Results tagged “Democrats” from Don't Go Into The Light

Drivers are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gasoline for the first time. AAA and the Oil Price Information Service say the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $4.005 overnight from $3.988. But consumers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time.

Gas is expected to keep climbing, putting greater pressure on consumers and businesses, because the price of oil is soaring in futures markets. Light, sweet crude shot up nearly $11 a barrel Friday and approached $140 for the first time.

Along with higher fuel costs, consumers are also contending with higher prices for food and other goods because of rising transportation costs.

As a reminder:

• Democrats have obstructed every attempt at expanding domestic oil production for the last 30 years.

• Democrats want to increase taxes on the oil companies, which will be passed directly to the consumer in the form of even higher gas prices.

I hope you Democrats are proud of yourselves.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Supporters for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton staked out competing positions Saturday as Democrats searched for a compromise to seat disputed convention delegations from Florida and Michigan and clear the way for a smooth end to the marathon struggle for the presidential nomination.

In the opening hours of a daylong meeting of the convention's Rules and Bylaws Committee, Clinton's designated spokeswoman urged the panel to grant a full vote for each of Florida's 211 disputed delegates.

"In life you don't get everything you want. I want it all," California State Sen. Arthenia Joyner said with a smile.

But moments later, Obama's campaign called for half-votes for each of the 211. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida said that marked an "extraordinary concession, in order to promote reconciliation with Florida's voters."

Wexler translated: "Florida's voters are only worth half as much as voters elsewhere, and should be so happy we've granted them half-person status that they'll fall in line with my guy Obama." Yep, that should promote reconciliation, alright.

It will be interesting to see how all of the bad feelings translate into real votes come November. Certainly there's no lack of bitterness about Hillary's supporters among the 'hope and change' set. A liberal Delaware blogger predicts:

Hillary Clinton supporters will continue to be the low class losers that we all know them to be.

Yeah. I can smell the bridge-building in the air. Can't you?

Via AP/Yahoo Green, more clinging to guns and xenophobia:

BUSKIRK, N.Y. - A few years ago, Kathleen Breault was just another suburban grandma, driving countless hours every week, stopping for lunch at McDonald's, buying clothes at the mall, watching TV in the evenings.

That was before Breault heard an author talk about the bleak future of the world's oil supply. Now, she's preparing for the world as we know it to disappear.

Breault cut her driving time in half. She switched to a diet of locally grown foods near her upstate New York home and lost 70 pounds. She sliced up her credit cards, banished her television and swore off plane travel. She began relying on a wood-burning stove.

"I was panic-stricken," the 50-year-old recalled, her voice shaking. "Devastated. Depressed. Afraid. Vulnerable. Weak. Alone. Just terrible."

Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare.

Maybe some of these folks have seen too many post-apocalyptic science fiction movies. Many are convinced that we're headed for anarchy by 2012. So they're planning for a personal future that looks like half the content on the Sci-Fi channel. Think "Little House on the Prairie" with Mel Gibson and Ruger's entire product line in the starring roles.

Democrat oil policies obstructionism doesn't seem to be creating the utopia that the left promised, does it?

Since it's turning out to be "bitterness day" here at DGITL...

NARAL has endorsed the Messiah, and it's membership couldn't be unhappier:

"It's created a firestorm," said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. "Everyone was mystified ... saying, 'What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash." There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL's own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. "Shame shame shame!" read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. "No more donations from me!!!" wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women's fundraising group EMILY's List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) -- Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder -- jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. "Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us," they wrote in a joint letter.

A number of feminist donors -- including several Obama supporters -- were shaking their heads at the timing, said a source who has worked on women's health and reproductive rights issues for 25 years and meets routinely with top contributors to the cause. "Without exception, the response was, 'It's a really stupid thing to do,'" said the source.

And even former NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman, who is working on behalf of Obama, was taken by surprise, saying she learned of the endorsement only when a reporter called her. Although she wouldn't comment on the timing, she was clearly worried about damage to the larger cause of women's rights. "I don't think there's any question that there are strong Obama supporters who are pro-choice who are surprised by the decision, and probably some are upset by the decision, because NARAL's mission is of course to protect women's liberty -- especially reproductive rights, but women's liberty in general."

And here's this from the WomenCount PAC:

The newly formed WomenCount PAC strongly denounces the endorsement of Barack Obama by NARAL Pro-Choice America, joining mounting opposition to the move from Emily's List, a long list of woman Members of Congress, and other longtime supporters of NARAL.

"The idea that NARAL would create a divisive and potentially permanent rift in the pro-Choice movement is a shortsighted, irresponsible rush to judgment," says Allida Black, a founding member of WomenCount PAC and editor of The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University. "Using this important issue in such an irresponsible way can only be interpreted as blatant pandering."

