Really?

MISS-LEADING
THE TRUTH ABOUT GALS' SERIAL FIBBING
By SUSAN EDELMAN

March 2, 2008 -- Deceit, thy name is woman.

Most females lie "more cleverly and successfully than men" about everything from infidelity and facelifts to barhopping and shopping binges, according to a new book.

"Women lie as a survival technique, but also to get what they want," said Susan Shapiro Barash, author of "Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets: The Truth About Why Women Lie," published by St. Martin's Press this week.

Barish said a Rockland County woman stripped of her secrets on Fox TV's reality show "Moment of Truth" last week proves her research true.

Lauren Cleri, 26, admitted on air she had cheated on her NYPD cop husband and preferred an ex-boyfriend. But she failed a polygraph, and lost $200,000, by answering "yes" when asked if she believed she was a good person.

"It supports my thesis that women are talented at lying - but perhaps not enough to pass a lie-detector test," Barash said.

Barash interviewed 500 women nationwide who answered her Craigslist ads seeking females to confide what they fib about. Among her findings:

* 75 percent lie about how much money they spend. For instance, they sneak purchases inside their homes after shopping or hide the price tags.

* 50 percent harbor "mixed feelings about mothering." One told Barash, "I look at these children and I crave sleep and free time. They wear me out and make me jealous of working women who have no children, no husbands."

* More than 60 percent cheated on their husbands. A 32-year-old mother conducted her trysts while telling her trusting husband she was working late. Even in asking for a divorce, she withheld the truth: "I didn't say I had fallen for another man. He was better off with my lies."

Many women use the "betterment lie," as Barash calls it, as a means to an end.

A 30-year-old model romanced a middle-aged married man for the money. After snagging him, she faked her affections: "I say 'I love you,' and don't mean it."

Some lie to cover up childhood incest or domestic abuse, or taboo behavior like drinking, gambling or Internet-porn addiction.

More than 80 percent believe in "beneficial lying." A New Jersey mom doesn't tell her well-behaved daughter about her own wild teen years of marijuana and partying.

Urban women favor the "competitive lie," Barash said. "You lie about money and cosmetic surgery. Your out-of-work husband is a 'consultant.' You embellish your kids' accomplishments, or downplay their SAT tutoring."

In the "lying to yourself" category, the book mentions Hillary Rodham Clinton, who as first lady went on TV to blast the Monica Lewinsky scandal as a political attack against her husband. She later acknowledged Bill's cheating.

Others lie because "there's too much to lose," Barash said. Rudy Giuliani's wife, Judith, guarded a secret that she was married twice, and not once, previously. The truth, which Rudy apparently knew, hit the front pages when he ran for president.


Okay, so we have:

(1) The "betterment lie"

(2) The "beneficial lie" (a.k.a. "the white lie")

(3) The "competitive lie"

(4) The "lie to yourself" lie

(5) The "too much to lose" lie

I knew women (Type A liars) who could rattle off (1-3) & (5) over dinner and by tell-tale signs you knew that they knew that they themselves were lying (confirmed by the theatrical, overly-defensive reactions to politely-as-possible accusations of prevarication or by after-the-fact teary-eyed confessionals).

Still others (the Type B liars) could run the gamut without batting an eyelash because either they're engaging in (4) and unconsciously apply it to (1-3) & (5), or they're psychopaths (Type C).

Type (A) is typical (a "survivor") and although lapses in upholding the integrity of honesty, her demonstrated guilty conscience indicates that at least her moral faculties are intact, however frayed (i.e. she knows she's lying).

The defensive theatrics of (A) when called to the carpet more often than not involve the psychological defense mechanism of projection (like "I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I" table-turning on the accuser) or deflection (abruptly veering off into tangents that change the subject, easily executed if the hapless male is sexually enthralled and distracted, a.k.a. "pussywhipped"), or the redemptive confessional.

The (B) type is also typical and lies to herself to alleviate the nagging conscience that alerts herself to lying.

The commonly-used psychological defense mechanisms of (B) involve not only denial but also rationalizing, i.e. It's not really a "lie" because this consideration (e.g. "I was drunk") multiplied by that circumstance (e.g. you were drunk) mitigates the other thing (e.g. the one that happened at the bachelorette party when she was drunk) all divided by the value of pi--or whatever formula they use--which can make the (2) beneficial "white" lie actually moral (in theory), but when utilized for (1,3 & 5)--which is not uncommon-- it's just self-serving female bullshit.

But which is more moral, the (A) or (B) type?

The (A) type knows she's lying, but lies anyway, and so--guilty conscience or no--is still a liar.

The (B) type convinces herself she's telling the truth and so absolves herself from having to look in the mirror and seeing a liar, but in the process she is lying both to you and herself and compounds the lie--a double-barreled assault on reality-- so (A) is (however dubiously) better than (B).

The (C) type doesn't give a damn.

Interestingly, as you move down the scale of honesty from (A), (B), to (C), the female's sexual attractiveness and/or professional success correspondingly rises (although the A & B types are on the same quasi-conservative trajectory while the C type veers off on a different vector altogether completely liberated from conservative notions of Right and Wrong and reaches stratospheric heights or depths of depravity unaspired or unfathomed by A or B).

"A" types are generally housewives and Mother Theresa.

"B" types are characterized by the "Sex & the City" kind of professional career woman, social butterflies, and Born-Again Christians.

"C" types can be found in the political realm and the prostitution and porn-industry.

And then there's the (D) types--the lawyers--who believe that a lie is not a lie unless identified as perjury in a court of law.

To the question "Are you lying?" the answer is not "Yes" or "No," but "There is no evidence."

With them, it's best to have everything in writing.

That analysis is a simplified one, however (perhaps over-simplified), as it does not take into consideration the A & B type personalities found in all three groups of (A), (B), (C), and (D) type of liars, biological cycles specific to gender (e.g. PMS stuff), dumb blondes, volatile redheads, conniving brunettes, and the confounding nature of women in general.

M-Hm.

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

They had it BACKWARDS?!?

(Thanks again Nanc.)

World likely cooling, not warming
Thursday, March 13th, 2008
Posted by John Higgins under: Perplexity
Author: Becky Fenger
News Date: 3/5/08
Source: Sonoran News
Submitted By: Gary Smith

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, was held March 2 to March 4 at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel. Why should you care? The whole world should care.

“…upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity…”
—Luke 21:25

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts gathered to discuss the hot topic of the day. As conference coordinator James M. Taylor explained, they focused on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of a man-made global warming crisis and to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community that is either ignored or marginalized by the press.

