Romney and Religion

So Romney promises us Mormon leaders won't influence his administration.

Really?!

He's campaigned tirelessly to wheel out Evangelical leaders to influence his campaign.

The following rhetoric is more and more common:
But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.

Remembering the Jmak of yesteryear

You gotta love it:Watch at 1:50 as McCain is able to settle the huge rowdy crowd in 3 seconds flat.

McCain's Latest Ad

One man opposed a flawed strategy in Iraq. One man had the courage to call for change. One man didn't play politics with the truth.

Passing the truth test with flying colors.

Witch Hunters

With pitch forks in one hand and flaming torches in the other, the press is trying once again to lynch mob McCain's campaign. But here's a word of advice, when you want to play pin-the-bullseye-on-the-bigot, try for a little more unity in your headlines:

Headline 1: McCain says 'NO' to a Muslim president
Headline 2: McCain: I would vote for Muslim president
Headline 3: McCain Casts Muslims as Less Fit to Lead

Or better yet! Maybe one could be directed straight to the source and come up with your own conclusions.

McCain begins to take off the gloves

Look at the smile on his face. This is beginning to get very interesting.

Why Rudy? Why?

Is this for real?


This is becoming routine? D'oh!


New York City's biggest tough guy doesn't even wear the pants?

Mitt flip flops on Houston?

So I see that Mitt goes to Houston to panhandle. Oh, even trust fund babies worth a quarter billion are permitted to do that. What Makes this so different?



Well for starters, there's this:

This is what happens when you don't have zoning.

-Mitt Romney after a visit to Houston, Texas

Romney attack site on Thompson update

The Google news count has doubled in the past 24 hours 327.

Slick Willard Passes The Buck

google news has 129 posts of romney passing the buck on his gutter sniping attack site on thompson. lots have weighed in, but where the heck is matt drudge?!: (update: the count is now at 176. Romney's gonna have a rough day tomorrow)

redstate
msnbc
cbs
cbn
realclearpolitics
foxnews
abc
cnn
new york times
the guardian
reuters
forbes
San Francisco Chronicle
washington post
townhall
newsmax
newsday
usatoday
boston globe

McCain lays the smackdown in NH

Raise your hand if you think John McCain won the NH debate:




GO JOHN!

Romney's Third Stool Problem

So Mitt Romney's final stool problem regards the third leg of his stool: strong families. We all know Mitt wheeled out his wife to cozy up to Planned Parenthood so he'd have pro-choice cred when running for office in Massachusetts. But what kind of husband when pressed about such a donation says this:

"Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign."

I just had my three year anniversary last month. Guess what? In these 37 months, I've learned that's about the dumbest thing a husband can say about his wife. And Mitt said this while speaking face to face with a New York Times reporter.

Romney's stool has some major problems. Could it be he's not Reagan after all?

Mitt Romney's Second Stool Problem

Romney's second leg in his three legged stool is a strong economy. So why on earth did he say the EU added 3 million jobs in the same amount of time it took the United States to add 30 million jobs?

Romney's Economic Miracle

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney erred when he claimed U.S. job growth had been nearly 17 times faster than that of Europe:

Romney: We are the largest economy in the world. We’ve added – during the time Europe added 3 million jobs, we’ve added about 50 million jobs in this country.

That miraculous-sounding statistic is way off. It has taken since the end of 1978 for total employment in the U.S. to grow by 50 million jobs, according to official figures kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But total employment for the 15 core members of the European Union (those who joined before 2004) grew by well over 33 million between 1978 and 2005, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Europe has added even more jobs since. In fact, the 27 current EU nations added nearly 3 million new jobs last year alone, according to the EU statistics agency Eurostat. That's well over the 2.3 million jobs created last year in the United States.

Romney was misquoting an outdated and highly dubious figure, which was used by an author who no longer stands behind it. Romney cited a 2005 article in The American Enterprise magazine, published by the pro-business American Enterprise Institute. In the article, titled "America Still Beckons," author Joel Kotkin wrote: "Since the 1970s America has created some 57 million new jobs, compared to just 4 million in Europe (with most of those in government)." Kotkin told FactCheck.org he wouldn’t use the figure today.

We concur. The 4 million figure is a somewhat garbled version of what another author, Karl Zinsmeister, had written in another American Enterprise article from 2002, “Old And In The Way (Decline and Fall of Europe).” Zinsmeister put the figure at 5 million – not 4 million or 3 million – and the time period as "since 1970," rather than Kotkin's "since the 1970s," which implies a somewhat more recent time. “I don't know how it got changed," Kotkin said. In any case Kotkin told us it was his sense that Zinsmeister's 5 million figure referred mainly to Germany and France, not to all 15 pre-2004 European Union members, let alone the 27 current EU members. In any case, it refers to statistics covering years prior to 2002. “This was an old number,” Kotkin said. His advice: “I would not use that.”

Mitt Romney's Stool Sample Problem

Hugh Hewitt traded his credibility as a right-wing pundit for a pair of Mitt Romney pom poms. For the latest blatant example, look no further than this exchange with Hugh and Willard:

Hugh Hewitt: What is…do you have a target for GDP expenditure on defense matters?

Mitt Romney: For me, the target is we’re going to reach about 4%, and I think you’re going to see us hit the 4% level. I think we need to hit that level. I don’t think we have to sustain that level forever, but we’ve dropped below that. It used to be as high as 6% during the time when Ronald Reagan was president. Of course, Bill Clinton pulled back the scale of the military, pulled back the spending on our equipment. We have been underinvesting in equipment and maintenance now for a long, long time, and we’re going to have to rebuild our capacity.

In Hugh's warped mind, this actually makes sense. oof.

Now we all know Romney touts his stool, or to be more precise, his three legged stool. One of the three legs: strong military.

"GREAT," the passive conservative passerby may say. "I too want a strong military"

What's wrong with that? ROMNEY... HAS... A... STOOL... SAMPLE (which he pegged at 4%)... PROBLEM (see page 140)...