Hey, gals, might I suggest redirecting your bitterness into guns, god, and xenophobia? It could prove to be therapeutic, and may even help you see an alternative to your abortion zeal.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

And at least part of that anger, Walsh says, is directed at the sexism that some feel seriously harmed the former first lady's candidacy — from T-shirts bearing photos of Clinton and Obama with the slogan "Bros Before Hos" to Hillary Clinton nutcrackers sold in airports.

Question for the feminists - have you tried clinging to guns, god, and xenophobia? It works for the rest of us.

Or, at least that's the way it appears in this Des Moines Register article I ran across this morning while searching Yahoo News for McCain stuff:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Advertisement

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

He said that "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military" and that he has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well.

"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

No friends with lower rank than Admiral or General? Elitist.

That last graph says a lot about the twisted viewpoint that Sen. Harkin holds. McCain doesn't count as a civilian to him, and I assume that would apply to me and many more like me as well, as I was a volunteer for 20 years in the Air Force.

I have news for Sen. Harkin - my military career did not strip away my citizenship, and Sen. McCain's service didn't strip away his. After retirement or separation from the military, we become civilians - unless Sen. Harkin can find some basis in law why we should be treated as some sort of sub-class of citizen with less rights than folks who served unwillingly. The contempt that the left holds toward the military usually does not surprise me, but this kind of distorted and sick view coming from a Senator still gets my blood boiling.

Update: Considering the source - I had forgotten Sen Harkin's past regarding his own military record. Thanks to Glenn for his somewhat better memory.

The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.

For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.

Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.

If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Both the House and Senate are expected to approve, with bipartisan support, legislation Tuesday directing Bush to temporarily halt the shipment of about 70,000 barrels of oil a day to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Bush has refused to do so, arguing that this small amount of oil won't impact prices and that for security reasons he wants to increase the stockpile to its full capacity of 726 million barrels. It now has about 701 million barrels, equal to nearly two months of oil imports.

I have a relative who is a consultant to the oil industry - he tells me that this would have a small effect on prices, and would be factored out by the markets in short order. Of course, it also doesn't address the underlying problem - demand internationally is on the rise, and only tapping our own resources will provide a long term fix.

Yesterday I posted on the article from AP fact-checking the various proposals in play, but I didn't get back to it as I had planned. Two things stood out for me:

1. Each of the plans by Democrats would actually increase the pain at the pump. Increasing taxes and over-regulating always fails, nice to see an MSM article acknowledge it.

2. Each of the plans that would work have been stymied by Democrat obstructionism. The AP even inadvertently points out the irony of the ANWR debate - that results would be 10 years out, and had Democrats acted responsibly 13 years ago, we would be benefiting today.

Sadly, most politicians rarely look past the next election when considering policy. Help for the country that comes in a decade comes too late to help in re-election. Everyone should be reminding their Representatives and Senators that they have a greater responsibility.

I noticed the press' trumpeting Obama passing Clinton in super delegates today, and this from the AP story:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.

Remember, Democrats - in your party, only the elite decide. How does that make you all feel?

David Crary of AP has an article today about the divide among feminists in the current Democrat primary. While the article is intended to be sympathetic, Crary's premise highlights the moronic nature of identity politics in the Democrat party:

Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set?

Anyone that feels these questions are valid and worthy of exploration needs to get out more. While there's no question that aligning one's self with folks who are similar to you brings comfort in social and personal settings, it only serves to replace critical thought with emotional baggage when applied to politics.

Some of the quotes from Gloria Feldt in the article:

"We're squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections," Feldt said. "Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome."

"I'd feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders," she said. "I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter."

Not knowing Ms. Feldt personally, I'm going to assume that in all other areas of her life she probably exhibits some substantial amount of critical thought in most of her non-political life decisions. When she needs a medical procedure, does she choose her doctor based on qualification or gender? Did she buy her house based on the gender of the builder or the quality of construction?

Why, then, would she vote for something as important as the leader of the free world on something as trivial as bringing the "United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders"? Does this concept really trump more mundane considerations such as qualifications, experience, or judgment?

We see the same kind of unreasoned thinking in some of the groups backing Obama as well. According to recent polls, 90% of blacks support Obama. While the polls don't exactly tell us why, it isn't hard to figure out. Obama's support from the black community isn't because of his leadership experience (he has none), his legislative achievements (he has none), or his ground-breaking new ideas for America (he's lock-step with his party on every issue).

Again, I pose that most black Americans would make rational decisions in other areas of their lives - they shop for price and quality, they pick the best housing situation they can afford, make the best decisions they can for their children, all based on other factors than race. Is the Presidency so unimportant that symbolism replaces reason?

Someone please tell me which candidate is running on an anti-female or anti-black platform. I haven't heard Clinton or McCain propose the reintroduction of slavery. I haven't heard Obama or McCain propose taking away women's voting rights (and please don't give me any crap about abortion - that argument isn't about feminism and you all know it).