It will be difficult for the mainstream press, many who believe that the delusional Al Gore deserved his Nobel Prize, to ignore the statements emanating from the first major conference questioning global warming alarmism. Czech President Vaclav Klaus was the keynote speaker. Dr. Yuri Izrael, science adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, participated.

Of course, one should never underestimate the power of the press to squelch information.

Case in point: How many stories have you read about the real downsides of the coercive and subsidized use of ethanol? Are you aware that it is a new contributor to world hunger? Where in the heck is Susan Sarandon when one needs her to prevent the coming tumultuous food riots resulting from more grain being diverted into fuel production? But, I digress.

The summary of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was officially released at a press conference on Monday by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, editor of the report titled, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate."

Dr. Singer is a distinguished and respected U.S. scientist who established in the 1960s the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served as its first director. Now it is known as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Over the course of the last three decades, his major concern has been the use of sound science over misguided fear tactics in formulating environmental policies.

“Global warming alarmism never did have anything to do with climatology,” maintains economist Alec Rawls. He reveals how the global warming alarmists knew global cooling was coming, but they selfishly wanted to secure restrictions on economic activity first. “Every climate scientist in the world has known beyond any doubt, for at least several years now, that 20th century warming was driven almost entirely by the very high levels of solar activity between 1940 and 2000. They also know the corollary: that when solar activity drops into a down phase, the earth will get cold, possibly even precipitating the next ice age, due any century now.”

Solar activity has been in a lull for several years, and sharp global cooling is already being detected, Rawls says. He further states that the current lull between 11-year solar cycles is unusually quiet and long. “It seems certain at this point that we are in for at least a substantial dip in global temperatures.”

Yikes! Now we have something to worry about. How to stop the Al Gorians and John McCains of the world from wrecking our economy with useless carbon caps and trading?
We might ask why many scientists are ready to fight on against warming if global cooling is known to be the real danger. The answer is that they don’t give a damn about the temperature of the globe. “They are environmental religionists who believe that human economic growth is gobbling up the natural world,” says Rawls.

Retired physicist and advisor to Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Gerald E. Marsh also warns that the real danger facing us now is likely the coming of a new Ice Age. He explains that what we are living in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. “Unfortunately for us,” he notes, “most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.”

I don’t know about you people, but this shakes my rafters. The rise in the world’s temperature of little over one degree Fahrenheit over the last century is well within normal fluctuation. Dr. Marsh notes that man could adapt to a similar rise over the next century. “Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization,” he divulges. So there.

QUOTEWORTHY:

“Man’s control of nature is frequently nothing more than man’s control over other men, with nature as the instrument.” ~ Essayist C.S. Lewis, who criticized man’s arrogant determination to control the forces of nature.

Observations

Guess who Hillary watched the Super Bowl with?

Bill Richardson.

Her picking him as veep was a prediction made here quite some time ago (and would confirm the reasoning behind the prediction, and it ain't pretty).

The conceptual Billary/Obama ticket has been discussed with increasing tempo, but it is unlikely for tactical as well as personal reasons.

If polls do bear out a clear victory for such a ticket, however, know that the seduction has commenced.

I'll hold my nose and support McCain if he secures the nomination (and it looks like he'll lock it up soon), but I'm afraid Billary's going to beat him in one-on-one debates and even make him look bad, and her people know it. That's why they say good things about him, and bad things about Romney (they're afraid of him).

Only a fool would listen to the opposition telling them who would be best for them based on who they like.

McCain's had a problem with not looking presidential, lacking gravitas, but recent personality adjustments indicates that his image consultants are keeping busy on that.

It was telling that the most prominent politician standing behind McCain last night at his victory speech was Lieberman (a pro-war liberal Democrat).

Anyway, unless McCain's Canossa moment with the conservatives this week goes well, and he does indeed select Thompson as his veep (and Thompson accepts), the quickly-dwindling choices for POTUS are sidelining me-- though I do not have the kind of contempt for McCain that would compel me to vote for Billary (as prominent conservatives like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck have announced), or cause me to spitefully sit out the vote if it's close.

posted by John | 12:09 PM

38 Comments:
Phelonius said...
McCain is an interesting choice for the Republican party alright. Those that choose to throw a hissy fit, though, and throw their vote away will only help assure a Democratic Party President.

2:02 PM
John said...
Agreed.

2:10 PM
John said...
Phelonius: http://www.nypost.com/seven/02062008/news/columnists/once_john_wins__hell_make_a_left_852521.htm

2:12 PM
Phelonius said...
Hey John....I am not getting all of that link......send again?

5:24 PM
Farmer John said...
An Hispanic Veep? He doesn't balance the ticket with something she's "missing". She's already locked up Hispanics. She needs an African-American or the "new/ young" Obama Independents and disgruntled African-American voters will stay home.

And I hope she does pick Richardson. we'll have a field day making political hay with African American voters. When the Maryland DNC dissed Kweisi Mfume in favor of Ben Cardin in 2006... A^2's were livid and there were many disgruntled A^2 voters (although the DNC brought most of them home by election day w/more promises).

And were McCain to put a "Michael Steele" or "Alan Keyes" on the ticket... there's a chance the Republican Party could begin to bring African Americans back home... where they belong!

But who knows what McCain will do. We need to drive a wedge into one of their constituencies and break it off. Union's. A^2's. Un-married Women. Or some "new" or "currently unidentified" voting group. I doubt McCain has the cajones to make a strategically divisive move. He likes getting kicked with every concession he makes to the other side... like with his ridiculous "straight talk" motto. They're gonna paint "hypocrite" all over him in the general election.

5:51 PM
John said...
Phelonius: I'm sorry, but I can no longer locate the article. It essentially backed up what you said.

FJ said:

"An Hispanic Veep? He doesn't balance the ticket with something she's 'missing'. She's already locked up Hispanics."

Not entirely. There was a concern back in '04 about the droves of Hispanics and African Americans (A^2s?) who jumped ship and voted for Bush (for various reasons, primarily cultural: The practicing Roman Catholic Hispanics and Baptist A^2s recoiled from the aggressive, secularists' attacks on Christianity at that time, for example; there actually are demographics of African Americans and Hispanics who are conservative, and they're targeted by Republicans and growing. Remember that the Bush Administration is the most ethnically diverse in American history, and however much that is downplayed by a hostile MSM, it has not escaped notice by minorities who celebrate it).

