Ok, that isn't exactly what he said:
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
That is quite the implication, isn't it? "All blacks win here, so what?" is sorta the feeling.
It's strange how filled with pleasure I was at hearing Obama won South Carolina. Is it possible to beat Hillary? Can the Democrats do the right thing and go against the status quo? Can they nominate someone other than a self involved manipulating political machine? Can they??
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Ok, that isn't exactly what he said:
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:52 PM
Friday, January 25, 2008
First of all, thanks to all participating in the chat debate last night. It was a lot of fun. Tom mentioned that someone whispered something when Mitt was asked if he would do what Reagan did in 1980. We didn't hear it, but he was right. Someone whispered "raise taxes" so Mitt would know what Russert was talking about.
Who was it? Another candidate??
Anyway, it was a pretty boring debate. Huck got in a few funny lines. I would have to say Mitt probably won the debate. He answered well and was forceful. You have to love it when he says he can't imagine us sending the Clintons back to the White House.
McCain went out of his way to defend Rudy. I guess he was feeling no competition there and it looked real classy. Rudy needed to hit one out of the ballpark, he didn't make any gaffs, but he didn't do anything special either.
But I have to agree with one of the NRO writers, what did this debate accomplish other than remind us of how Tim Russert is the most overrated journalist in television?
Please bring back Chris Wallace!!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:30 AM
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Another interesting thing about Florida is that Rudy pretty much put all his eggs in that 57 delegate basket. He spent more than 3 million in advertising and campaigned there big time, foregoing the earlier states.
This was a risky gamble on his part and it isn't looking good for him. Recent polls this week show McCain and Romney neck and neck with 25% and 23% and Rudy trails at 15%. Senior Aides to Rudy have forgone their paychecks this month. Not a good sign.
Romney, on the other hand, never has to ask his aides to forgo checks. One of the advantages to being so successful his whole life, is a boatload of his own money. He doesn't have the worries the others do about cash.
Also, the more the economy is front and center, the more Mitt gains an advantage. Being a businessman for 25 yrs certainly helps here.
Florida will be the most interesting test yet. If Romney wins and stops McCain's momentum, then it's anybody's guess.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:57 AM
But John McCain has been in presidential politics long enough to know that there is always the McCain exception to every rule. After he decisively beat former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in neighboring New Hampshire, McCain's low-budget campaign expected a windfall of fresh donations to help propel it forward. But the haul was disappointing; donors still weren't ready to buy in to a candidate they view as too much of a risk. The towering obstacle between McCain and victory is not so much his rivals for the nomination but the suspicion long held by many Republicans, especially rock-ribbed conservatives, that the Senator and former war hero is too much the maverick on issues that matter deeply to them to be trusted to occupy the White House.
Why was he booed? Here is why (but then, I don't have to tell you guys this)
But it is also true that conservatives have a lengthy bill of complaint against McCain. In the past decade he has joined with Democrats on a series of crusades in Congress — with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration reform — that a majority of Republicans have opposed. He voted against President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and '03, each time citing the need for fiscal restraint. And during his 2000 campaign, he labeled Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance."
So why does he get the votes?
Still, McCain's appeal tends to transcend his positions on the issues — when it doesn't contradict them entirely. He is the candidate most associated with supporting the President's war in Iraq, yet he is the hands-down choice so far of antiwar and anti-Bush voters in his party's primaries. He has accrued a far more conservative record in political office than Rudy Giuliani, Romney or, in many cases, Mike Huckabee, but he is, as he was in 2000, the favorite of independents and Democrats who choose to vote in GOP primaries.
McCain has his flaws," says Ken Duberstein, a former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, "but everyone is starting to recognize that he's the most electable Republican out there."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:48 AM
This is from a commenter over at race408.
Louisiana’s social conservatives created the winning “Pro-life, Pro-family” slate in early January largely because we didn’t know if Fred was still going to be a candidate at the time of our caucuses (turns out that he wasn’t, by a few hours). Because we had almost all the state’s social conservative leaders for Fred, we were also able to stave off Huckabee by use of this “pro-life, pro-family” slate. I was really pleased with the win last night, as it’s not easy to beat McCain, Romney, and Paul without a candidate, but that’s what we did.