My sincere hope is that this election will expose the folly of identity politics once and for all, and folks will start basing their votes on what's best for the country. But the signs are that it will continue to be a replacement for common sense.

Since this divide ultimately benefits conservatism, I suppose I should be glad. But I'm not. Is that wrong?

Some folks just can't wait for the non-stop giveaways and entitlements to come from either a Clinton or Obama presidency. This one's clever, though - buy his vote and he'll use the proceeds to buy more votes.

So let the bidding begin:

Just a thought - will he withhold his vote if he doesn't get the 20 mil?

LANSING, Mich. - Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the national convention.

Because Democrats are all about fairness, right?






Added - had trouble finding a Hillary photo worthy of the seething rage and anguish she must be feeling over Michigan's proposal. This will have to do:

(H/T to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (where my trackbacks no longer work - *sigh*))

Ed points out an article in the Telegraph for the "selected, not elected" file:

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore's inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

I find this to be an unlikely scenario. The screams from both Clinton and Obama (and their supporters) would be deafening if this were serious. And I wonder how the voters in 48 states would feel about getting the Florida/Michigan treatment when their votes don't mean squat at the convention.

Still, it's nice to dream - having Gore run again would be delicious. Videos of his bearded, pot-bellied unhinged rants against the U.S. after losing in 2000 would flow freely. The exaggerations and downright falsehoods of his "award-winning" movie (along with his hypocritical gas-guzzling lifestyle) would be discussed again and again. And his holier-than-thou, condescending tone would once again fill the airways to alienate voters of all stripes.

Please, Al. Run. Run.

Nothing really new in stories like this one, but they're still fun to read:

Party fears tight Obama-Clinton finish

WASHINGTON - For all their delight in soaring voter registration and strong poll numbers, some Democrats fear the contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton might have a nightmarish end, which could wreck a promising election year.

Enjoy.

This is your irony of the day. If you don't see it, I can offer no help for you.

Dean laments the fighting between Hillary and Barack as "too personal".

Also, there's this for the "selected, not elected" file:

"You bring both sides together and say, `Don't you think it's time that the two campaigns made a deal on how we're going to do this?'" Dean said.

The Reiddler is waxing mysterious about the Democrat primary.

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

I just want all of you on the left to remember this, and this phrase:

Selected, not elected

Enjoy!

By now, most of you are surely aware that Hillary made up the story about dodging sniper fire out of whole cloth. Her campaign offers no reasonable explanation to accompany their characterizations of "misstatement" and "minor blip". Had Hillary ever landed in a dangerous region under hostile fire (or the threat of same), they would have been quick to trot the details out as proof that Hillary simply remembered a detail or two incorrectly but her underlying story was indeed true.

Since that hasn't happened, we're left with the curtain completely pulled back in a way we rarely see when it comes to our politicians. So the blogosphere is having fun with the somewhat threadbare (in this case, anyway) "misspoke" language being utilized by Hillary's campaign. My favorite comes from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

It Lacked the Added Virtue of Being True

Follow the link for video of the CBS report that hammered the stake through Hillary's tale. Adding additional comic interest is that this helps Obama, whose resume is even thinner than Hillary's.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Well, I guess we know what the topic of the week is going to be for the Democrat candidates. Expect more dishonest tripe from both as Obama claims his ignorance-based stance on the war shows better judgment than that of those who actually had access to intel, and watch Hillary spin like a top as she regrets basing her Iraq war vote on facts instead of opinion polls of the moonbat wing of her party. And both will attack each other on which plan for surrender waves the white flag faster and higher.

Lost in all of this will be the troops, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom while the left continues to actively undermine the morale and mission of those that remain.

As a military retiree, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women currently serving their country. Your tireless devotion, courage, and professionalism are appreciated.

From the Chinese government, no less:

China lashed out Sunday at critics of its crackdown on Tibetan protesters, describing U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as "habitually bad tempered"...

While the Chinese score few points in any other area, on this one they seem to have it nailed.

Via AP/Yahoo:

And Richardson told of the time, during one of the many Democratic debates, when his attention wandered and he didn't hear the question that came at him. Obama, then his rival, bailed him out by whispering to him that it was about Hurricane Katrina.

"He could have thrown me under the bus," Richardson cracked, "but he stood behind me."

I suspect Grandma would be grateful her grandson has limits. Though had he done so, Bill, rest assured it would have been a very nice bus:

In the state of Michigan, Democrats want their delegates seated in the primary. While there's virtually no solution that would please everyone, some would be worse than others. Here's the most idiotic I've seen thus far:

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, an Obama supporter and former presidential candidate, promoted the idea of evenly splitting the delegates between Obama and Clinton. "The best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Senators Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention," he said in a statement.

