next two months.”

Whassat? What’d he say? Johnson doesn’t really “work” for him because he’s a “volunteer” in an “unpaid position.” And after all, he hasn’t promised him a cabinet post so it’s really OK that I didn’t vet him and besides this is just a “distraction” so can we please get back to your slavish worship of my awe inspiring talents?

Well, on Wednesday, Johnson “unvolunteered” himself from the campaign:

I believe Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States is the most exciting and important of my lifetime,” he said, according to a Bloomberg report. “I would not dream of being a party to distracting attention from that historic effort.”

We all know how much Obama doesn’t like “distractions.” Obama himself cried a few crocodile tears in giving him the heave ho:

“Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept. We have a very good selection process underway, and I am confident that it will produce a number of highly qualified candidates for me to choose from in the weeks ahead. I remain grateful to Jim for his service and his efforts in this process,” Obama said in a statement.

So, another Obama associate is thrown under the bus. One might begin to wonder if there are more people riding on the Obama express or underneath it. Think of all this guy’s friends, staffers, spiritual advisors, and assorted far left radicals who have been given the equivalent of a pair of cement galoshes and thrown into the Chicago River. A partial list:

1, Samantha Powers, foreign policy advisor, who ended up being just a little bit too frank about some of Obama’s less than mainstream plans for Israel and other places if the candidate were to win office.

2. Austan Goolsbee, economic advisor, who whispered to the Canadian government sweet nothings about his boss’s NAFTA switcheroo in Ohio - Obama running around the state, breathing fire about the evils of NAFTA and how he would renegotiate the treaty while Goolsbee was telling the Canadians that the candidate was just politicking and had no intention of touching the treaty.

3. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, friend and spiritual advisor who the candidate bravely stood up for - at first - until Wright’s performance at the National Press Club caused the candidate to open the door himself and push the old man under the wheels.

4. Father Michael Pfleger, friend and spiritual advisor, whose spittle flecked rant at Trinity Church against Hillary, America, and white people forced the candidate to leave his boot print on the good father’s rear end as he too was given a swift kick under the Obama Greyhound.

5. William Ayers, terrorist and future Secretary of Education in an Obama Administration. Well, probably not. But Obama’s dismissal of his former boss and friend as “just a neighbor” no doubt hurt the terrorist’s feelings but became necessary when the press started to get curious about what a candidate for president was doing associating with someone who doesn’t regret blowing people to smithereens.

There are more - the undercarriage of that bus is bloody indeed. There’s the entire congregation of Trinity United Church who now must practice their black liberation theology and “anti-middleclassness” without the man who apparently spent many a pleasant Sunday sleeping through sermons - or so he would have us believe.

But there is a monumental difference between Obama’s previous actions in washing his hands of wayward staffers, bigots, and radicals and having to toss Jim Johnson out the window.

The others were handled when he was simply a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. But his choice of Johnson to head up the most important job he has between now and the election - choosing a vice president - was made as the presumptive nominee.

In short, Obama’s first major decision as the nominee for president of his party was an unmitigated disaster.

Not only did he choose someone who opened him up to charges of being a rank hypocrite. But the way he handled himself in off the cuff remarks in trying to defend Johnson was shockingly incoherent and stupid. Trying to pass Johnson off as someone who didn’t work for him? That’s childish in its attempt to avoid responsibility. One might expect a 7 year old to deny breaking a dinner plate by saying something like “I didn’t drop it mom, it fell.” But when the potential next president of the United States tries to run away from his mistakes, we can ask legitimate questions on how this man will perform if he reaches the oval office.

Craig Crawford brings up another point:

Obama’s cavalier response utterly contradicted his campaign’s supposed crusade for reform. Not only did those words come across as tone deaf to the very ethical issues that he has raised in this election, but his remarks sounded like the ethical relativism we so often hear from the Washington business-as-usual crowd that Obama claims to be running against.

Chris Cillizza recognizes the danger Obama exposes himself to by latching on to people like Johnson:

For Obama, any questions in voters’ minds about whether he truly is a change agent or is legitimately committed to breaking the alleged stranglehold lobbyists and other power brokers have over the political system is potentially disastrous. Because of the peril involved, it’s not terribly surprising that Obama moved quickly to “fix the glitch” once he realized questions about Johnson weren’t going away.