For me, the target is we’re going to reach about 4%

Read a book Willard. Spending for 2007 is projected to be 4.1%! And the country has been at 4% for the previous two years. What's more, spending is projected to increase in 2008. Perhaps even more baffling is that Romney considers spending 3% of the GDP on the military to be dismantl[ing] it. So in conclusion, 3%=dismantling; and a cut from 4.1% to 4=making the military strong.

No wonder McCain took you to task on your legendary parsing of words in the latest Foxnews debate:


Romney waffling on Iraq (specifically the surge) puts the Waffle House to shame:

Ouch...

Fred announces

McCain video

McCain's run in 2000 vs. 2008

It just struck me after skimming this and this.

In 2000 John McCain took some serious heat in South Carolina for calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance", but so much less well known is his take on Bob Jones University's ban on interracial dating (yeah, this stuff still goes on in this country). In opposition McCain refused to speak at the school. McCain raised a very important debate at Bob Jones and across the country. Within days, the school folded like wet cardboard. Tho unlikely, this side debate may have caused him the GOP nomination.

Now McCain claims to have received death threats. At least one protester, flanked with signs reading "traitor", follow him around. His "crime"? Immigration. It's not so much his immigration record, since Rudy, Romney, and even Thompson have been at least as loose in the past. His real crime is that he refuses to pander for the nomination. The right is falling head over heels for an immigration panderer -never mind what your record actually is.

Is this the new debate akin to the interracial ban in 2000? I think so.

Ames, what does it mean?

Not a whole lot. I suppose Romney had wished he'd deliver a mortal wound to Brownback, but looks like that's not gonna happen.

Results:
Romney - 31.5%
Huckabee - 18.1%
Brownback - 15.3%
Tancredo - 13.7%
Paul - 9.1%
T Thompson - 7.3%
F Thompson - 1.6%
Giuliani - 1.3%
Hunter - 1.2%
McCain - 0.7%
Cox - 0.2%

Mitt's sons serving the country Google News count

105 at present.

I don't think Caroline Giuliani supporting Obama had this many hits in the first few hours. But at present, there's 419.

First Rudy, now Colin Powell?

Yesterday Rudy said if he wasn't running for Pres, he'd be campaigning for McCain. Thanks for the quasi-endorsement! Today we learn of another quasi-endorsement. Colin Powell, perhaps the most popular political figure alive, has gone all in in financially supporting McCain. Meaning he has donated the maximum amount one can donate to a campaign -$2,300. What's more, the article goes on to say he hasn't donated a penny to anyone else. (Sorry Obama) Sweet!

Rudy's second pick for President: McCain

Good job rudy!

To all the people thinking Rudy is the non-McCain option, that's not true. Everywhere Rudy and McCain differ, McCain is to the right of Rudy. Sometimes FAR right to him. As with abortion and guns.

It was rough to see Giuliani flip-flop on McCain-Feingold, but the Right seems to want to be pandered to more than they want to be leveled with.

More tough breaks for Mitt

Mitt is now 4 for 4 in committing the worst gaffes during the debates.

Romney: We are the largest economy in the world. We’ve added – during the time Europe added 3 million jobs, we’ve added about 50 million jobs in this country.

That miraculous-sounding statistic is way off. It has taken since the end of 1978 for total employment in the U.S. to grow by 50 million jobs, according to official figures kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But total employment for the 15 core members of the European Union (those who joined before 2004) grew by well over 33 million between 1978 and 2005, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Europe has added even more jobs since. In fact, the 27 current EU nations added nearly 3 million new jobs last year alone, according to the EU statistics agency Eurostat. That's well over the 2.3 million jobs created last year in the United States.

Oh, and Willard justified his attacks on Giuliani for being pro-choice by saying Giuliani hadn't declared yet. Fact is, Giuliani declared a good two weeks prior.

GOP gets crushed

This from pollingreports.com

The GOP is in bad shape fellas! Dems are outraising GOP candidates 2 to 1. And as this graph shows, they get crushed in the ever-important war of ideas. I get a kick out of people in message boards saying Hillary cannot win. That's simply not true and these numbers prove it. The GOP needs to nominate a candidate that polls strongly against Clinton (read McCain or Giuliani --not ready Romney or Thompson). Plus I see a very week pro-life turnout of it's Giuliani vs. Clinton in 08. I truly believe McCain is the only candidate who can beat Hillary.

Romney's Dirty Little Secret. He supports embryonic stem cell research

That's right. He is aligned with McCain and Giuliani. Why do I say this? Two reasons: A direct quote from Romney.

the united states house of representatives voted for a bill that was identical to what i proposed. what they voted for is what i proposed. They voted to provide for surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization processes being used for research and experimentation that's what i said i support. that's what they just supported. What said we should not do is get into embryo farming, cloning for experimentation and a redefinition of when life begins. that's what our legislature has done. What our legislature has done goes well beyond what's done in Washington. What's in Washington is consistent with what i said i support which is using surplus embryos for fertilization processes so it would be helpful if people pointed, as a matter of fact what the us house of representatives is doing is exactly what governor Romney proposed.

Nice use of the third person, Willard.

Most recently in July according to palmbeachpost.com

On embryonic stem cell research, Romney said the place where he draws a bright line and says no is when there is an embryo created solely for the purpose of research and destruction.

The only explanation here is that Romney supports EXCESS embryos that otherwise would have been discarded. This is exactly where McCain and the militantly pro-choice candidate Rudy Giuliani stand. And Romney lied (whatever, misspoke, told untruths) in the MSNBC debate on his stance on embryonic stem cell research.

Just read what Mitt wrote about stem cell research.

The reader comes away with VASTLY different interpretations if they 1) had never heard of Romney or 2) if they knew he supported federal funding for EXCESS embryos.

It's just like the Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects. Quite a different move after you know the ending.