"Don't bother thinking for yourselves, Michigan - we'll tell you how to vote" somehow doesn't seem very democratic. Sen. Dodd has an odd understanding of participating fully, eh?

Via Hot Air:

Is Billy Jeff’s culpability in not thoroughly vetting his audience the same as Obama’s in patronizing a hate merchant for 20 years? Not remotely, but anything that makes the Clintons squirm is worth linking.

Indeed. In other Obama/Wright news, Mike Huckabee has weighed in on the side of Wright. He thinks we should cut Wright some slack because Wright was just "caught up in the emotion" and lived through racism many years ago. Here's the video:

Of course, Wright wasn't railing against past racism, but current society. If you can't be with the one you blame, then blame the one you're with.

I didn't comment on the Obama speech, I was at work when it was broadcast and many other bloggers said mostly what needed to be said. In short, though, I think the pattern we're seeing emerge from Obama on this subject is fairly clear - a black person can dish out anti-American and racist tripe, even while in an official position of spiritual mentorship where his words are given more credence, and it's forgivable cause it's weighed against all the good that person's done. Besides, it's the fault of white folks who committed acts of racism in the past. It's like there's a special strain of Tourettes Syndrome affecting people of color, they just can't help it. Personal responsibility plays no part in the process. Oh, and it's also ok to teach these beliefs to children.

On the other hand, if you're one of the "rich white people" like Don Imus - then you deserve anything and everything that a vengeful nation can dish out. If your life is completely ruined, so much the better.

Is it wrong for me to feel that this is harmful to people of all races?

Mostly because Obama is blocking it - after all, he gains by disenfranchising the voters in Michigan and Florida because he doesn't run the risk of something going horribly wrong resulting in Hillary walking away with lots of gap-closing delegates.

The reason something might go wrong for Obama in Michigan is that Dem voters in large numbers (up to 72,000 Dems, and 247,000 Independents) voted in the Republican primary. This predates the famous Rush voters in Texas, BTW. Back then, Dems were all about tinkering with our candidate choices, now it might be the main reason that Michigan doesn't get a do-over:

LANSING, Mich. - One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Republican presidential primary from voting again.

That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.

Obama's campaign has said they're reviewing the re-vote proposal and refuse to comment further.

I expect them to still be reviewing it when the clock runs out. Right now, Obama has the nomination almost sewn up - add a couple of populous states and increasing Obama negatives and it could be a much stronger Hillary come convention-time. And those banned cross-over voters were likely Obama supporters whose absence would help Hillary.

It takes true audacity to take away the hope of over a million voters in Michigan just to further your own political ambitions, eh, Obama?

Holiday Inn Express may make you smarter, but shacking up with an extra-marital sweetie is better at Days Inn, according to the newly sworn-in Gov. David Paterson. He recommended it to his staff as well:

As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St.

He said members of his Albany legislative staff often used the same hotel when they visit the city.

Why? Convenience and price are apparently the answer. I checked the rates of the two discount hotels. $188.10/night for Days Inn vs. $228.00 for Holiday Inn Express (neither property offered "nooner" or hourly rates). Clearly the best choice for a penny-pinching Lt. Governor. As for convenience:

"It's convenient since it's only four subway stops from my Harlem office," Paterson said.

The versatility of Days Inn doesn't stop there, though. Once the affair has ended, it's a terrific place to patch things up with the ol' ball and chain:

He and his wife went to the West Side Days Inn when they were trying to rekindle the romance in their marriage, he said.

They did so after a marriage counselor he used recommended they introduce "new and exciting things" into their relationship, Paterson said, and so they could be alone and away from their children.

New and exciting indeed. Here's a view of a typical room at Days Inn:

The effect of this endorsement on the highly competitive mid-priced hotel market remains to be seen, though, as Holiday Inn Express has the endorsement of former Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee:

Days Inn is part of Wyndham Worldwide (stock symbol - WYN) which closed at $19.25 (-1.42) yesterday. Holiday Inn Express is part of the UK-based IHG, and is currently trading at 746.00p (+10.00p). dontgointothelight.com is not publishing this post as a stock recommendation.

We've seen it over and over again in recent weeks - Obama's claim to have better judgment than the other candidates. Here's one example below (H/T Hot Air):

Link: sevenload.com

He always uses the Iraq war vote as his shining example of superior judgment. Yet no one points out that as a state senator, he wasn't privy to any of the intelligence that led most of Congress to approve of military action against Saddam. None of it. How can judgment based on ignorance be so superior? I've always felt that this was the singular most dishonest claim from Obama, and have been vexed by the fact that few have seen his claim for the snake oil that it is.

The only way to get insight into a man's judgment is to review instances where the man has a full command of the necessary facts and makes a decision based on them. The few public examples of this applied to Obama are disturbing.