Furthermore, her picking of Richardson would be more personal than tactical: The Clintons were as thick as thieves with Richardson once upon a time.

Should this speculative scenario prove true, it makes sense that Richardson was in the lineup just to get facetime with the American people and name recognition in preparation of his prearranged selection of veep.

However, something happened to the relationship (perhaps his knowledge that he was going to get thrown overboard in favor of a better draw under the circumstances), because he called the Clinton's "Those people" as he withdrew.

But there he was watching the Super Bowl with Hillary.

Admittedly, this is speculative, but I think it's a good bet. They go way back.

"She needs an African-American or the "new/ young" Obama Independents and disgruntled African-American voters will stay home."

It's possible she'll plead Obama to be her veep if polls make it a viable ticket, but it's more likely that she would toss him a bone by announcing that she has a cabinet seat for him, perhaps Secretary of State, to "give him the experience he needs" for a future run, as if she's doing him a favor and blessing his future election.

Obama's politics are way too liberal for me, but I personally like and respect him. He showed courage and pluck in fighting back against the Clinton machine early on, and I would be disappointed in him if compromised his integrity by allowing Billary to make a lawn jockey of him.

It ain't over yet though. Last time I checked, Obama came out with more delegates after last night.


"And I hope she does pick Richardson. we'll have a field day making political hay with African American voters. When the Maryland DNC dissed Kweisi Mfume in favor of Ben Cardin in 2006... A^2's were livid and there were many disgruntled A^2 voters (although the DNC brought most of them home by election day w/more promises)."

Well, Billary still--surprisingly--has a bunch of influential A^2s in their pocket (because of those very promises). It was really something to hear them attack Obama for the sake of Massuh Bill and Miss Hillary.

Billary would certainly sacrifice a percentage of those not quite in their pockets if it meant a larger percentage of other demographics somewhere else. People are numbers to Billary (Or enemies).

And don't think that there are no self-described and voting liberals and/or Democrats who are racists (or sexists, for that matter). "Identity politics" is by it's very nature sexist and racist, and the Democratic Party lives and dies by it, and when push comes to voting, having a female/minority ticket might be asking too much of a party that likes to have their diversity seen but not heard.

Indeed, Bill tried to exploit that racial calculus in SC. It wasn't conservatives and/or Republicans he was insidiously trying to incite to vote white to counter the "black man's candidate." It was white Democrat voters.

"And were McCain to put a "Michael Steele" or "Alan Keyes" on the ticket... there's a chance the Republican Party could begin to bring African Americans back home... where they belong!"

That would be a great ticket, FJ. That would be great (more Steele than Keyes; I love Keyes--that man is RIGHTEOUS-- but too cerebral to be appreciated by hoi polloi, and too susceptible to charges of far right extremism. Steele has much more mainstream appeal). Just to see the Democrats hoist by their own petard (again) would be worth it.

The first woman or minority president must be conservatives. Conservatives are able to rise above race and gender best (although the liberal Barack is doing a heckuva job).

I agree with others that Thompson would be his best choice, however.

"But who knows what McCain will do. We need to drive a wedge into one of their constituencies and break it off. Union's. A^2's. Un-married Women. Or some 'new' or 'currently unidentified' voting group."

Well, that actually seems to be McCain's chimeric appeal to some Republican strategists, that he will indeed appeal to independents and even registered Democrats and liberals and siphon them away from the Democratic nominee.

The existential problem there for conservatives is that their home party is compromising its conservative principles and identity for the sake of political expediency, and they're having trouble stomaching someone resembling a liberal Democrat in some (or many) ways becoming the standard-bearer for Republicans.

"I doubt McCain has the cajones to make a strategically divisive move."

Well, he's obviously had the cajones to make divisive moves (I don't recall a presumptive nominee who has ever divided the party so much; though Bush 41 came pretty close), but we'll have to wait and see if the strategy was sound (we'll just leave whether it's ethical and truly a badge of integrity out of it).

"He likes getting kicked with every concession he makes to the other side... like with his ridiculous 'straight talk' motto. They're gonna paint 'hypocrite' all over him in the general election."

The still-presumptive nominee Billary will either insidiously thank him with a wide, toothy grin for being such an important ally to her, her husband, and other prominent Democrats over the years or spite his fool decision to be chummy and all chuckles with them by firing off a litany of his double-talk and failings, both ploys leaving him red-faced and wearing that guilty, self-conscious smile he often sports when put on the spot before resorting to "My friends" platitudes and entreaties.

I will change my tune about McCain if he manages to pack even half the punch against the Clintons that Obama packed; but I fear that Billary will leave him fidgeting and simpering.

Romney disappointed me with his early "I respect Hillary" nice guy approach, but he's made stinging comments about them since in that very disarming, fist-in-a-velvet-glove way of his which is an excellent fighting technique against the two-headed creature known and feared far and wide as Billary.

I must say that this is the first time I may be casting a vote against, rather than for, someone (although if Romney can somehow pull it out, and he is up against Billary, then I can do both).

12:58 AM
Farmer John said...
Let me just say this... the Left's blog trolls are having a field day driving a wedge between conservatives and McCain at the moment... and are stoking anti-McCain fires like crazy all over the internet (they've even taken a hiatus from Bush bashing). They smell blood and the complete destruction of the RNC, and if they can keep this up and keep us infighting and on defense, they may be right. But McCain is going to be the nominee this time around whether conservatives "like it" or "not". Romney and Huckabee are already toast in the delegate count.

I don't like McCain (except for the surge), but the prospect of either Alinskyite coming out of the DNC presidential nomination process and winning the WH (they already control Congress and will increase their representation there) is much, much worse. I'm not sure the world can bear a 4-8 year American hiatus from the War on Terror. But better 4 than 8.

Whichever Alinsky worhipper wins the Democratic nomination doesn't really matter to me, it's obvious that either establishment "women and gays" who back Hillary or "young idealists and A^2's" who back Obama are going to be dissappointed. And I feel it's my civic duty to make the loser of the Democratic contest feel even more disappointed, downright disgruntled and betrayed.

Your right about one thing. Courting Hispanics with a Richardson Veep nomination would help Hillary cement their longer-term attachment to the DNC. But I don't think it increases her turnout or margin of victory in this upcoming general election.