Romney flip-flops on Hezbollah

Today Romney flip-flopped on Hezbollah's health diplomacy.



Today he sent out surrogate Kevin Madden to do the damage control; presumably because Romney didn't feel it necessary to correct the record himself. This was clearly done because of Sunday's debate in which it will undoubtedly be brought up. I'm sure he will have "made it very clear Hezbollah is bad". Even with Romney's legendary use of poll-tested rhetoric, he's going to come off very badly on ABC.

No word yet on whether or not he's going to back away from his statement where he used Hitler as a source of inspiration for energy Independence.


If only we had a hi-res closeup of Willard. I'm almost convinced there was a sparkle in his eye when he said "Gosh! Hitler."

McCain actually IS popular

I've been thinking. McCain is popular, but no one seems to know it. Many seem to like him, but for whatever reason they think the next guy does not. Why do I say that? Take his general election matchups for example.

This from the Washington Post:

Nearly half of the Republicans polled said that Giuliani represents their party's best chance to win in November 2008; that is three or four times as high as the percentage who mentioned other candidates.

But wait. This table is from eyeon08.com


It shows McCain having a better chance of beating the almost certain Democratic Candidate in 08, Hillary.

And as I posted yesterday, McCain is tied with Giuliani on handling Iraq and does better among independant voters (which is vitally important). Giuliani has a very slight edge over McCain in handling terror.

By far the best thing Giuliani has going for him is being tough in terror, but if McCain is virtually tied with him on that front, why would the GOP not go with a MUCH more socially conservative McCain?

Cheney "throes" in with McCain

Cheney is pretty famous for saying in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in it's "last throes". A year later, he stood by his analysis in 2006. Asked about it two years later, he finally admits he was wrong. Finally. Big step in the right direction. When does McCain get the due credit?

McCain is trusted most to protest the country

McCain in tier 1 among democrats and republicans for the war in Iraq and in fighting terror.

i'm ashamed that we're ashamed

Ashamed. That's what i am. Democrats outraise Republicans 2 to 1 in this election. The frontrunner -Giuliani- is pro-choice (even in late term) for the first time ever. The second guy hasn't even declared and wont in august because august is dull or some crap like that. The guy in third (McCain) gets a daily flogging by the right wing 24/7 encouraging mainstream journalistic voltures cirlce him. The guy in 4th place -Romney- never held to a principle (other than that he'd be god when he died) in his life. Ron Paul and John McCain are the only ones to support the gen-x gen-y sect of the republican party by actually WANTING to join the CNN/youtube debate. Why is it that keeping your mouth shut and not running for president is the best way to garner support in one's quest for running for president?

And we wonder why our party's numbers are in the toilet...

save the debate!

First Name* Last Name* Email* Address City State select AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ZIP Yes, I'd like to receive updates about staying involved. I'm a blogger and I'd like to help. Blog URL: I support: select Sam Brownback Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee Duncan Hunter John McCain Ron Paul Mitt Romney Tom Tancredo Fred Thompson Tommy Thompson

To: Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson

We've read the news reports that only two of your fellow candidates have agreed to attend the Republican Party of Florida/YouTube debate, and there are major candidates considering snubbing the event.

As Republicans, we believe this is a serious mistake. Every Democratic candidate eagerly accepted the opportunity to answer questions from the American people via YouTube, even Hillary Clinton, the most cautious and calculating of the bunch.

Attend the YouTube debate, and you may get a tough question or two. Don't attend, and millions of Americans will wonder if you were too afraid to answer questions from the Internet, just as Democrats were afraid to go on Fox News. None of you could have gotten to where you are now without showing real political courage. Is that really how you'd like to be known?

Republicans cannot write off the Internet. Thus far, the Democratic candidates have dramatically outperformed Republicans online, most alarmingly in online fundraising. We believe this is a direct result of failing to effectively engage the medium and seize the tremendous opportunity of bottom-up grassroots activism. If you approach the Internet from a position of paralyzing fear, you will be out-gunned, out-manned, and out-raised at every turn. It is fundamentally unacceptable to surrender to the Democrats on one of the most important battlefronts of this election.

And Republicans cannot write off the youth vote. A recent poll showed Democrats with a staggering 24-point advantage among 18 to 29 year old voters. Once a generation of voters is lost like this (just think of the New Deal or Reagan Generations) they are extremely difficult to get back. We are under no illusions that a YouTube debate alone can change that, but denigrating the way millions of young Americans live and communicate does not help.

We sincerely hope you will reconsider any decision to snub the critical January 29th primary state of Florida and 51 million unique YouTube users. The Republican Party is about freedom. A free and open debate that includes the American people could be just what the doctor ordered to break the stanglehold of the liberal media.

Embed this petition on your blog. Cut and paste below:
'>

Willard flip flops again!

April 2007:

"Why is it that the Democrats wouldn't even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O'Neill?" asked Romney

July 2007:

In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

Grow a spine pal.

P.S. I did not know telling a citizen to "lighten up" in a town hall meeting was a subset of a "higher level".

McCain is awesome

McCain pwns General Pace and some other general on Iraq.

In other news McCain is 3 points off Giuliani nationally:

Rudy Giuliani 20%
Fred Thompson 19%
John McCain 17%
Mitt Romney 8%

McCain Hatchet job by CNN

I nice piece of fair an balanced journalism with an extremely flattering picture to boot.

"McCain loses key South Carolina supporter" the title reads.

Who is she? Cyndi Mosteller. Cyndia who? She doesn't even have an article on wikipedia. I'm not sure how "key" such a person is.

However, McCain did receive an endorsement from Buddy Roemer who fetches 14,000 Google hits. 20 times more than Cyndia. Click here for The Smackdown.

Bush aligns with McCain.

Bush continues to align himself with McCain.

On (possibly) closing Guantanamo Bay
On CIA interrigation methods
On the troop surge

Has Bush tipped his had for a McCain endorsement?