When he was a state senator, he routinely voted "present". Why he did depends on who interprets - either he was incapable of judgment regarding these votes (as his opponents claim), or he was being a party tool, too weak-minded to vote based on his oft-bandied "judgment" (as Obama himself claims). Either paints a picture of someone who is wholly unqualified to hold down a job where decisions aren't optional.

The most recent revelations about the church Obama attends gives us further insight into his ability to judge and act. Twenty years is a long time to be a member of a church and yet be completely blind to the racist tendencies of it's pastor, as Obama claims. His tepid responses once videos came to light were shown to be poor judgment by his own actions as the controversy failed to dissipate, and he had to give a more forceful repudiation of the Rev. Wright.

The lack of good judgment aside, it's difficult to believe that he was unaware of his church's views. The wild applause during Rev. Wright's sermons suggest the normalcy of those views within the walls of Trinity United. His wife's comments on the campaign trail display some of the same anger and rhetoric. Does anyone really believe Obama was blissfully ignorant over a twenty year period of the leanings of his church?

Shouldn't his honesty be an issue in addition to his judgment?

Rep. Robert Wexler has put up a website, in conjunction with Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, asking for nutroots support of impeaching Cheney. On the page titled "Why We Need Hearings", we get a refreshingly honest view of what drives many Democrats, and it's what we all knew already:

I was serving in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee for the ridiculous and politically motivated impeachment hearings of President Clinton. During that witch hunt Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Ken Starr wasted a year and a half on investigations and hearings about President Clinton's personal relations. However, this attempted coup d'etat by Republicans against President Clinton was not and should not be the standard of impeachment that was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution.

First, impeachment hearings are only proper when significant allegations exist that the President or Vice-President, or others civil officers, committed actions – within their official duties – that constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The allegations against Clinton – involving a personal affair - never reached this threshold. The serious charges against Cheney involve alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President; namely war and peace, the widespread violations of civil liberties, and the security of the United States and our covert agents.

Unlike the show trial put on by Republicans against President Clinton, a proper impeachment hearing would involve a fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship.

Yup, that's right - it's all about getting even for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Oh, and here's Wexler in a supporting video - listen to his voice become louder and angrier - he practically spits into the camera - as he displays a "fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship":

Hyperbole, indeed. Do you really think it's possible for someone so animated in his characterization of the administration's actions to be "fair and objective"?

Hope you caught the headlines in the background. I've linked them for you:

• "If Libby is Pardoned, Scrutiny Should Follow" - Since Libby wasn't pardoned, I guess scrutiny isn't necessary.

• "Former Press Secretary Points Finger at Bush, Cheney for Deceit in CIA Leak Scandal" - Noticing a pattern here?

• "A Judgment on Cheney Is Still to Come" - Wexler just can't get over Plame, can he? He must have missed the news about who the leaker really was. That matters little, though, since the theme is "any excuse for revenge".

It's a shame this soap opera was canceled last month. A year of impeachment hearings with this kind of tinfoil nonsense would give the Republicans their best hope of regaining Congress.

While browsing the WSJ this morning, I also came across a staff column called "The Delta House Congress". In it, a comparison is made between the Democrat Congress and a scene from the movie Animal House:

In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

This, of course, reminded me of Glenn Reynolds' use of the "Flounder Principle" yesterday. It's worth noting for two reasons. One, that Glenn (you leading edge, you) was once again ahead of the pack with this theme.

Two, the theme seems to fit - should it be used more? It shouldn't be difficult to replace many of the arcane phrases we use now with references to scenes in a movie that nearly everyone has seen and understands. There must be some way to work "Toga Party", "Double Secret Probation", and "He's a sneaky little sh*t" into the arsenal of descriptive phrases we use in relation to the Democrat Congress, right?

On the other hand, folks might get the wrong idea:

While the Democrat Congress is easily as irresponsible as the characters in Animal House, Belushi and crew caused far less harm, and are endearing - something that Pelosi and Reid definitely aren't. Maybe we should pick another movie for next time, eh?

Kucinich's campaign says it's for some silly concern over where his campaign is headquartered. Personally, I think it was the Sean Penn endorsment that took the Des Moines Register over the edge:

Despite being the top-ranked Presidential candidate in polls conducted by Democracy for America (DFA), Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), and one of the country's leading progressive publications, The Nation, Kucinich was not invited to participate in the debate because "It was our determination that a person working out of his home did not meet our criteria for a campaign office and full-time paid staff in Iowa," according to a statement from the newspaper's top officials, including editor Carolyn Washburn.

The dismissive reference was to Kucinich Iowa Field Director and State Coordinator Marcos Rubinstein, who coordinates campaign activities from his home office in Dubuque, bolstered by a dozen-or-so other senior campaign staff who have traveled the state over the past several months.

Odd though it might seem, this has the effect of hurting the other candidates. In past debates, Dennis' over the top nuttiness made the other contenders seem almost rational by comparison. I repeat, almost. Now they'll all start getting judged on their platforms and personalities. Not good for the party of surrender, socialism and higher taxes.