But if there ever were any DNC constituency that could use a healthy dose of "conservative principles" in America right now, it's the A^2 community. They need a Booker T. Washington figure desperately... while there still remains a tattered remnant of the black "nuclear" family that can serve as role model. And the man best suited for that role (given Hillary is the nominee), IMO, is Alan Keyes. But he needs a platform... something the McCain RINO's will never give him short of committing deliberate political suicide (conservatives staying home in November). As for Keyes being open to charges of "right wing extremism", guilty as charged. But with McCain at the top of the ticket, the right wing isn't going to turn out w/o a right-wing extremist on the ticket.

Now you recommend Thompson, and it's true, conservatives would probably turn out for Thompson. But Thompson does nothing to sow discontent amongst Democratic voters. And if Obama were to lose to Hillary in a brokered convention... A^2's will suck it up and vote for Hillary in their usual bussed-in numbers. But should the Republicans have a Steele or Keyes on the ticket, there would be a stay-at-home or cross-over backlash that would keep the DNC's "most loyal" and "dependent" supporters from the polls. Now would conservatives turn out for Steele? He's too unknown... but Keyes, I believe, would be a different story. He has enormous conservative appeal... and for those who don't know him... give him the mike 2-3x and they'll soon be cheering and sending in $$$ by the bucketful.

If Obama were the nominee, then I would take a different tack. An Hispanic woman would be the perfect choice... someone like Linda Chavez (also ran for the Senate in MD). Hopefully she doesn't have "nanny problems" anymore. Or an African-American woman like Condi Rice. ...or a stronger white female "conservative" like Lynn Cheney. Either way, the Republican nominee would be "an historic first" in a slightly different direction.

The existential problem there for conservatives is that their home party is compromising its conservative principles and identity for the sake of political expediency, and they're having trouble stomaching someone resembling a liberal Democrat in some (or many) ways becoming the standard-bearer for Republicans.

Dole in '96 and Bush43 were compromises, too. Look how they turned out. For eight years now, Bush was left to stand alone against vocal left-wing blogger extremists with no one (okay, a few of us) to defend him or the party (moderates are just that- moderate). The Leftists have done mucho damage since then... unrelenting hypercritical attacks of everything with an (R) near it. Without someone like a Newt (but NOT Newt) to rally the base on the ticket and/or coordinate attacks against Democrats... this party will be history.

Cheney was "our guy"... but he was too busy running the war to keep the domestic counter-fires burning. The RNC cannot afford to let that happen again.

7:17 AM
Kelly said...
Unless Romney manages to pull through I, too, will be voting against a candidate rather than for one.

Some have said that if McCain picks Thompson for VP that they will happily vote for McCain.

I would still hold my nose, but not with as much vigor.

Here is that article, John, Phelonius...NY Post Article.

I pulled down the code source for this page and grabbed the original link in its entirety. I hope this is what you had posted.

8:02 AM
Farmer John said...
btw - When McCain selects a VP, he'll either earn my support, or my indifference. It'll be up to him.

As for the Democrats in the race, that's something worth attacking regardless of what McCain does. ;-)

10:11 AM
Farmer John said...
btw2 - Looks like Romney just folded.

10:15 AM
nanc said...
o.t. romney's dropping out - top of drudge.

10:23 AM
John said...
That settles it. Go Johnny Mac.

Kelly, that's the link. Thank you.

FJ, great points and food for thought. Bush 43--like 41 and Dole--does indeed have the chimeric characteristics that has fractured unity in the Republican Party, but his razor-thin victory in 2000 and larger one in 2004 not only marked the greatest turn out of free voters in the history of Democracy, but also the largest, united groundswell of conservatives to show up at the voting booths, and because of that I don't clump him in with Dole and his dad in terms of depressing or outright offending the conservative base come election day.

"And I feel it's my civic duty to make the loser of the Democratic contest feel even more disappointed, downright disgruntled and betrayed."

I would expect no less of you (and indeed count on it). Some may call it sadism, I call it tough love. Let 'em have it.

With a Richardson selection, again, it would be as much--if not more--personal as tactical.

They go way back. Do a little sleuthing. The swirling--yet largely unknown-- allegations explains precisely why Billary has amassed a large chunk of the Latino electorate in their pockets (particularly the La Raza and open border types)--allegations which themselves might discourage the selection out of fear of them breaking out of their buried, conspiracy-theory status and resurrected and examined in the light of day by the mainstream.

Like Obama said just the other day, there's a dump-truck of info on Billary that will be unloaded with the nomination.

12:24 PM
Phelonius said...
I listened to the speech that McCain gave today to the Political Conservative Action Committee. He claimed the mantle of Reagan and made a lot of lip-service to the Reagan coalition and his lifetime of backing conservative ideals. In fact, what is happening is that the last remnant of the Republican Revolution of the 90's is disintegrating and the party is shifting to the center. I do not see this as anything unpredictable or radical.

Bush 43, love him or hate him, has been quite centrist in a lot of ways, such as border security, federal spending and his nearly absent veto pen. I think what McCain represents is not really a departure from the Bush platform, but rather an odd sort of continuation. McCain's support in the Republican party has always been among the centrists, and he began his campaign, logically, by appealing to his base of support.

Now he is making the attempt to carefully bring in the conservative wing of the Republicans, and he is kind of screwing that up. His speech today was politely received, but I did not detect any real enthusiasm in what he said or how it was received.

How will he compare to Billary or Obama? Well, it is my contention that McCain is far more desirable than either of those clowns, but McCain is going to have to "tough up." The thing about the Clinton machine is that both of those characters have been able to break laws, lie, steal and massacre their opposition without any real back-lash. It remains to be seen how dirty Obama can fight, but we will see that soon now as the Clinton Machine gears up to annihilate their opposition. A smart move for the McCain camp would be to get not just a conservative for Veep, but a conservative that can go on the attack and one that can speak well. That is why I am hoping that he will consider the likes of Thompson. Huckabee, I think, would just be a liability. I kind of doubt that Romney would consider playing 2nd fiddle to McCain, just like I can hardly see Obama doing that for Clinton.

4:06 PM
nanc said...
i'm going to chop my fingers off so i CANNOT vote - then at least i'll have a good reason...

the neighborhood st. bernard knocked our satellite out of the park chasing chickens so i've not had ANY television reception since last night.

sure hope kelly's alright.

8:45 PM
Kelly said...
Nanc, I am alright...so to speak. Perhaps I should join you in your finger chopping. But then I wouldn't be able to type and that would be disasterous.

But after reading what Romney said (in giving his reason for dropping from the race) I will stand behind what he said.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the crowd.