Rudy's Leadership

I ready Rudy's book Leadership back in 2002/2003. The book was ok, but I never forgot when he touted his mad attorney skills:

Banishing the squeegee operators was something I suspected we could accomplish fairly easily - and that would have an immediate and measurable impact. I called Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and Denny Young, who played in important role in all equality-of-life-initiatives. Bratton, who shared my belief in treating small crimes as a way to establish lawful, civil behavior and a feeling of safety, came back in a couple of days and told me that the Police Department said that getting rid of the squeegee men couldn't be done. He wanted to do it, but had been told that so long as they were not physically threatening drivers or "demanding" money, we lacked a legal basis to move the operations along or arrest them if they refused.

This is an example of how being a lawyer and former prosecutor could be helpful. I said, "How about the fact that they're jaywalking?" I told him to forget about whether they were asking for money or not. When they stepped off the curb and walked out onto the street they had just violated the law. You could give every single one of them a ticket immediately. Then, in giving them a ticket, you could investigate who they were, whether there were outstanding warrants, and so on. If they became intimidating you could arrest them.

Get them on jaywalking? That's the secret to dismantling New York's world famous squeegee problem? I could have figured that one out on my own. However, I'm not disillusioned enough to think that's a platform from whence I can run for President.

McCain and the media

Why did McCain's relation with the media turn south?

McCain is at odds with the mainstream media for because of his stance on the war. Plain and simple. While he once enjoyed Jon Stewart/Daily show cred, it is now all but gone.

Compare "Sen. John McCain Pt. 2" from April 2007 to "Senator John McCain" from July 2006. Also Marty McFl... er. George Stephanopoulos' headline poaching provocation where he bounced the question, "are you a dead man walking?" Not exactly your finest moment George.

Then there's the immigration. There are a handful of pundits who are stuck in 2000 somewhere between New Hampshire and South Carolina and are still hellbent on a McCain defeat. These talking heads had enough influence to convince enough people to crash Washington's swithboard. Polls however show they only made up 15% of the population who thought the bill didn't go far enough. Then they patted these calling zombies on the back telling them anything Ted Kennedy was involved with was the spawn of Satan. They coveniently left out several parts:
1) Kennedy was involved with the no child left behind which most of the GOP supports
2) In voting against Kennedy, they were also voting WITH Barbara Boxer.
3) They wanted debate while the bill was on the floor, but became enraged when they voted to reopen debate. (Why didn't these guys just honestly call for a fillibuster of the bill. I'm talking to Sean Hannity.)
4) In killing the bill, any serious legislation on immigration will have been delayed thru the election year of 2008. Our immigration system has been broken for over 3 decades. Why would our current laws spontaneously heal itself now? That's directed to your Laura Ingraham.
EDIT: and 5) Every tier 1 GOP candidate has historically been just as soft on immigration as McCain, but McCain was the only one to stick to his guns. All the hawkish immigration candidates haven't got a prayer of being elected. (Hunter, Tancredo).

Anyway that's what happened to McCain. He got flogged by the mainstream media by supporting the war and the far right had a war flashback to the 2000 Republican primaries. It's pretty hard to listen to an entire segment on right wing radio and now hear McCain bashing. McCain seemed to be a pretty popular guy when he bashed Donald Rumsfeld for being the worst Secretary of Defense's of all time. But when he was replaced with Gates and David Petraeus replaced George Casey with new stratagies to boot, the mainstream wanted nothing to do. Here's a tip: McCain was calling for a new strategy. Bashing Rumsfeld for the sake of bashing Rumsfeld gets us nowhere pretty frekin fast. Now the mainstream media has accused McCain for aligning himself with Bush. Wise up dimwitts. McCain called for a new strategy within months of Bush's so called mission accomplished speech. There was an alligning BUSH ALIGNED HIMSELF WITH MCCAIN.

McCain the strongest round 2

According to the latest Foxnews poll, McCain is still the strongest GOPer vs the Dems. Also, he's tied for second with Fred Thompson.

McCain fares best against the Dems

After getting crushed by the main stream media and getting flogged by the Right Wing media. McCain fares BEST against all the Dems.

Rudy vs IAFF

Everyone+Dog knows the IAFF has a scathing video attacking Rudy Giuliani. What I want to know is why Rudy's rebuttal merely attacked the organization for being left-leaning. Who cares? The most partisan hacks can have valid points. Take, for example, Larry Flint's smack down on Senator David Vitter. How much sympathy would Vitter get from voters if he merely said Flint was liberal? If these allogations are unfounded prove it!

BTW, Vitter just so happens to be Giuliani's sole endorsement from the Senate for President. Ouch.

Also noteworthy is that McCain leads all Republicans and Democrats with 9. And as a Colorado resident I'm desparately trying to get Allard to reconsider on Romney. I wrote him an email and instantly got an automated email said I'd get information in the mail on Allard's position on the war in Iraq (WTF?). That was about two months ago, and not a single letter from my Senator. Figures.

The latest (?) Romney Flip-Flop

Far be it from me to conclude that this is Romney's latest flip-flop as the flop in question is at least 72 hours old. That's more than enough time for old Willard to stick his finger in the air and have a new conviction. But here it is:

Romney said in a June 5 Republican debate that "we ought to double Guantanamo" but didn't mean it literally, spokesman Kevin Madden says.

Not literally, hu? I wonder if we should take your pro-life stance literally Mitt. What say you?

Tough break Willard

White House to close Gitmo. If you feel so strongly about your crusade to "double Guantanamo Bay" now is the time to actually DO something about it. Of course by now if you don't know that Romney is all talk, chances are you'll never know. In the mean time, here's some advice: Don't comment on things you know nothing about.

P.S. I cannot wait to hear this charlatan on Meet the Press. I may actially pitty him.

McCain a RINO?

Hardly. He's not on the top 10 list. Opportunist Mitt makes a strong showing however at number 8. Way to go Willard!