Seen another way, however, this episode could forebode poorly for how Obama handles the various slings and arrows sent his way by Republicans and their famed — and effective — noise machine.

This is where the national press has done a heroic job in keeping Obama’s associations and actions in his past that would expose him as the hypocrite he is a well kept secret. No real attempt has been made to ferret out the truth of what his career was like as a Chicago politician. The Obama campaign would blow up if the press ever read some back issues of the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times.

Instead, it is as if Obama sprang fully formed into the world of national politics, unsullied by grubby special interests and lobbyists who afflict everyone else in Washington. His holy throat and golden tongue will lead a revolution that will make America a paradise of unity and happiness.

All I can say is we better snap out of it before we elect the most incompetent, the most naive, and perhaps the most dangerous man ever to run for the office of the president.

The more I read about this race the more convinced I am that John McCain should just go find a hole somewhere and hunker down until the slaughter is over. He doesn’t have a chance. It’s over. Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States and there’s nothing anyone anywhere can do to stop it.

Well…almost no one. I sent the following email to Diebold Corporation.

Dear Diebold:

It has become clear over these last few weeks that Barack Obama - a liberal Democrat - will win the presidency of the United States unless something is done to stop him. Naturally, since you guys control all the voting machines in the United States and are very adept at cheating on behalf of Republicans, I was wondering what you might be planning for this election?

Now don’t try and deny it. I can’t tell you how many liberal bloggers have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you guys hacked into voting machines and gave the race to the Bushies back in 2004. Well…maybe there’s a shadow of doubt, but really, the proof is in the pudding. What American in their right mind would have voted for Bush against a war hero like Kerry? Besides, most of the lefties say they don’t know anyone who voted for Bush so of course, the game had to be rigged.

Anyway, I am writing to beg, to plead with you, to use all of your power, all of your connections, all of your vast technical expertise to steal this election for John McCain. I realize how hard it is when the vote will probably be a landslide for Obama but, hey! I’m sure you can see your way clear to stealing a couple or three million votes for McCain - in the right states of course - so that he comes out on top. Besides, if you spread them out properly, no one will be any the wiser.

I’m not much as far as hacking is concerned but if you need any help - you know, diversions and such where I engage the judges at precincts in conversation while the numbers go click, click, click for McCain while their backs are turned - I am offering my services no matter how limited my abilities.

Waiting anxiously for a reply,

A Patriot

P.S. Where the hell were you guys in 2006?

The whole thing might be moot anyway. I’ve read comments on some lefty blogs that wonder why we just can’t dump Bush now and put Obama in there. To hell with the election. Everyone knows he’s going to win anyway so why let Bush destroy what’s left of the country?

Sound arguments there but if we’re going to do that, why bother to make him simply “president.” We can come up with a better title than that. How about “God-King?” Or my favorite, “Lightwalker” (sounds like something from Star Wars, huh?). Except “Lightwalker” doesn’t convey quite the majesty and pompous arrogance we’re looking for. Let’s call him “Pro Consul” Obama. It will fit very nicely in headlines at the New York Times and MSNBC can do a nightly show “Pro Consul News” (except they already have Olbermann and Matthews doing that already).

At any rate, whenever Obama takes office - next week or on January 20, 2009 - it’s time to start making preparations for his ascension.

First thing we need is a good supply of Dramamine since every time Obama opens his holy throat, the earth moves. I don’t know about you but I get seasick rather easily and having the ground heaving and rolling in response to Obama’s golden tongued rhetoric, it would be too much like being on a Windjammer’s Cruise during hurricane season.

Second, we have to lay in a good supply of pepto bismal if we’re going to be reading the MSM for the next 8 years. I’ve already barfed all over my monitor more than once as a result of reading some of the encomiums that have spewed forth from formerly reputable media outlets. Think how bad it’s going to be after he wins. Jesus at the second coming would have a hard time topping the slavering devotion already shown toward Obama.

Finally, we need to buy a whole lot of whiskey - perhaps I should buy a distillery. The only way a rational human being is going to survive 8 years of doe eyed, kowtowing Obamamaniacs, mindless hero worship, self congratulatory back slapping, and the constant, excruciating, feel-good, “post partisan” unity rhetoric from the once and future messiah is to get and stay rip-roarin’, falling down, three sheets to the wind drunk.