'This is not an easy decision for me," Romney continued. "I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters ... many of you right here in this room ... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

I've got to hand it to him. As Mike, at Mike's America says, "John McCain has won the GOP nomination for President. But Mitt Romney has won the hearts and minds of conservatives. Doubts about the former Governor of one of the most liberal states were swept aside by those who heard him speak today at CPAC. The response to him by attendees was wildly enthusiastic and emotional. Romney has now donned the mantle of Reagan conservatism that was denied to him earlier in the race.

Mitt has Class!"

9:30 PM
nanc said...
i feel like i've been abandoned. there's no candidate for me.

10:07 PM
John said...
Absolutely, Kelly. He outshone McCain at the CPAC, and I think, like Reagan losing the 1976 nomination to Ford but coming back strongly prepared in 1980, we may not have seen the last of Mitt Romney.

Hi Nanc. :) Me too. Sidelined.:(

Phelonius said:

"...what is happening is that the last remnant of the Republican Revolution of the 90's is disintegrating and the party is shifting to the center. I do not see this as anything unpredictable or radical."

Same thing with the Democrats in the 1990's and Clinton's "New Democrat" triangulations to the Right (Barack's liberalism would be a throwback, but the novelty of his race progressively overrides that).

The conservative and liberal bases aren't happy with their standard bearers when they moderate, but perhaps it's a good thing for the vast middle.

"Bush 43, love him or hate him, has been quite centrist in a lot of ways, such as border security, federal spending and his nearly absent veto pen."

Clinton too, with his Welfare Reform and other things that angered his liberal base, but Bush was more in the authentic spirit of moderation (love it or hate it, as you say) while Clinton was concerned about his own electoral hide and image.

"I think what McCain represents is not really a departure from the Bush platform, but rather an odd sort of continuation."

Indeed. Reagan has been mythologized as the Perfect Conservative, but you can draw many parallels with how he governed and McCain legislated (e.g. Reagan granted amnesty, although to far fewer illegal aliens).

"McCain's support in the Republican party has always been among the centrists, and he began his campaign, logically, by appealing to his base of support."

Problem is he often crossed the line and went decidedly left of center.

And he strikes conservatives as lacking a core set of conservative beliefs, a coherent philosophy that shone out of Reagan even when he bucked conservative expectations and traditions, that has stayed consistent with Bush when he did same, and likewise with Romney (though to a less degree because of the stickiness of the flip-flopping charges).

When Reagan would be friendly with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil, it was a nice thing to behold. You never thought that Reagan's integrity was compromised. You thought of cooperating bonhomie.

But when John McCain was seen chumming around with Clinton when the overwhelming majority of his Republican, congressional colleagues were getting burned by him, or making deals with Feingold on legislation that has been at Reopublican expence (as well as arguably unconstitutional), you feel a sense of betrayal.

"Now he is making the attempt to carefully bring in the conservative wing of the Republicans, and he is kind of screwing that up."

Partly because of the sense of betrayals, and partly because they know it's just lip service (and sloppy lip service, at that).

"His speech today was politely received, but I did not detect any real enthusiasm in what he said or how it was received."

It was in the wake of Romney dropping out, and they realize that Republican primary voters have made a big mistake: In the crowded field and theatrics of (1) the establishment's early coronation of America's Mayor as the pre-ordained frontrunner and then his unorthodox strategy of sitting out the early contests (and eating up the clock in anticipation of a third quarter surge in the process), (2) a similarly delaying tactic used by Thompson, who ate up the clock in the first quarter by pumping up suspense and excitement but then deflated it upon his phlegmatic debut, (3) the Ron Paul sideshow and (4) Huckabee's distracting loud & proud Evangelical Christianity vs. secularists and a Mormon (Whoa, what's THAT all about?), they realized that the Mormon was the one all along, and the CPAC conservatives were smacking themselves on the forehead and saying: "Wow! I could've had a V-8!"

But it was too late. Romney himself essentially admitted that he didn't have enough time to get the country to know him (it was a nice last minute drive in the third quarter of Super Tuesday, but too little too late).

Meanwhile, McCain stayed in the game playing from the backfield for three quarters while the others ate up the clock on the line, and then out of the blue stepped forth and stripped: "Gimme the ball, I'm the quarterback," just when Romney was ready to take the position and win the game in the fourth quarter (with chants belatedly getting louder for him in the stadium).

McCain might win it as the second--or even third, or is it fourth?--string quarterback, but there's the sense that Romney should have been the first string quarterback all along.

The Republican Party hasn't historically been called "The Stupid Party" for nothing.

"How will he compare to Billary or Obama? Well, it is my contention that McCain is far more desirable than either of those clowns, but McCain is going to have to 'tough up.' The thing about the Clinton machine is that both of those characters have been able to break laws, lie, steal and massacre their opposition without any real back-lash. It remains to be seen how dirty Obama can fight, but we will see that soon now as the Clinton Machine gears up to annihilate their opposition."

Obama's been doing a great job so far. I hope the Republicans learn something from him (like him, just tell it like it is, and "is" means is and it ain't pretty).

"A smart move for the McCain camp would be to get not just a conservative for Veep, but a conservative that can go on the attack and one that can speak well."

FJ's endorsement of Alan Keyes has this going for it: Keyes would dress them down and tell it exactly how it is with those people.

Keyes' beratement of Billary would be beautiful to behold. He would make the nation feel ashamed for ever enabling the scoundrels to come this far.

I think Romney was ready to go at it with them. I think they were afraid of him, too, more than anyone else. He was the smartest and most competent up there.

I love the way he incredulously chuckled out something like "I really don't think that the American people are willing to go through another Clinton Presidency," as if he was referring to 4-8 years strapped in a dentist's chair.

"That is why I am hoping that he will consider the likes of Thompson."

Thompson was ready to rumble--but I was disapppointed to learn how he voted during the Impeachment. I'm pretty sure he acquitted here and/or there (they should have thrown the book at him and purge the nation of his political power once and for all, as wiser heads wanted to but failed to prevail).

"Huckabee, I think, would just be a liability."

I don't know much about him except that he was governor of Arkansas, is the Christian candidate, lost a lot of weight, wants to ban cigarretes (which must really rub a Libertarian like you the wrong way), has Chuck Norris running around promoting him, and sabotaged Romney.

"I kind of doubt that Romney would consider playing 2nd fiddle to McCain, just like I can hardly see Obama doing that for Clinton."