On earmarks and pork spending, McCain is among the most tax payer friendly Senators. Show me a person that's surprised, and I'll show someone who's sold out on right wing talk radio. Clever Rush, really clever.

Romney supporter defects to the McCain Camp

Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble defects to McCain. Defectors from Romney's own back yard. Nice.

Question of the Day for Mitt Romney 6-11-07

Willard,
Judges rule that enemy combatant cant be held without trial. This flies in the face of your call to double Guantanamo. Will you issue a sylable or rebuke or will you simply fold (agian) like wet cardboard?

Romney losing fundraising momentum?

That's what this site says:

Rebublican strategist Holly Robichaud said the ploy gives reason to believe that the dapper candidate is battling a financing slump.

“It kind of confirms what I’ve been hearing, that they’re getting a little desperate on the fund raising,” she said. “They’re spending faster than anyone because everyone’s holding on to it until the end.”

In April, the Romney campaign announced it had raised $21 million in the first quarter of 2007, far surpassing GOP opponents. But the cash flow slowed amid the rumblings that actor and former Republican Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would announce his candidacy, Robichaud said.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera offered criticism with as much bite as a Curt Schilling splitter.

“Mitt Romney can swing for the fences to meet his fund-raising targets, but a guy from left field with nine positions on every issue will keep striking out on the campaign trail unless he starts offering the American people clear plans and ideas for the America’s future.”
Romney’s campaign did not step up to the plate yesterday despite repeated requests for comment.

I'd just like to point out that Curt Schilling endorsed McCain for 2008.

Debate 3 Recap

This Michael Goodwin fellow posted a very positive review on the third debate.

Exerpts:

McCain won the night with a show-stopping performance that was straight from
the heart....

The big loser of the night was Mitt Romney...Asked about his opposition to
the immigration bill while he was simultaneously running ads in Spanish, Romney
came off as too slick by half. He ducked the question and launched into a series
of platitudes about American values and ended by saying we have to sell more
things to Asia.

Well put. Well put indeed.

Rudy, why must you cozy up with Bernard Kerik?

This blog by Kirsten Powers highlights some pretty poor judgement on the part of America's Mayor.

link

Question of the Day for Mitt Romney 6-9-07

Willard,
Do you claim any responsibility for judges legalizing gay marriage when you were governor of the state?

Amnesty or Banana?

Call it amnesty, call it a banana if you want to, but it’s earned
citizenship.
-John McCain

How is this amnesty? It includes that the borders be secured before a guest worker program or legalization process begins. And I especially like the part about having to "acknowledge that they broke the law" when illegals begin the legalization process.

Amnesty summary.

Time to throw in with McCain for 2008

Lots of garbage is being said about McCain. Must start pro-McCain blog!

Lets start by linking to the impartial, non-partison factcheck.com for the first three GOP debates:

Debate 1

Romney’s praise, [on Massachusetts healthcare] however, is a bit premature
— and while the plan is not government-administered health insurance, it
includes mandates for individuals and employers, minimum coverage requirements, subsidized insurance and government-enforced fines for noncompliance.... [b]ut the total estimate of uninsured Massachusetts residents is 372,000. The state has a long way to go.

If only someone asked Romney why the Big Dig wasn't on his website.

Debate 2

Romney: I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to raise taxes. As
governor of Massachusetts, I made it very clear there, and I did not raise
taxes.

Technically, this is true, but it's also misleading. Romney did not
raise anything called a tax during his tenure as governor, but he did increase
state revenues by raising various types of fees. In 2003, Romney doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline (money that is supposed to be for cleaning up any leaks from underground fuel tanks). All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year.

Debate 3

"..Mitt Romney committed the biggest factual fouls... Romney Rewrites
History..."

"The Massachusetts plan is clearly not a complete government
takeover; it builds on the private insurance industry – as do
the proposals of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, and the health
care initiative spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in the early
’90s."

Did that get much press? Hardly. Of the top 3 candidates (McCain, Romney, and Giuliani), by far the most truthful content of the 3 debates came from McCain.

Bush to nuke Iran?

Does this worry you? If it does, it's probably because you have lack the knowledge or mental capacity to put this story into historical context. If you have this problem, here's whatcha do:

1. Google "scenario 5027". Currently there's 484 hits.

2. Find out who was President when the plan was concocted (hint: he was a dove).

3. Go back to bed.

Hillary Clinton PRE-acts to Bush

Senator Clinton reacting be Bush's state of the union speech before he actually delivers it:

"From homeland security to Social Security, from health care to a healthy economy, the message can be summed up in three words - on your own,"

There's lots of ways a political blow-hard can react to the President's speech:
There's a sincere reaction,
There's a calculated reaction,
And there's a knee jerk reaction.

But now Senator Clinton has invented a new form of reacting -a pre knee jerk reaction. That's right, Senator Clinton has reacted to a speech that hasn't even happened. This reminds me of the time Bill Clinton tried to react to the Republican Convention in '04 when he said the Republican party was going to put on a compassionate face and then shed it once the elections were over. President Clinton was wrong. Talks of compassion were non-existent. Instead the GOP Convention was dominated with talks of terrorism and national security.

Will Hillary make the same mistake? It doesn't matter. Even if the public disagrees with her, she'd never admit it.

I Have A Dream Nightmare

Sad to say, but I had never heard the entire "I Have A Dream" speech until this year on MLK Day -42 years after the speech was delivered. It's probably the greatest speech I've ever heard. Why hasn't Washington erected an enormous memorial to the man?

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. MLK spoke a message that was rooted in love and admiration for the principles on which the United States was founded. This says it all:

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

...

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Martin Luther King had so much faith in his country that he believed that by appealing to the core principles on which the United States was founded he would help to create the "greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation."

Now Hillary Clinton comes out this week trivialize slavery by saying the congress runs like a plantation. Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't love her country and she has to resort to race baiting to get the country back on a path that she feels is appropriate.

Then you've got Ray Nagin saying New Orleans needs to be a black city. Obviously he missed this:

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

...