Hillary and Obama's only hope now is Joe Biden, who is still playing the part of the weird, angry uncle at the family reunion. You know, the one all the kids avoid because of what he might say. And that, my friends, may not be enough.

We'll miss you, Dennis. The debate won't be nearly as entertaining.

Update: Linked in the headlines at Hot Air! Thanks for the link, guys!

The Democrats held a debate/forum last night in Iowa, called the The Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum. It's described as "...the nation’s only presidential forum in which all candidates have an opportunity to answer essential concerns of African-Americans and Latinos."

Of course, those "essential concerns" mean little if you're an African-American or Latino who can't afford a High-Definition TV. Sorry, this debate wasn't meant for you.

It's really telling that the Democrat Presidential hopefuls are worried about cheating at the Iowa caucuses. After all, who would be more familiar with the typical Democrat election day shenanigans?

As both of my regular readers know, I scour though press releases in search of the interesting and newsworthy so that you don't have to. Normally, they're pretty dry and matter-of-fact - statements on policy, text of speeches, announcements of events, etc.

Sometimes, though, the writers of PRs get their literary juices flowing and serve up something, well, more. Case in point is a summary of a campaign stop by Dennis Kucinich yesterday, titled "Kucinich 'Connects' with Everyday Citizens at Massive Iowa Presidential Forum":

One especially poignant moment dramatically reflected the affinity between the coalition's populist agenda and Kucinich's deep involvement in those same issues. A community leader from Iowa recounted the events of Dec. 12, 2006, when federal immigration authorities raided a plant in search of undocumented immigrants. Among those detained and exiled to Mexico was the mother of five small children who lived in a modest home with her husband. It happened, the speaker said, her voice choked with emotion, on the hallowed feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Kucinich walked across the stage and asked her to look at his watch. "What does it say?" he asked her. "It's Our Lady of Guadalupe," she responded. Kucinich said the watch was a gift from friends in El Paso, Texas four years ago "when I was standing up for the rights of immigrants." The crowd's reaction swelled from sighs and gasps to sustained applause and cheering.

Add some descriptive lines about flowing hair and heaving bodice, along with perhaps a touch of glistening perspiration, and this would rival the best in romantic fiction available at your local supermarket. You can almost see Dennis' bronzed muscles straining through his torn shirt as the audience swelled, can't you?

I'm not saying that the event wasn't as the writer described, but I would have thought a more natural response to "What does it say?" might be "Six-fifteen".

Also, please note the description of the ICE raid in the first paragraph - "Among those detained and exiled to Mexico". Deporting an illegal alien is now exile? I don't think that word means what the writer thinks it means. Deportation, to the best of my recollection, is sending 'em back home.

Here's a bonus passage from the same press release:

The final "connection" with the loudly kindred audience came with the final question from the event leaders. Would the Congressman agree to meet with representatives of today's sponsoring community action organizations within the first 100 days of taking office, if elected President?

"I'll do better than that," he said. "You can sleep in the Lincoln bedroom."

Nice to know that it isn't necessary to elect Hillary in order to return to the Clinton era. I wonder if Obama or Edwards will announce plans to rent the Lincoln bedroom in return for votes and donations as well. You know, just to keep up...

The DNC shows us why you can't take Democrats for their word:

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

But later in the article:

Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a member of the rules panel, said stripping the delegates from Michigan and Florida — and prohibiting candidates from campaigning there during the primaries — will hurt party-building efforts in those states.

Fowler also said that stripping the delegates was unnecessary, since many party insiders believe that the eventual nominee will have them restored at the convention.

"No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

Everything they do is political. Everything.

As long as I'm catching up on my reading, why not share?

Here's a brief but illuminating history lesson from Gateway Pundit.

While I was over at Red State, this post caught my eye. H/T to Erick for the link to this:

When the lights go up on the Democratic presidential debate (the Iowa Brown and Black Forum) this Saturday, all the cameras will be HD. What's more, HDNet is the exclusive national broadcaster of the event.

Exclusively in high definition! John Edwards is right about the two Americas - and along with Hillary, Obama, and the rest, guess which America isn't invited to watch this debate?

Kinda hurts to look at it, eh?

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Pollster John Zogby: "The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem."

I'm making popcorn if anyone wants some.

Yeah, I watched it. Here are my impressions:

The first 10-15 minutes were exciting due to the backbiting. After that, they settled down into the familiar Bush-bashing pattern.

Hillary was on-game. She needed to be aggressive without coming off as nasty and largely succeeded. She's still going to be the front runner for a while yet. The audience booed twice when Hillary was attacked. Playing the gender card is apparently effective.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden gave some good answers - particularly Dodd when answering about security vs. human rights. Making sense is death to your campaign when running with this crowd, though. Biden got bonus points for giving a one-word answer.