Agreed. McCain understandably angered Romney with that last minute, barefaced lie that equated Romney's timetables of progress in Iraq with the antiwar Democrats' timetable for troop withdrawal.

That was very liberal of him.

12:01 AM
Kelly said...
John, I am tempted to make another chimaera with McCain's head as the snake...or is it the donkey, most certainly not the elephant.

Oh, right, I need to back McCain because I am supporting Romney/the country. For the greater good of the country in the fight against Terror...sigh.

Now I must get some sleep...not that I can.

sigh...

1:10 AM
Farmer John said...
In fact, what is happening is that the last remnant of the Republican Revolution of the 90's is disintegrating and the party is shifting to the center. I do not see this as anything unpredictable or radical.

No, but with each shift towards the center, the Republican party bleeds (loses) the energy of the "passionate few" who live at the extremes and who make the party's continued cohesive existence possible.

Believe it or not, the Left, in nominating Obama, is shifting (I think) towards the center as well (away from "radical" gay towards one of "gay normalization").

In the modern (1990s+) DNC, the vast majority of their current political "passion" (read "energy")came/comes from anti-war homosexuals (bloggers) "struggling for recognition of their civil rights". They currently dominate the revolutionary vanguard at the heart of the DNC and serve as it's most vocal and vigorous activists, as single women may have once in the 70's (NOW) who formed their "passionate" vanguard of supporters, as in the 60's young anti-war and civil rights protestors were once their "passionate" leaders, as environmentalists were in the 80's. But with each subsequent "victory" or success, the passions of the leaders of the "old" vanguard wanes allowing a new, more passionately motivated "new revolutionary vanguard" to emerge and fuse with it. The whole "primary" process is one of older and newer "vanguards" and their blends struggling for dominance and control. And the candidate they put forward usually represents the blended epitome of the vanguards they represent.

Passionate Conservatives are by their very nature "reactionary" and oppose the emergent trend, as Newton would say in his 1st Law of Motion, "every action generates an equal but opposite reaction". And at the current forefront of the RNC's "revolutionary vanguard" stand those who support the war in Iraq & against terror (as "ill" represented by John McCain they may be). Anti-gay may seem to be the "missing" piece of the equation needed to counter the DNC's (if it is Hillary) vanguard we fight. Bush used the DoMA issue tactically to fend off the DNC in 2000/2004. But the "economy" seems to be superceding "gay" as the nation's most pressing/emergent problem/ issue.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the RNC needs to pick an "issue" (or combination of issues) to pursue that will stimulate "passionate support" from within the future vanguards of the Republican coalition. The "war" is currently on the "back burner"... but unless it moves forward, the RNC will have few passionate advocates leading the charge into November. And "Moderate" John McCain has currently has got no "issue" behind him "extreme" enough to fire up the diverse party elements. So he'd better move quickly to find something (preferably a "novel" economic stimulus plan) or he'll be toast in the general election.

I would suggest either mass-transit, high-speed rail, or the nations MOST pressing economic and political issue... ENERGY independence. Something with a vision and "hope" with a greater prospect for success than any "empty shell" for "hope" Obama might raise. Simply calling for more generic "tax-cuts" won't cut it.

7:51 AM
Farmer John said...
btw - If ENERGY Independence were to be selected as McCain's economic centerpiece, you can bet your booties that the Left's "GREEN VANGUARD" would immediately fire up to counter it. After all, THEY are just as REACTIONARY as us. LOL!

12:00 PM
Farmer John said...
btw - it would probably drive Hillary & Barrack crazy to see Gore's people come running into the middle of their campaigns and start taking over... and who knows... it might inspire Ralph Nader to jump into the race. ;-)

12:03 PM
John said...
"No, but with each shift towards the center, the Republican party bleeds (loses) the energy of the 'passionate few' who live at the extremes and who make the party's continued cohesive existence possible."

Consider that, once upon a time (but not too long ago), it was the extremist Abolitionists who gave the Republican Party it's energy in the earliest days of the party, championing African American freedom both antebellum and through Reconstruction.

A century later, the Democrats have--with dubious success-- effectively stolen that Demographic away (causing traditionally segregationist/racist Democrats to switch to the Republican Party with the notorious Southern Strategy).

Meanwhile, throughout Reconstruction and the Gilded Age--and as the former lost steam and gave way to Jim Crow-- from Grant to McKinley the "passionate few" of the Republicans which provided party cohesion--by generously financing it--were the big business barons, and the GOP was no longer the party of abolition and union but of "The Rich," so as Phelonius pointed out and you agreed, a transmogrifying of the party is neither unpredictable or radical, but natural.

As you pointed out, what is lost is yesterday's driving interest, and although the enduring, cohesive cause of Republicanism may still be some umbrella concept of Libertarianesque individualism and liberty, which was inherent in both the calls for abolition and capitalism (vs. enslaving statism and moblike groupthink congregating around a personality cult figure), there is indeed a danger of folding up that entire umbrella if the party leaders creep into the shade of another umbrella to lure those under it out but end up staying there, and fail to conserve that essential thing about conservatism which has empowered the Republican Party for a century and a half: A more perfect union of free individuals.

"Believe it or not, the Left, in nominating Obama, is shifting (I think) towards the center as well (away from 'radical' gay towards one of 'gay normalization')."

So while the Right moves leftward towards the center, the Left moves rightward towards it.

Good or bad?

"In the modern (1990s+) DNC, the vast majority of their current political 'passion' (read "energy")came/comes from anti-war homosexuals (bloggers) 'struggling for recognition of their civil rights.' They currently dominate the revolutionary vanguard at the heart of the DNC and serve as it's most vocal and vigorous activists..."

Perhaps that explains the hysterical, hyperbolic nature of their polemics.

"...as single women may have once in the 70's (NOW) who formed their 'passionate' vanguard of supporters, as in the 60's young anti-war and civil rights protestors were once their 'passionate' leaders, as environmentalists were in the 80's."

There it is. The hysterical and hyerbolic nature of the polemics.

They're sixties leftovers.

"But with each subsequent 'victory' or success, the passions of the leaders of the 'old' vanguard wanes allowing a new, more passionately motivated 'new revolutionary vanguard' to emerge and fuse with it."

The danger you seem to imply for the Republican Party is not so a fusion, but an overwrite, no?

"The whole 'primary' process is one of older and newer 'vanguards' and their blends struggling for dominance and control. And the candidate they put forward usually represents the blended epitome of the vanguards they represent."