That I can manage, no problem.

You know, it’s just not fair that our enemies have had such a rough time lately.

In Iran, even milquetoast IAEA Chief ElBaradei is getting sick and tired of the regime’s evasions about their nuclear program. I mean, if there’s nothing to hide why not open up and allow the nuke inspectors in so that they can do their job unimpeded? Why not open the history of your program so that we can see how truthful and honest you’ve been with the world about never, ever (cross your heart and hope to be beheaded) wanting nuclear weapons?

But take heart President Ahmadinejad. Stay strong Supreme Leader Khamenei. Hope is on the way. America is about ready to elect a president who can’t decide whether you are just a “tiny country” with a tiny defense budget that offers no threat to the United States or whether you are - as he has “always” said - a grave threat to US security. Since Obama has been all over the map on what he truly thinks about Iran (and under it, over it, and squatting on top of it), you can rest assured that when push comes to shove, the Obamamessiah will give the matter a great deal of thought and probably sell out our friends in the region by recognizing Iran’s “historic mission” to complete the industrialization of the nuclear fuel cycle - and in the end, do absolutely nothing.

As for Syria, Bashar Assad is beside himself with joy these days, having seen his campaign of thuggish intimidation in Lebanon using his surrogates in Hizbullah to beat anyone over the head who looks sideways at Damascus (not to mention the most successful campaign of assassination in world history since Al Capone eliminated his rivals in the bootleg whiskey trade) work to near perfection. Assad’s worries over the Tribunal investigating these deaths are disappearing - the result of the prosecution dying on the vine as the UN moves at a pace that snails would envy to seat the judges and start the trials.

But Baby Assad still has his problems. Nuke inspectors are coming to call on him and there is still a chance for a reversal in Lebanon. But be of stout heart and good cheer, my gangster friend. The Holy Deal Maker is on the way to give you everything you want - and probably then some. No doubt the “realists” in any Obamamessiah administration would see that Lebanon is expendable and it really would be a very small concession to recognize your “sphere of influence” in the tiny country. Hell, you’re halfway there already so what would be the big deal if the US gave you and your mob a free hand in Lebanon?

No skin off our nose - besides, the visuals of you and Obama embracing to seal the deal would be spectacular.

And that goes double for you poor, downtrodden, abused, oppressed, Palestinian terrorists. Why, it’s getting so that you can’t make a decent suicide vest without being interrupted by the Israelis. And firing rockets at civilians can be fun (while giving the kids a good fireworks display) but it kind of spoils the party when the IAF comes calling and drops a couple of smart bombs on the Katyusha launch sites. After all, it causes property values in the neighborhood to plummet and the noise is horrible.

But I say to you my Israeli-hating friends, change is on the way! A “change” you can believe in - if you’re about 5 years old and have the moral compass of an alley cat. With a wave of his hand and a few blasts of rhetoric from his holy throat, the Obamamessiah will turn Israeli-Palestinian negotiations upside down and make sure that the onus for peace falls on the heads of those evil Jews and not on those who have yet to give up the dream of seeing every Jew in Israel pushed bodily into the Mediterranean. After all, who could blame you? Not the Obamamessiah and his cadre of advisors who have made it plain for anyone with half a brain to see that their sympathy for your “cause” outweighs any loyalty the US might have for an ally who has stood beside us for 60 years.

Finally, we come to that rather amorphous mass of bad guys who can loosely be termed “terrorists.” Your days of being hunted down and killed are, I am happy to say, numbered. Once our God-King is in office, we are promised that the United States will fight terrorism “the right way.”

We will arrest you. We will make sure that we don’t blame all Muslims for your wayward thinking about the west. We will give you dirty looks. We will give your lawyers dirty looks when you beat the rap and are freed to carry out whatever plans we so rudely interrupted with our “anti-terror” policies. We will go back to a time when occasional acts of terror are acceptable because, after all, what’s a couple of dozen civilian deaths now and again when weighed against the alternative?