About 90 percent of the pro-family slate was actually Thompson supporters. If Fred were to jump back into the race, he would almost certainly pick up all 47 of Louisiana’s delegates (the whole point of LA’s complicated system was to have an early vote while still not losing half our delegates like all the other early states have). That would put him AHEAD of McCain in the delegate count and only narrowly trailing Romney.
This is what the Campaign Spot over at NRO says:
This Louisianan's take contradicts that of the state party, who contended there was overlap between the pro-family slate and McCain.
I bounced the above comments off another campaign, who said it was plausible that most, or at least a good chunk, of the "Pro-Life, Pro-Family" folks were Fredheads.
Wow, sounds pretty convoluted to me. But this must really want to make the Fred supporters want to scream. It's so strange to me that Fred dropped out now. Ace is posting that Carl Cameron at Fox News is saying Fred was only in it for theV.P. spot. I find that hard to believe, but if you were supporting Fred you have to feel pretty betrayed by it, if true.
So maybe Fred could have won last night and built momentum? I guess we will never know.
One more thing. The Corner has this:
Ron Paul finished second. His supporters reportedly mobbed the 11 polling places, but many of them could not participate because they were not registered Republicans. They were required to cast provisional ballots, many of which will not count. (The provisional ballots are part of the reason for the delay in tallying the results.)
Romney came in third, despite what appears to have been more than a token effort. Huckabee's failure to participate is baffling — he could have easily won this one, and it would have been a nice bounce for him after his loss in South Carolina.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:33 AM
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Now, the interesting thing about that is that this is the first of the southern caucuses. Very conservative group. Mitt put a lot of resources into Louisiana and had the endorsement of two congressmen in the state. Not only that, he had been to Louisiana more than any other GOP candidate.
Even given all that, McCain won and Ron Paul, of all people, came in second.
This doesn't bode well for Romney. It's what I have always been afraid of for him.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:22 PM
Ace has become a non stop McCain basher. He keeps putting up polls that show Romney up,
but all the polls at RCP shows McCain winning. Also, this Florida poll has McCain up, but it is close.
All the web bashing in the world isn't going to change the voter's minds. We are a small world here. You have pictures of McCain buying crack, then your story will make the news. If not, forget it. It's a waste of energy.
I guess I have tried to make people here understand why people are voting for McCain and why we might want to forgive him for his transgressions. If I haven't convinced you, then I haven't.
But this wishful bashing over at Ace's is no more going to change things than my pro-McCain pieces in actual voting.
This isn't a football game. My team isn't better than yours, it's just more electable.
And to give you an example of this, I want you to look at this blog in Alabama to see how the southern mind thinks. Not because he is for McCain, but because he lays out why others won't win in the south. Pay attention.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:35 PM
Hillary, a feminist icon, right? She could be the first woman President. What a great thing for women, right? Except for the irony of the fact that she is depending on a man to get her there.
Maureen Dowd writes:
Bill has merged with his wife totally now, talking about “we” and “us.” “I never did anything major without discussing it with her,” he told a crowd here. “We’ve been having this conversation since we first met in 1971, and I don’t think we’ll stop now.” He suggested as First Lad that “I can help to sell the domestic program.”
It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.
There it is, the plan has been in place since 1971. This surprises no one. What should surprise or at least disappoint feminists, is that it is her husband defending her, going to bat for her, attacking opponents for her, day in and day out.
Do you see any of the male candidate's spouses in the race doing such at thing?
Hillary is as dependent on Bill this way as any 1950's housewife was dependent on her husband for the grocery money.
It's such a sad ironic feminist joke.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 2:09 PM
Michael Medved observes how talk radio, arguing fervently against McCain and Huckabee during the South Carolina primaries, utterly failed to convince the voters not to vote for them. I myself was surprised at the all out "talk attack" on McCain and Huckabee.
It is interesting to see how talk radio, and I mean the powerful voices of Rush, Ingraham, Beck, and Savage, didn't seem to leave a dent in the conservative voters of South Carolina.