Interesting, FJ. But, again, you seem to have lamented that, in the blending process, an essential ingredient(s) of the old formula--that which must be conserved-- was/is not included in the mix, but left out of it entirely, or is mixed but by mixing of necessity loses its purity and so perhaps its strength and integrity?

A devolution rather than an evolution?

"Passionate Conservatives are by their very nature 'reactionary' and oppose the emergent trend..."

Right. Opposing the compromising of that which is to be conserved (from free market philosophy to border integrity, but is not the transmogrifying of the conservative's party--Phelonius might beg to differ--a result of freely marketed ideas, and hasn't the free market itself created the conditions for the Mexican exodus?).

"...as Newton would say in his 1st Law of Motion, 'every action generates an equal but opposite reaction'."

Right. And the lefty would tell the right-wing reactionary that they started it and that the lefty is the true reactionary to imposed conservatism (as Rousseau might argue; Burke would beg to differ).

Who's the chicken and who the egg?

"And at the current forefront of the RNC's 'revolutionary vanguard' stand those who support the war in Iraq & against terror (as 'ill' represented by John McCain they may be)."

There's your new cause and rallying cry.

"Anti-gay may seem to be the 'missing' piece of the equation needed to counter the DNC's (if it is Hillary) vanguard we fight."

An "Anti-gay" position would be feckless and even counterproductive as it would easily be spun as "hateful homophobia," despite the rationality and impersonal issue of semantics undergirding the arguments against, e.g., "gay marriage."

At this point in our increasingly secularized culture, the "anti-gay" arguments that are premised on anti-homosexuality for itself has itself become practically countercultural.

"Bush used the DoMA issue tactically to fend off the DNC in 2000/2004. But the 'economy' seems to be superceding 'gay' as the nation's most pressing/emergent problem/ issue."

Usually is. That was Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" and "Character doesn't count" tactics in 1992 and '96. In 2000 Gore referred to the (dubious) prosperity of the late 90's and assurred continuation if elected (while simultaneously trying to separate himself from Clinton's vice-ridden tenure).

In 2004, even as the last economic expansion began to boom, Kerry regularly threw around the Democrat's favorite "Worst Economy Since The Great Depression" mantra.

But indeed, we could count on the Republicans to fight for the conservatives in the Culture War (if only by appointing constructionist judges).

Perhaps the problem now is that conservatives feel they can't count on anyone.

"So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the RNC needs to pick an 'issue' (or combination of issues) to pursue that will stimulate 'passionate support' from within the future vanguards of the Republican coalition."

Bush is a fool. A very large, positive part of JFK's legacy rightfully is the bold mission to the moon.

It is not trumpeted anywhere that Bush actually commissioned a return to the moon and a moon base, and manned missions to Mars.

I can understand a hostile MSM burying such a milestone.

The Democrats, while stealing Republican legacies for themselves with little opposition, from the championing of African Americans after being the party of Jim Crow to Clinton's more recent "New Democrat" persona as being good for big business and the economy, jeolously guard the issues which are mythically associated with their own party.

That was evident in the vicious, determined attacks against Bush when he fiddled with the third rail of FDR's Social Security--which marked the beginning of Bush's fall from popular grace. The ferocity was entirely absent when Clinton felt free to call it a "crisis" and proposed fix-its.

So when Bush historically commissioned the new moon and Mars missions, that came too close to stealing the JFK mojo--a mojo that is still being milked today--so it never got the attention it deserves.

Bush is a fool because he didn't even mention it in his last SOTU, no doubt trusting future to historians to give due credit.

Anyway, the Republicans failed to capitalize on that. That would be a great cause to represent.

"The 'war' is currently on the 'back burner'... but unless it moves forward, the RNC will have few passionate advocates leading the charge into November."

They're counting on the passionate dislike of Billary to compel an "anyone but" groundswelling charge to the voting booths.

"And 'Moderate' John McCain has currently has got no 'issue' behind him 'extreme' enough to fire up the diverse party elements."

His brutal captivity in Vietnam might be enough. Every major war in this country has produced a veteran who became president. Kerry ran on his service there, but his Purple Hearts for Band-Aids and quick return home to become an outspoken antiwar type clashed with and compromised his attempt to portray himself as some kind of Rambo.

I think the country feels a collective guilt of sorts and wants to award a Vietnam vet-- especially one who gave his second-to-last full measure of devotion, like McCain did--the presidency.

Under those terms alone, I would give him a seat on the senate, but it does not--alone-- necessarily qualify him for POTUS.

On the other hand, Bill's definitive draft dodging of that conflict should have indeed disqualified him from being a POTUS, and that goes for the woman who enabled, enables, and not only chooses to associate herself with him, but owes her very power to a draft-dodger, as well.

"So he'd better move quickly to find something (preferably a 'novel' economic stimulus plan) or he'll be toast in the general election."

Billary's negatives are so high, maybe he can be competetive just by showing up.

"I would suggest either mass-transit, high-speed rail, or the nations MOST pressing economic and political issue... ENERGY independence. Something with a vision and 'hope' with a greater prospect for success than any 'empty shell' for 'hope' Obama might raise."

I'll certainly give him a chance to inspire me. He hasn't been able to yet.

"Simply calling for more generic 'tax-cuts' won't cut it."

Couldn't hurt, especially since the Democrats are raising taxes just by letting the Bush cut expire (for starters).

"btw - If ENERGY Independence were to be selected as McCain's economic centerpiece, you can bet your booties that the Left's 'GREEN VANGUARD' would immediately fire up to counter it. After all, THEY are just as REACTIONARY as us. LOL!"

Depending on what McCain proposes. If he calls for more solar, hydro, and wind produced energy, that's another issue--and demographic--that the Republicans can coopt from the Democrats.

"btw - it would probably drive Hillary & Barrack crazy to see Gore's people come running into the middle of their campaigns and start taking over... and who knows... it might inspire Ralph Nader to jump into the race. ;-)"

That would be great. Just seeing that fake, toothy girlish grin that Hillary has planted on her face and that fake cackle that's meant to artificially signal "What, me worry?" become even more amplified and distorted to the point where you know that she herself must know that you know she's faking it, but she carries on anyway to prove to you her control--and contempt--for the millions of blind fools or likeminded scoundrels who will still vote for her, anyway, would be worth it, confirming what everyone should have figured out about her by now.

But don't forget: You're either with her, or against The Children (whose names, I really hope, aren't Hansel & Gretel).