And if you happen to succeed in killing a few hundred…thousand…or hundreds of thousands of us, oh well. We’ll just blame it on Bush and move on to the business of doing pretty much what you wish us to do; get out of the Middle East, stop meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and generally absolve ourselves of the responsibility of defending our interests. That’s because we will once again enter an era when we will only use the US military when there can be absolutely no doubt that no US interests are at stake whatsoever. Only selfless military interventions will be tolerated and only when the UN says it’s OK.

Yessiree. A new age is almost upon us - an age when our enemies can breathe a sigh of relief and get back to the business of unfettered, unrestricted actions that run contrary to American interests. They will suffer no penalty if they do - save perhaps the prospect of an American president telling the world “This is not the Iran (or Syria, or Hamas, or jihadis) that I’ve known. They gave no indication when talking to me that they would act in such a beastly manner.”

Expect a lot of that over the next 8 years.

This Obama supporter posted a long piece on “The Jewish Lobby” right on Obama’s presidential campaign website.

To say that what this “Socialist for Obama” writes is anti-Semitic, hateful, inaccurate, insulting, idiotic, paranoid tripe is a given.

But when you realize this is on Obama’s website, you really have to start wondering about not just the candidate, but people’s whose job it is to vet the site and make sure excrement like this doesn’t appear.

The fact that it is still there could mean that Obama campaign workers agree with what’s written. At the very least, it shows how incredibly tone deaf the Obama campaign is if they don’t think this is offensive.

A few choice excerpts:

NO LOBBY IS FEARED MORE or catered to by politicians than the Jewish Lobby. If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media or catered to by politicians than the Jewish Lobby. If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, , and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.

All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.

In other words, “Jews stick together.” Americans must know how extremely powerful the Jewish Lobby is and how it operates to undermine America’s interests both at home and abroad. At home - by corrupting America’s political system, and abroad - by dictating American Foreign Policy against America’s best interests.

Hey Kids! Let’s play pretend…

Let’s pretend that this blog post appeared on John McCain’s website. Let’s pretend it was seen by lefty bloggers. Let’s pretend that your average lefty blogger isn’t a screaming meemie of an anti-semite but rather a rational human being.

Can you imagine the hue, the cry, and the hue again that would be raised against McCain? The guy would be run out of the race on a rail.

 But the Annointed One can get away with this because 1) Lefty bloggers really don’t care about this kind of hate speech; and 2) Obamamessiah can do no wrong. 

 And here are some suggestions on how to battle the “Jewish Lobby:”

HOW CAN WE STOP THE JEWISH LOBBY?

Here are 3 options:

1) Commit suicide.
2) Write to your Senator warning him that taking bribes from Jews is a sin.
3) Never vote again.

OR:
+ Pray To The Lord Jesus Christ To Either Convert The Jews Or Conquer Them Through The Power Of His Cross!

This has been on Obama’s presidential campaign site since 9:13 Eastern time this morning. It is now after 1:30 and this offensive piece of trash is still up.*

Cause for concern? Or are we going to hear the old refrain (and getting older every day) “These are not my values blah blah blah…” Perhaps we’ll hear something like “This is not the Socialists for Obama that I know…”

Simply, remarkably, unbelievable. Welcome to “The New Politics” folks.

* My mistake. This blog has been up since 9:13 PM last night - and is still up as of 1:45 PM the next day.

This piece originally appeared in The American Thinker

Most of you know that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held a secret meeting at an undisclosed location in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

What you don’t know is that The House has obtained a super secret transcript of their brief but telling conversation.

The meeting took place at a secret hideway used by Mrs. Clinton to decompress after especially tough days on the Hill or the campaign trail. The joint statement released by both sides only gives the bare bones of what was discussed:

“Senator Clinton and Senator Obama met tonight and had a productive discussion about the important work that needs to be done to succeed in November,” their campaigns said in joint statement.

Herre’s what really went on.

*******************************************************
HRC: (Opening door): Senator Obama, how nice of you to come.

BHO: My pleasure, Senator Clinton. I sincerely hope we can paper over any differences we might have and bring this party together in order to defeat the Republicans in November.

HRC: (Giggling) Um…sure Barry. Whatever you say. Won’t you sit down?

BHO:  Alright. (Glances at coffee table top) I’m not sure I appreciate the symbolism of the dueling pistols, Hillary.

HRC: (Innocently) Er, symbolism? Oh, those old things? They belonged to Andy Jackson, you know.