Obama had a very bad night. It took Wolfe nearly 5 minutes to get an answer about the drivers license issue. He also slipped and referred to illegals as "illegal aliens". That'll piss off the open borders crowd.

Speaking of pissed, Kucinich was. And with good reason, too. He had to prompt Wolfe to let him have a chance to answer a question. No matter how loony he is, as long as he's on stage with Hillary and Obama, and deserves equal time and consideration. Of course, it won't happen, since Democrats really don't care about fairness.

Edwards loves pandering to the nutroots. I heard him repeat the word "neocon" a few times, that resonates with the delusional fringe. He also mentioned Cheney a few times, which gets the nutroots speaking in tongues. He'll be the winner with the Daily Kos crowd.

Richardson pandered as well. He even managed to invoke "Haliburton" in an answer that had nothing to do with it.

Hypocrite alerts - Hillary for saying she's not playing the gender card and following with something that sounded a lot like "vote for me because I'm a woman". Dodd for saying he has no litmus test for judges then saying he won't appoint a pro-lifer.

The second half was interesting - CNN wanted the Dems to look good, as they lined up victims one by one. One said he was a victim of racial profiling caused by the Patriot Act, no one called him on it. Update (11:28 PM): One of the CNN's "victims" is a war protester. And that's CNN's idea of an "undecided voter"? And why isn't Dan Riehl on my blogroll? Fixed.

Also, what idiot let the question about jewelry get asked?

If I had to pick, I'd say Biden won - at least in debate terms. Since he doesn't have a chance, though, that matters little. What does matter is who lost - Obama. Most folks have open minds, if he had taken a decisive stance on the illegal alien question and attempted to explain why he felt that way, folks would have respected it. Instead, he wasted everyone's time trying to avoid being pinned down to an answer on a question that wasn't difficult. It made him look especially bad after attacking Hillary on the exact same thing for the past 2 weeks.

Since Obama's loss is likely to be Hillary's gain, she'll emerge as the apparent overall winner through default - even though she didn't win through her answers.

It's kinda like watching the game when you don't like either team.

From a press release today from the esteemed ufologist:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Made in China" has become a health and safety warning label for American consumers following the recalls of tens of millions of Chinese-made toys, but the "real warning label should say 'Made in Washington, D.C. by corporate lobbyists' because the life-threatening hazards of these products were either ignored or brushed off by members of the Congress seven yeas ago," Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

So Congress was supposed to know the Aqua Dots were toxic 6 years before they were introduced? Ridiculous. But Congress isn't the target of his ire over failure to properly read the tea leaves - it's Silky Pony:

"Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?" Kucinich asked. "How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?"

Well, channeling the dead in court should indicate additional extra-sensory abilities, I suppose. But even though Edwards' crystal ball was limited to the recently deceased, apparently Dennis did know, else he wouldn't have the moral authority to attack those who were prognostication-challenged. But how? I think I've figured out what he's up to with the outstretched-arm thing:

That's right - he's positioning himself for better reception from the mothership.

Unless you're not paying attention, the over-expansion of SCHIP has little to do with children and more to do with the gradual implementation of socialized medicine. If the Democrats fail to provide President Bush with a veto-proof bill, they'll need a replacement to further their desire for increased socialism. If they succeed, they'll need another target to exploit. Where will that target come from? Win or lose, SCHIP will soon be difficult, if not impossible, target for further expansion - at least the short term. The next target might be a perennial favorite - veterans.

Friday's New York Times offers an unsigned editorial giving us a heads up on what might be next on their agenda:

Although many Americans believe that the nation’s veterans have ready access to health care, that is far from the case. A new study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School has found that millions of veterans and their dependents have no access to care in veterans’ hospitals and clinics and no health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Their plight represents yet another failure of our disjointed health care system to provide coverage for all Americans.

The new study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, estimated that in 2004 nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care in veterans’ facilities. An additional 3.8 million members of their households faced the same predicament. All told, this group made up roughly 12 percent of the huge population of uninsured Americans.

First, the study (which can be found here) is very specific that the numbers are for those who don't qualify for VA medical care in the first place. Yet the Times neglects to mention it, leading the uninformed to believe that we have soldiers maimed in combat going without medical care.

The VA provides medical care to those with service-related illness and veterans who are demonstrably poor. All other veterans used to be able to seek care on a space-available basis - these are known as "group 8", and are defined as follows by the VA:

Group 8: All other non service-connected veterans and zero percent, non-compensable service-connected veterans who agree to pay co-pays.

Note that families are not included in the definition.

Group 8 veterans were seen less frequently in VA hospitals as the draw down during the 90's reduced the number of facilities while increasing the number of veterans, and the VA stopped enrolling Group 8 vets in 2003.