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

To me, it's clear Senator Clinton and Nagin don't love their country.

Steve Ballmer contradicts himself

Steve Ballmer throws out a blatant contradiction

Steve Ballmer reminds me of my self when I used to have computer debates back in high school.

NO! Microsoft will always rule the world!
NO! Linux will destroy them
Netscape rules.

My friends and I would make computer predictions. One common thread in all the debates is that we’d all act like we knew everything. The tone in our voices said it all.

Then I went to college and grew up. Steve Ballmer didn’t. It’s pretty easy to pick up on his arrogant tone when he talks. Here’s the link.

Then Steve throws out a blatant contradiction. The old do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. Grr.

STEVE SHEPARD: What was the best, wisest advice Bill Gates ever gave you professionally and personally? He got you to work there.

STEVE BALLMER: The best advice. I say probably the best advice he ever gave me was to drop out of school. (Laughter.) And that was a huge deal. I mean, my dad didn't go to college, as you mentioned, and the notion that I was going to drop out of business school was just loony to him, I mean, beyond insane. And if it hadn't been kind of for Bill's persistence and encouragement and advice, I'd probably be selling auto insurance right now.

STEVE SHEPARD: What we all tell our kids, you know, you look around and you see Bill Gates dropped out of college, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, all these people didn't go to college, who didn't finish college, "Hey, dad, I don't have to go to college either," what do you say to your kids?

STEVE BALLMER: I think if your kid comes to you with an idea that's compelling, as Michael Dell, Larry Ellison and Bill Gates, give 'em some money and tell 'em to drop out. (Laughter.) And in the 99.9999999 percent case tell them to get back to work, which is what I'd tell my kids..

Then not more than 2 minutes later....

STEVE SHEPARD: Why aren't there more women at the top levels of Microsoft?

STEVE BALLMER: I just finished a set of reviews of all of our businesses, the people, where all we did was talk for basically a day with each of our business leaders about people issues, who, what, where, when. We talked about diversity, we talked about how we broaden diversity, we talked about our talent pool. And in a sense I'm proud because we've made progress over the last few years in terms of the number of women vice president, executives at Microsoft. This was a year of again progress. I think we're up to 14 vice presidents in our ranks out of about 100, up from 10 roughly 18 months ago, so progress.

You could say, OK, that's still a small number and I think that's right. I think one of the key issues is if you look at our employee population, our employee population is about 65 percent people with technical background, and if you look at the graduation rates for women in technical fields, particularly in computer science, we are not disproportionately below or above the number of women who get into technical fields, and I think we more reflect the fact that we're looking for technical people.

What can we do, what can society do to encourage more women to get in the technical field? That's a very good and important question where a lot of ideas are being experimented with. I don't think there's any one breakthrough though yet we can point to.

Air America's Ratings Suck!

With all the talk and hype surrounding Air America Radio, I thought they’d at least have decent ratings. So I did some googleing today. I was wrong. So very very wrong. I’ve compiled a fairly rough list from 3 websites that rank radio shows by popularity. Here’s the websites:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/373426p-317475c.html
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/05/annual-talk-host-rankings-revealed.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/1/14399/2475

Here’s a list that I kinda slapped together based on the above links:

Rank Talkshow Host Listeners (In Millions)
1 Rush Limbaugh 14.75
2 Sean Hannity 13
3 Michael Savage 8.75
4 Dr. Laura Schlessinger 7.5
4 Howard Stern 8.5
6 Laura Ingraham 5
7 Neal Boortz 3.5
8 Mike Gallagher 3.5
8 Jim Bohannon 3.75
10 Clark Howard 3.25
10 Bill O’Reilly 3.25
10 Doug Stephen 3.25
13 Glenn Beck 3
14 Dr. Joy Browne 2.75
14 Don Imus 2.75
14 George Noory 2.75
17 Jerry Doyle 1.5
18 Kim Komando 2
18 Michael Medved 2
18 Dave Ramsey 2
21 Bill Bennett 1.25
21 Jim Rome 2
23 Bob Brinker 1.75
23 Ed Schultz 1.5
25 Tom Leykis 1.25
26 G. Gordon Liddy 1
26 Jim Cramer 1
28 Al Franken 1
28 Tony Snow 1
30 Alan Colmes 1
31 Dr. Dean Edell 1
31 Phil Hendrie 1
31 Rusty Humphreys 1
31 Stephanie Miller 1

The ONLY two Air America pundits (out of 16) to crack the top 34 are Al Franken and Ed Schultz. They’re 2 for 34! Put another way, they’re batting .059. The Houston Texans have a better record. That’s terrible. What’s worse, if you factor the total percentage of listeners at Air America to the number of listeners on the above list, AAR listeners make up between 2 and 3% of the total. My gosh! Let there be no more doubt of AAR’s financial status.

UPDATE: I made a mistake. It turns out that Ed Schultz isn't actually an Air America Radio host. So even though I painted a dismal picture for the liberal station, it wasn't bad enough. Just one of the top 34 radio stations in the country is an Air America program -roughly 1% or the listeners in the top 34.

Howard Dean doesn't know what he's talking about

Meet the press 11-13-05:

MR. RUSSERT: Should Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others say, "Based on what I know today, I would not have voted for the war"?

DR. DEAN: John--my impression was that John Kerry did say that.

Washington Post 8-10-04:

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Maybe Dean is right and Kerry just flip-flopped again. But could Dean be any more of an annoying blowhard? It would appear the answer is yes:

DR. DEAN: [Judge Alito] condones a strip-search of a 10-year-old when the police had no such warrant or indication to do so. He condoned the crafting of an all-white jury to hear a black defendant's case by a prosecutor. He condoned the states not having to listen to the Family Medical Leave Act. He condoned government interference in private family matters and family decision- making. This is well outside the mainstream of where Americans are. I think the Democrats are going to have to think long and hard as the hearings progress about whether we should support him. There's some grave questions about him, and I do hope that they will stick together.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were a senator, you would vote no?