BHO: Jackson was a slaveowner.

HRC: And a man who knew how to settle political arguments (eyes gleaming). Shall we say dawn, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, at 20 paces?

BHO: Did you bring me over here to challenge me to a duel?

HRC: You said you wanted to settle our differences. I think we should explore all the options.

BHO: I think not.

HRC: Oh, very well. Rock, paper, scissors it is then.

BHO: What are you talking about?

HRC: Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper…are you telling me you never played that game?

BHO: Hillay, can we please get serious about this? We’re talking about the future of the country here.

HRC: So it’s serious you want to be? Very well then, I’ll cut you for the nomination - high card wins.

BHO: (Exasperated) Senator Clinton, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve already sewn up the nomination. I’ve got the delegates. I’ve got the Superdelegates. Howard Dean loves me. The press adores me.

HRC: No.

BHO: (Smiling patiently) Now Hillary, you’ve got to face the facts.

HRC: No.

BHO: I won fair and square. You’ve got to accept that it’s over for you.

HRC: (Voice rising) Over? Who says it’s over? Nothing is over until I say it is.

(Male voice from the bedroom) You tell ‘em hon.

BHO: Who’s that. Don’t tell me it’s…

HRC: For God’s sake, Bill. You really can’t keep your mouth shut about anything, can you? C’mon out now. No use trying to hide.

WJC: (Sheepishly) I’s just takin’ a nap, is all.

BHO: You’re not even supposed to be here, Mr. President.

HRC: He’s right, Bill. Run along now.

WJC: But pumpkin, you need me.

HRC: No, Barry’s right. This is between us. You go sit at the bar across the street and I’ll meet you there when this is over.

WJC: Yes sugar.

HRC: And Bill - keep your hands off the waitresses.

(Exit a chastened WJC)

BHO: (Wryly) Any more surprises?

HRC: Perhaps we should cut to the chase. I am prepared to offer you the Ambassadorship to Senegal if you concede the nomination.

BHO: (Losing patience) Now see here, I’ve had just about enough of this nonsense. If you…

HRC: Not good enough for you, eh? Very well. How about Secretary of Commerce? We could use a bright lad like you in the cabinet.

BHO: (Incredulous) Do you live in a dreamworld? I’m it! I’m the chosen one! The party has spoken.

HRC: These kinds of temporary setbacks are common in politics. I’m still very much alive in this race.

BHO: How can you say that? Every network, every wire service, every major newspaper has annointed me as the nominee.

HRC: But only on paper, Barry. We both know that the people support me, that their hearts belong to me. Ask any white, middle class Democrat and they’ll tell you who should be the nominee.

BHO: Still playing the race card? I thought better of you once.

HRC: Not at all my half Kenyan friend. Facts are facts. And since I’m feeling especially generous today, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. If you concede the nomination, once I’m president I’ll make you Ambassador to the United Nations and back your bid for Illinois governor in 2012.

BHO: I feel like I’ve landed on another planet.

HRC: Sorry, I promised that post to Edwards.

BHO: Do I have to publicly humiliate you to get you to see reason? I didn’t want to do this but I must tell you, I have pictures…

HRC: Pictures?

BHO: Of your husband. In the bridal suite of the International Hotel in Bangkok.

HRC: What’s he doing?

BHO: Do you remember the “Miss Universe Pageant” held there a few months ago? Let’s just say that Bill was engaged in a little private judging with three of the contestants in the “out of swimsuit” category.

HRC: I see. Well, that almost tops my tape of Michelle going off about “Whitey” at Trinity United from a few years ago.

BHO: You…you actually have that tape.

HRC: Yup.

BHO: Yes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that I’m the nominee and that you appear to be prepared to wreck the party to contest that notion.

HRC: (Resigned) Oh, very well. With the press in your pocket, there really doesn’t appear to be much hope for me anyway. So when are you going to name me your Vice Presidential nominee?

BHO: (Sputtering) You can’t be serious. Why your husband alone is enough to keep you off the ticket. He’s a time bomb waiting to go off not to mention how truly nasty he was all throughout the campaign. Besides, I don’t feel like hiring a food taster every time we sit down to eat. Never - never in a million years would I even consider naming you vice president on the ticket.

HRC: Right. But when are you going to make the announcement?