Medved asks his colleagues to look at this differently. (emphasis mine) Keep in mind, this was written before Fred dropped out.
As the campaign moves forward, my colleagues in talk radio (along with program directors, general managers, advertisers and the other segments of our industry) ought to reconsider the one-sided, embittered negativity toward two of our four surviving candidates for President.
McCain and Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives --and so, for that matter, are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter (who’s due to leave the race within twenty-four hours). Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates each of whom, in his own way, represents different aspects of the Reagan legacy?
There’s no need to pretend that the candidates are identically conservative (they’re certainly not), or equally qualified, or similarly appealing. But they’re all solid Republicans, dedicated public servants, and worthy contenders for the party’s nomination. Most important, each of them is vastly preferable to Clinton or Obama.
Heading into Florida (on January 29th) we need to acknowledge that one of four remaining contenders will almost certainly head the Republican ticket. He (whoever he turns out to be) will need a united party and a revived, renewed conservative coalition.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I have been exhausted from defending McCain on other blogs. Many commenters say they would stay home rather than vote for McCain or Huckabee in the general election. Are they NUTS? Your local councilman would be better than the socialists they have running on the Democratic side. Let's get our priorities straight here. We want to finish this war having achieved what we wanted to achieve, not back out and let all this sacrifice and hard work be wasted, as Hillary and Obama would do. We need to stay safe here, which we have taken for granted, and Hillary or Obama would not do. We need lower taxes, less regulation, a veto on spending, and most importantly, no additional bloated bureaucratic nightmare of social programs, which Hillary and Obama have promised to do.
Go ahead, hate McCain, Huckabee, or even Romney all you like, but you better dang well vote for them. This is important stuff. Life changing, history changing, nation changing stuff.
So stop whining. Keep fighting for your guy now, but when the nominee is selected, we better all get behind him. If we fail to do that, we fail at our own peril.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:45 AM
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
If they were anti-war activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.
They are pro-life activists who marched today to mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
You’ll be lucky to see photos like the one above buried somewhere in the back of your newspaper.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:23 PM
ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator Sam Brownback read the following letter on behalf of John McCain at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on the 35th Anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Decision.
Dear Fellow Pro-Lifers,
I join you today in marking the 35th anniversary of the tragic Roe vs. Wade decision made on January 22, 1973. I salute you for taking the time to show that the cause of Life is alive and well in the hearts of millions of Americans.
As a prisoner of war at the hands of a communist dictatorship, I saw firsthand the perils faced when human dignity and human life are not respected.
Whenever the value of one class of persons is not respectedwhether they are unborn, handicapped, elderlythe dignity of all mankind is threatened.
For this reason, I have been a strong supporter of the right to life movement since I was first elected to Congress in 1982. As the father of seven children
two of which were adopted, my wife Cindy and I understand how every child has a value which can never be calculated or cheapened. Every child literally alters the course of human history.
America stands for an ideal that all people are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know what it is like to live without those rights, and I have an obligation to advocate them wherever they are denied: in Bosnia or Burma, in Cuba or the Middle East; and in our own country when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn. That is why I am pro-life.
While our nation struggles with the issue of abortion and the division it has wrought on our society and culture, Americans on both sides of this debate should agree that the proper solution for this debate to be settled is through the democratic process, not through judicial dictate. Seven judges in 1973 took the issue of abortion on themselves to settle this issue for every American, in all fifty states. They assured us that by sheer judicial will and power, the question of a so-called right to abortion was settled' and that our society would now arrive at a shared consensus by virtue of their ruling.
They were wrong to make this assumption. Your presence in Washington today marching for Life proves just how wrong they were.
If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement. The pro-life movement appeals to the best instincts within each and every one of us. In that regard, our pro-life cause will ultimately be successful.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and please be assured of my best wishes and prayers for all those who labor for the cause of Life.
John McCain United States Senator
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 5:14 PM
Update: It's official. Here is Fred's statement:
"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the US. I hope my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people." -- Fred Dalton Thompson, statement issued to media
Carl Cameron is saying he will not be at the Florida debate Thursday.