DR. DEAN: I'm not going to make that--if I were a senator, I would not tell you that now, because I believe in listening to all the evidence first.

Can you say blowhard? Dean attacks Alito by grossly misrepresenting him, but is too afraid to speculate how he'd vote on Alito.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

Dean, did I hear this right? The Democrats don't know how to deal with Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

So if I get this straight, Dean admits the Democrats don't have a solution on getting Iraq under control, AND the American public will have to wait at least 1 and a half months to hear what their plan is?

How can people stand this guy?

California Removes its Feeding Tube

I can't believe it. California has chosen to void their Constitutional right to bear arms and bow down to far left special interest groups and blatant pro-choice ideology.

I'm not a fan of special interest groups --any of them. In the past I've never felt the need to join one, and the NRA is no exception. I've never seen the NRA be against ownership or promotion of any type of "arm" be it automatic or even nuclear. That's how special interest groups work -know no limits, know no compromise (just ask Peter Drucker). Today however, when I see San Francisco waive their Constitutional right to bear arms, it angered me so much I actually decided to join the organization. An organizatioin I don't even care for.

So anyway, I just signed up as a member of the NRA. It took two minutes and was only $35 dollars. I'm going to get a subscription to America's First Freedom --hopefully it doesn't suck. Words cannot express how much I want the NRA to overturn this measure made by idiots in San Fran. I'll try to keep an eye on the NRA's site to see if they'll get a bump in traffic after today.

In other bone-headed moves in California, they've chosen to let minors have an abortion without requiring them to tell their parents. Never mind the fact that kids can't even go on a field trip without parental permission. California has forsaken parental guardianship for the freedom to have access to an abortion. To all who voted against Proposition 73, never again do I want to hear you claim to have a legal, parental right to authorize --or even know about-- anything your child does, especially if it's health related.

The media is wondering if Arnold Schwarzenegger is the big loser in California since none of his propositions passed. I can only pray that public outrage across the country is so intense that the losers will undeniably be the voters that outlawed a piece of parental authority and the constitution.

The French Riots - President Jacques Chirac Fiddles while Paris burns

France has been rioting for a whopping 11 days (from October 27 until November 6). I'm not saying that riots generally have a good reason to start, but these rioters are especially dumb. A couple of kids ran from cops and ended up killing themselves. How devoid of civil behavior does a society have to be to allow this to happen?!

So President Chirac tries to save the day by promising France that his government will get everything under control --on the 11th day! Keep in mind these riots should have never happened if the country had any control over it's people.

Words cannot express how glad I am that things operate a little differently in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Just three days after 9-11, President Bush stood on Ground Zero and said the US was going to kick some terrorist ass. And just hours after hurricane Katrina, the American public was demanding more accountability and action from the Federal and state governments.

Next time Chirac criticizes how the United States operates, I've got a message for him. GET YOUR OWN SUPERPOWER.

Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and all the other left-wing asshole pundits

www.urbandictionary.com:

2. Asshole
someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total dickhead....Sean is the biggest f*cking asshole I've ever met in my life!
Source: Jenna Tools, Nov 30, 2002

That's what Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and some of the other far-left wing nuts out there are. They piss me off.

We all know the analogy of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the elephant's trunk and says it's a snake, another feels its leg and says an elephant is a tree trunk. Still another feels its ear and says an elephant is a leathery fan. The moral is that they're all right from their own limited point of view.

When Rush Limbaugh pioneered nationally syndicated talk radio in the 90's, different groups reacted in different ways. Some saw Rush as the sole voice of America that had been stifled by a left-wing media. Others saw Rush as a flash in the pan. Still others saw him as an off the chart right-winger who merely speaks to his ideological choir. But what did the left wing nuts think?

Enter Al Franken and Randi Rhodes... When these people examined Rush in their phenomenally limited perspective, they did so by sticking their arms up the proverbial elephant's butt. Instantly they "realized" Rush was nothing more than a giant asshole. But they didn't stop there. With their narrow view or Rush and their pathetic ignorance of the America's public opinion, they inadvertently epitomized two clichés: 1) the person they hated controlled them, and 2) they became the person they hated. This is evidenced by their respective talk radio programs: The Al Franken Show, and the Randi Rhodes Show.

But since they mistook Rush for the asshole instead of the entire elephant, their syndication service, Air America Radio, is a financial disaster. The free market allowed Rush to sign a $285 million contract. In contrast, Air America bounces checks even though they are funded by billionaire George Soros. To make matters oh-so-much more worse, they're actually asking for donations from listeners. If they weren't oozing with so much vitriol, I might actually feel sorry for them.

Al Franken and Randi Rhodes haven't got a clue what drives talk radio. That's because they're one-dimensional assholes.

Should the US cut and run from Iraq?

Lots of people out here think so. They should be informed that that's exactly what al-Zawahri, Al-Qaeda's number two guy, wants. Here's the script.
link

The Harried Miers Precedence

I think Bush did a disservice to the United States by nominating Harried Miers for the Supreme Court. Bush basically told the country that he knows her well enough to say she’ll uphold the constitution and that she’ll be a good conservative.

Sorry dubya, that’s not enough. Even if you’re right about her, you’re setting some pretty shameful precedence.

The first bad precedence being set is that Miers is a very private person with no judicial experience. Perhaps the best indicator of what kind of judge she’ll be is when Bush flippantly said “trust me.” Maybe that’s enough for some nearsighted conservatives out there. What happens though if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 and nominates her personal Whitewater attorney using the same “trust me” argument? Isn’t a certain level of trust already vested into a nominee? Should we trust a nominee more just because a President asks us to? Should public cheerleading by a President substitute for a severe lack of a transparent, public work history? The hearings will probably gain no valuable insight to where Miers stands. Years ago, another unfortunate precedence there has already been set for judicial nominees: Don’t comment on controversial issues.