BHO: I need an aspirin…

(End of transcript)

Reading the dozens of blog posts about the apparent and imminent demise of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, you notice immediately how most writers tend to fall back on cliche infested encomiums or sometimes humorously imaginative “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” screeds of hate-spewing bile. There doesn’t seem to be much middle ground when talking about Hillary Clinton which is the way its been since at least her crack about not staying at home and baking cookies for her man during the 1992 presidential campaign.

That utterance placed her firmly on one side of the great cultural chasm that the man who vanquished her now promises to bridge. From what I can gather, the way Barack Obama intends to do this is by showing the rest of us that we are a bunch of red state goober chewin’, tobacco spittin’, flag wavin’, gun carryin’, bible thumpin’, interbreedin’ morons who cling to religion and hate the coloreds because we have yet to have experienced the healing powers of the messiah-lite.

Gee. I can’t wait.

Hillary actually made a more spirited effort to bridge that chasm during her campaign than Obama ever imagined. Yes, she may be a born again populist in the best sense of the word in that she attempted to speak to the concerns of the vast middle of her party and much of America. And yes, she sometimes shamelessly played the class card, trying to pit one class of Americans against another. But she was actually in the process of building an entirely new Democratic party coalition - one that resembled the old FDR New Deal grouping with not urban elites as the centerpiece of the machine but rather lunch pail Democrats and seniors as her base.

She would have returned the Democrats to advocating a strong national defense, a muscular foreign policy, and a newly discovered fiscal sanity. Hillary Clinton demonstrated over the course of this campaign that she has no illusions about the nature of our enemies nor does she share Obama’s faith in the efficacy of discourse unless the ground is well and truly fertilized beforehand.

Of course, national health insurance and other programs more identified with socialism would also have come along for the ride - reason enough not to vote for her from my point of view. But at least her policies would have been grounded in reality and not the pie in the sky, feel good rhetoric of Flim Flam Man Obama.

If it sounds like I’m sorry to see her retire, you’d be half right. A Clinton-McCain race would have been a barnburner, one for the ages. Both candidates would have been trying to appeal to basically the same voters while paying lip service to their rabid base. As a result, the hard left and right would slowly become unhinged - the entertainment value of such an occurrence worth charging admission for. The spectacle of both candidates being skewered by their own while fighting tooth and nail for the great middle of the American electorate would have been good for the country.

On the other hand, I can honestly say I am sick to death of the Clintons and their tactics. And the prospect of Bill Clinton slinking in and out of view during the campaign is enough for me to be grateful the Clintons will now be forced into a secondary role - even if by some miracle Obama were to offer her the Vice Presidential nomination.

Despite being imbued as he is with an elevated sense of his own abilities, Obama would be absolutely nuts to choose Hillary as a running mate. As Dick Morris has rightly pointed out, you wouldn’t just get Hillary in the deal. It would be a Menage a trois with Bill Clinton the wildest wild card who ever attached himself to any campaign in American history running loose and fancy free among the electorate.

Lock up your wives and daughters and hide the silverware if that were to happen.

But I don’t think we need worry too much about a Obamahill fusion ticket. There appears to be genuine animosity in the Obama camp directed against Clinton not only for their tactics but because she didn’t concede the race earlier despite having no chance at overtaking the frontrunner. The Obama camp was forced to spend tens of millions of dollars and maintain a schedule that concentrated on winning primaries rather than being allowed to pivot and start gearing up for the general election.

The only way a “Dream Ticket” will emerge is if Obama is absolutely convinced that he can’t win without her on the ticket. Despite some troubling numbers in blue states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that show McCain very competitive against Obama, there is no proof that Obama will go down to defeat if he fails to add Hillary to the ticket. Hence, a more likely pick would be a national security Democrat or another woman.

So despite a valiant effort that has earned her the respect of some conservatives like myself, Hillary Clinton has come up short in realizing what is probably a life long dream to be President of the United States. Those of us who have had our dreams shattered can empathize with how she is feeling right about now. Some may enjoy kicking her when she’s down but that’s not for me. I will fight her hammer and tongs over what will be an effort to pass national health insurance regardless of who wins in November and her other schemes. But I will do it with a new found appreciation for her tenacity and a recognition that she is more than just an empty pantsuit.