I know alot of people are disappointed. Here is the question. If Fred endorses McCain, will that influence you at all?
h/t David Hagen
Update: According The Campaign Spot, a source close to Thompson says he will not endorse anyone and that he is not interested in a V.P spot or a cabinet position.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:58 AM
Read the press release for Frontline's "Growing up online."
I pretty much limit my kid's time on the computer to maybe an hour a day, if that. Our computer is in the kitchen where I can always monitor what they are doing and it has a password to get on that they do not know.
I never ever let them just get on for hours. It's for homework or checking e-mail and social networks quickly.
It's not just because of the filth that is on the net that no one seems to care that our kids are exposed to, it's because I think it's important for kids to be kids. They need to go outside, be with friends (real life stuff). I just demand it.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:47 AM
It was pretty rough. Both Hillary and Edwards went after Obama pretty good. Obama held his own though.
I think it's time for Edwards to bow out. He obviously isn't going to get the nomination and his supporters need to decide who represents them the best.
I thought Hillary came off as pretty harsh. But I can't be objective with her. I find her utterly manipulating and corrupt. I can't help but root for Obama. I thought for awhile that it might be possible that he beat Hillary. But that was wishful thinking. This Clinton political machine is too powerful and entrenched in establisment politics.
I find it incredible that anyone in the black community is not supporting Obama. Not because he is black, but because he is honest, refreshing, smart, and inspiring and he is black. He is everything Hillary is not.
Don't misunderstand, he is wrong on the issues, but there is really no difference there between Hillary and Obama on the issues. So I don't get it when I see members of the black community supporting Hillary.
But it's not just about the black community. The Democratic party deserves better than the likes of Hillary. But then, sometimes we get what we deserve and I suppose the Democratic party deserves Hillary.
*Here is the transcript for some of the back and forth between Hillary and Obama.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:35 AM
Monday, January 21, 2008
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I'm still waiting for that day. Funny how it has turned out differently than MLK expected. He never thought that many would want to be judged by their skin color, not their character.
What would MLK think of those who pander, but pay no attention to the real problems in the black community?
But there is much to be grateful for.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:28 AM
Rich Lowery breaks it down and ends with this:
Now, it's onto Florida, where it will be a four-way battle and where Rudy Giuliani has staked everything. McCain will get a bounce out of South Carolina, but it's impossible to know how much of one. It will hurt him that in Florida, Giuliani's vote presumably won't shrink to near-nothingness the way it did in other early states, with most of those votes presumably going to the Arizona senator.
If McCain wins Florida, he will be an overwhelming frontrunner in the national polls, a significant advantage going into Feb. 5. If Romney wins, the national race has to be rated a toss-up between him and McCain.
If Giuliani or Huckabee win, it's warning: chaos ahead. But with his South Carolina curse lifted, McCain's chances are the best they've been since his campaign's implosion last summer.
Considering that The Orlando Sentinel, the Gainesville Sun, and The Palm Beach Post have endorsed Sen. John McCain, the momentum is his.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:16 AM
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Hillary cheats. I'm shocked. Aren't you?
First hand report from a Koskid. It's quite interesting. You will especially love how the Hillaryites manipulated a man in a wheelchair.
Here's what she concluded with:
After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:52 PM
Mark Steyn points us to the New York Times regarding
"a series of articles" – that's right, a whole series – "about veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed killings, or been charged with them, after coming home." It's an epidemic, folks. As the Times put it:
"Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: 'Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife.' Pierre, S.D.: 'Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress.' Colorado Springs: 'Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.'"
"Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak."
Oh the horror! Only, just as in the 2006 report of the medical journal The Lancet, that stated the Iraq war had killed over 650,000 civilians that wasn't true, neither was this.
...the columnist Ralph Peters calculated that Iraq and Afghanistan vets are about one-fifth as likely to murder you as the average 18-to-34-year-old American male.
So just another case of the NYT trying denigrate our troops. Make them out to be monsters, instead of the heroes they are in reality.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:43 PM