12:03 PM
Phelonius said...
I agree, John. Leaving Gore out of this thing right now is a bad mistake for the Democratic pundits. The look on Hillary's face would be something to behold, but even better would be Billy's reaction.

It is my little pet theory that there are going to be some singularly interesting events on the Democratic side of the equation this year.

5:47 PM
John said...
The Republican side might be in store for a few hijinks as well, especially if Huck keeps winning (he only has, like, a thousand to one shot at winning enough delegates at this point, so it looks like he's trying to convince McCain to select him as veep) and Bloomberg jumps in as an Independent.

Meanwhile, Barack keeps winning. This is shaping up to be good political theater, after all.

Perhaps I should start breaking out the popcorn.

7:33 PM
Phelonius said...
Break out the popcorn, and keep your copy of the Constitution handy. There are socialist movements afoot that would make Fidel Castro very happy indeed.

I was listening to an interview with Hillary tonight about her view of universal health care. That should give me some credit for perseverance, because my eyes kept clouding up and I vomited in my mouth a couple of times. I know better than that, but I wanted to be able to say that I had actually done that.

She is a socialist on a level that just makes me ill to think about. The reporter asked her three times if she was talking about garnishing the wages of people that did not want to participate. Her answer was that she thought the reporter was "missing the point." She said that the point was that nobody is going to "miss out" on health care. So, the answer was a resounding YES, but like her husband, she is too crooked to answer a simple question.

6:49 PM
Kelly said...
I guess the only way to know what the enemy is about is to hear what the enemy is saying.

Still....I could NOT have stomached that interview.

"get out the popcorn"...I would rather watch a horror movie.
I do NOT like to watch horror movies!

7:40 PM
Farmer John said...
I think you and phelonius might want to start considering what an Obama candidacy might bring. McCain is not exactly the ideal candidate for running against a new messiah.

If there's one advantage the Left will have over us, it will be that of having a candidate who would at least appear to be an energenic "leader", and not simply some old grey beard from around the council fire. And you know what happens when young recruits fall in love... their critical judgement begins to suffer while their idealism soars.

And if Thompson's lethargic presidential campaigning was less than ispirational... imagine what it would be were he the VP nominee.

8:57 AM
Phelonius said...
Never underestimate the power of the Dark Side, Farmer John.

There is not now nor has there ever been any doubt that this election is in any way certain, that it is for keeps, and it is terribly important for conservatives of all stripes to bind together and get that vote out.

The Dems have always played to the emotions in ways that Republicans and conservatives in general are nervous about doing. You have a point about Thompson and his ability to fire up a crowd of young dunderheads. I do so miss the ability that Reagan had to speak to just about everybody in a way that involved them emotionally and yet carried a sobering message.

Obama in particular has an amazing ability to say absolutely NOTHING and still get a crowd fired up. That is a real talent.

3:25 PM
Farmer John said...
I thought I was the dark side... ;-)

4:35 PM
Phelonius said...
You are a beginner for the dark side.

Your main problem is that if you are really going to sign on to the Dark Side...........

You have to be a Democrat. Are you up to that?

I damn sure am not.

6:54 PM
Farmer John said...
Nope.

On a related note...more racial politics from the Clinton camp as Hillary dumps her Hispanic campaign manager for an A^2 one.

February 12, 2008 -- A prominent member of the national Democratic Party has circulated a sharp e-mail saying the removal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was disloyal to Hispanics and should give "pause" to superdelegates and voters.

The e-mail from, Steven Ybarra, a California superdelegate who heads the voting-rights committee of the DNC Hispanic Caucus, was sent to fellow caucus members in the hours after word broke that Solis Doyle - the most prominent Latina in Clinton's campaign - would be replaced by another close Clinton loyalist, Maggie Williams, who is black.

The e-mail noted that Clinton, who is looking to Latino voters for a boost in the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, scored heavily with Hispanics in her California win.

"Apparently, loyalty is not a two-way street," he wrote. "Latino superdelegates like myself . . . will have cause to pause."

Ybarra told The Post yesterday that the loss of Solis Doyle, a child of Mexican immigrants, just weeks before the Texas primary, where 36 percent of the population is Hispanic, was "dumb as a stump."

Contacted for comment, the typically press-shy Solis Doyle told The Post that Ybarra was writing on "false information," and confirmed she's staying on as an adviser.

Team Clinton insisted that the decision to switch from Solis Doyle to Williams, revealed on Sunday afternoon, was amiable.

10:31 AM
Farmer John said...
Hillary may already be paying a price for that move... Hispanics may be moving towards Obama.

10:40 AM
Phelonius said...
Hillary is paying all kinds of prices. She has been paying the price for better than 20 years now.

I have to be honest and say that Hillary Clinton simply amazes me. She tolerated Bill's indiscretions for years and years, and she became her own weapon of mass destruction when it came to cleaning up Bill's disasters. She lived through all of that and has managed to do things like steal FBI files, brutally eliminate the personal lives of people that Bill literally screwed, get through her law-firm's criminal activities, personally destroyed the Arkansas Educational system, had a person steal federal archival records by stuffing them down his pants, get elected as a Senator, and now is battling for her political life against a man that can talk circles around her dumb ass. She is truly a marvel.

She is also an outright socialist. I would vote for a woman or an African American or a Hispanic or anybody else a heartbeat if I thought that they had truly conservative values. The Bush administration had a more egalitarian cabinet than any other administration in history, but you will not hear any of that in the press. I would love to have the lies of Condolesa Rice on this Republican ticket. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

Still, this Clinton ticket is what we are really faced with, and she is as dangerous as a land mine in the sand-box. We simply have to get our collective asses in gear and get the vote out. I am a Libertarian, and I am running for a state office as a Libertarian.

My money and my mouth are in the same place. I can tell you this, though. I would rather live through 4 years of McCain than I would live through 4 years or better of a second Clinton disaster. For the POTUS, I am going to vote the Republican ticket.

8:39 PM
John said...
Count me in. *Ahem*: GO JOHNNY MAC!

2:40 PM
John said...
Yo, FJ:

(paraphrased)

"You can trust Hillary about as much as a blind man can trust a Gypsy in a game of Scrabble."

Dennis Miller on O'Reilly last night.

Shouldn't he have said "Roma?" Where's Dora? :)

5:14 AM
Farmer John said...
I never knew gypsy's played Scrabble. Ouija's more their game. ;-)

6:22 AM
John said...
lol

8:28 AM
Kelly said...
"Where's Dora?"

LOL!!

9:00 AM
Post a Comment

<< Home