Even the number of uninsured veterans isn't necessarily the tragedy that the Times wishes you to believe. The study, although newly published, is itself not new. One of the authors, Stephanie J. Woolhandler, testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs back in June of this year. She admitted to the true nature of these uninsured vets:

Only about half of the 1.8 million uninsured veterans are classified Priority 8, Woolhandler said. The rest may technically be eligible for some VA care but live too far from its facilities for it to be a real option, she said.

In other words, even if they were eligible they likely wouldn't be getting VA health care, due to lack of either capacity or proximity.

We're also provided some insight in to the Ms. Woolhandler's motivations as well:

Woolhandler is a well-known advocate of guaranteeing access to health care for all Americans through a government-run national health insurance program.

Also, the study includes this graph showing that veterans have a measurably lower uninsured rate than the general population, and rate of increase in number of uninsured correlates to that of the general population as well:

Match the graph to the alarmist Bush bashing in the author's press release:

“Since President Bush took office the number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed, and he’s cut eligibility, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care. This administration has put troops in harm’s way overseas and abandoned them and their families once they got home,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, co-author of the study and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. “We need a solution that works for veterans, their families, and all Americans - single payer national health insurance.”

While the version of the study published in the American Journal of Public Health doesn't have an overly-large agenda-driven bent, this version of it does, as its conclusion illustrates:

We believe that only a single payer national health insurance system can affordably cover all Americans – including veterans.

The NYT finishes this disingenuous editorial with this:

An even better solution would be some form of universal health coverage for all Americans. Then even veterans who live far from a V.A. facility, and a host of dependents who are not now eligible, could get the care they need.

So here we have the New York Times using a highly agenda-driven study with politically-motivated conclusions as evidence that we need socialized medicine. In true form, they ignore the parts of the study that conflict with their assertions. Despicably, they're using veterans and their families as their vehicle of choice to advance their socialist agenda. Don't be surprised if this becomes the replacement for SCHIP in the Democrat's march to socialism.

Funny how much they love the troops when it advances their agenda, isn't it?.

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

"The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences."

Actually, I think "No immigration reform" is a good thing, but it's a small quibble. Please go read the whole article. I'm bookmarking this one.

Hideous.

Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot.

Had the Iranians been hanging around under his bird feeder in 1979, we might not have a terrorist threat today.

Well, his antics over the last few days helped his image with someone:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the first real test of grassroots support for the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning first place finish nationally and topped every other candidate in 41 of 50 states, according to results released late last night by Democracy for America (DFA).

Of the 150,000-plus ballots cast, Kucinich received more votes than former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. Kucinich tallied 49,364 (31.97%), compared with Edwards' 24,078 (15.6%), Obama's 21,403 (13.86%), and Senator Hillary Clinton's 6,504 (4.21%).

Of course, it's a self-parodying poll:

Undeclared write-in candidate and former Vice President Al Gore scored second nationally with 24.77% of the vote, and he "won" six states: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida.

Hmmm. Unscientific web poll with numbers dramatically at odds with any respected national poll, over-the-top fanaticism for wildly non-mainstream views.... Wonder how much bleed-over from the fans of Ron Paul? Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen Ron Paul's supporters in the same place and time as Kucinich's supporters? Hmmm?

Had the Republican's gambit worked, the house would have debated for an hour followed by a vote. Republicans would have had a field day shaming the ludicrous assertions in the resolution, such as "Keeping all options on the table" meaning that Cheney was conspiring to wage war with Iran.

Back later with more...

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Bruising indeed. It would have been fun to watch, too. Statement from the White House in the same article:

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

And I managed to make it all the way through the post without exploiting the extraterrestrial angle!

It's kind of a girl fight story with a little moonbatty BDS thrown in to stroke the base:

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire," Edwards said, referring to two crucial early-voting states.

"She's giving the administration exactly what it wants again."

Edwards also warned in a speech in Iowa City, that the Bush administration was trying to use attacks on US forces in Iraq, to justify a war with Iran.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran," he said.

This stuff from Edwards and the others is going to be pure gold for the Republicans next year. We've already seen Hillary play the "victim girl" card, so expect it to be played after she wins the nomination and the Republican candidate points out any inconsistency, no matter how accurate, in her positions. Having Democrats make the point instead will be so much easier.

Do you think these folks are going to rally around Hillary after she gets the nod? Count on it. And even the least amount of critical review from the press will prompt the best tap-dancin' you've ever seen. All the latest dust-ups between Hillary and the other candidates also serve to illustrate that they know how dishonest their positions are - it just takes a heated primary to get 'em to admit it.

In a rare but surely fleeting moment of productivity on behalf of the country's best interests for the most unpopular congress in history, the ban was extended for 7 years.

Don't expect it to last, though. The Democrat-controlled Congress (with the lowest approval rating in history) will get back to their usual investigations, pork-barrel spending, corruption,, and shorter work week any minute now.