The second precedence Bush set is that he’s nominated someone with probably the worst credentials in the history of the Supreme Court. She didn’t go to an outstanding college, she didn’t graduate with honors (that I know of), she doesn’t have any judicial experience, she hasn’t done pro bono, and she has done very little in the public arena. Believe it or not, some people actually criticized Bush for nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court because some women were supposedly as qualified. Roberts was easily one of the most qualified human beings for the Supreme Court –male of female. Imagine the outcry if Bush nominated a man of Miers’ credentials. The second precedence Bush is setting here is that if you’re a woman, your qualifications can be far below the average Supreme Court Justice.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert

"It doesn't make sense to me," [to spend Federal money to rebuild New Orleans], said Hastert during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board. "And it's a question that certainly we should ask. link

I'm sure that statement will require an apology. I'm hopeful it will cost him his seat as House Speaker. And I'm thinking his statement should cost him his political career.

Amnesty International Receives the first ever headline poacher award!

“Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time.” Eight words; that’s all it takes to see right through Amnesty International’s report.

Putting things into perspective, Gulag was a series of Russian concentration camps. An estimated 1.4 to 2.8 million people died there. 800,000 were executed there. More people died at Gulag than at Auschwitz.

In contrast, Guantanamo is only holding 540.

Enter Camp 22, North Korea. According to The Guardian: Now, it is claimed, it is also where thousands die each year and where prison guards stamp on the necks of babies born to prisoners to kill them… [C]hilling evidence has emerged that the walls of Camp 22 hide an even more evil secret: gas chambers where horrific chemical experiments are conducted on human beings. Witnesses have described watching entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are left to an agonising death while scientists take notes.

Now, the obvious angle to take is to ask Amnesty International why they seem bent on blaming the United States when there’s worse stuff going on over in North Korea.

But I won’t go there. Connect the dots; Amnesty International just called Guamtanamo the worst violation of human rights today, and equated it with one of the biggest violations of human rights ever. Meanwhile over in North Korea’s Camp 22, stomping on a babies neck is merely a political dispute.

Amnesty International, feel free to excuse yourself from the table of rational dialogue.

Dean Meets the Press Tomorrow

In an email, I asked Tim Russert to ask Howard Dean why the country should trust the Democratic party whenever they tout fiscal responsibility.

Hey Dean!

Is running for President the only reason to conduct yourself with dignity?

John R. Bolton

Granted, I had never heard the name before Bush nominated him as ambassador to the U.N. So everything bad I've heard about him is from people who are preventing him from getting the job. I don't think that's a good way to judge a person, but still, I hope Bolton doesn't get the blessing of congress.

Only the blind can't see the anti-American sentiments that have consumed a massive portion of the globe. Only the retarded can't tell that it's yahoos like this that fan those flames. People like Bolton have their places in the United States, but a seat at the U.N. is not one of them. We need to send the U.N. a dove, not a hawk.

I hope the Democrats are able to stop Bolton from getting the job. If they don't, it's because they cried, "Wolf!" one too many times.

Terri Schiavo: The good, the bad, and the ugly

The media: They've been extremely hard on the the Legislature and the President because they're basically wasting time by micromanaging the country, be it with Terri or Major League Baseball. Maybe it's a valid point, but where were these people when Barbara Boxer started her little cat fight against Condoleezza Rice. Even Rice's most vocal opponents to her being Secretary of State readily admitted that Rice would easily get the Senate's blessing. Yet all legislative progress was put on hold so people like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer throw little hissey fits. What the heck was that?!

Senator John McCain, do you have any insight into this nonsense?
Dr. Rice has the confidence of the President of the United States. Dr. Rice has the confidence of the majority of this Senate. We know, as many of her critics have admitted on this floor, she will be easily confirmed.

So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a debate about a foregone conclusion. It cannot be for a lack of priorities because we surely have enough on our legislative plate this year. It can't be because Dr. Rice has suggested she has some flaw so fundamental that the Senate must block the President's choice. I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections.

McCain 2008. Woot! Woot!

Ehem, anyway, what McCain is trying to say (or what I'd like to pretend to say on behalf of him) is that you should pay no attention to anyone that is criticizing the Federal Government for getting involved in the Schiavo case if they also weren't critical of the delay tactics the Democrats employed because of their "lingering bitterness".

Yes, Jon Stewart, that goes for you. Now knock it off!

Ok, now the media rant is over with. Now onto congress. I can't but feel pandered to by Bill Frist who says the following: ONCE AGAIN IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, WHICH YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEASON (sic?) A WEB SITE TODAY, BUT IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, SHE CERTAINLY SEEMS TO RESPOND TO VISUAL STIMULI. THAT THE NEUROLOGIST PUTS FORTH.

Maybe a layman can make these claims, but Frist is a medical doctor. And not just "any" medical doctor, a freggin cardiac surgeon! What doctor makes a diagnosis based on a videotape? What doctor would neglect their knowledge of medicine to engage in shameless pandering? What Bill Frist did is simply inexcusable.

Last year, when Frist was asked if AIDS can be spread by tears and sweat he said "I don't know." Connect the dots. Frist is an ideologue first and a doctor second -a very distant second. Americans deserve politicians that level straight with them. Frist has shown he's a guy that will contort his own vast knowledge of medicine so egregiously that even a layman can easily recognize it.

Now onto the Schiavo family: Whether it's fair or not, Terri's husband Michael looks like an ass. Check out this timeline:

1990 - Terri falls and is brain damaged

1993 - Terri is awarded $750,000 in a malpractice suit (also $300,000 is awarded to Michael)

1998 - 8 YEARS after she was injured, Michael starts lobbying to have his wife's feeding tube removed. Presumably because he remembered some 13 years ago that Terri told him she wanted to die if she was ever in a vegetative state. Apparently, Michael's memory gets better when two things happen. 1) Time goes by, and 2) as things become more financially beneficial for him.

1990 to Now - Terri's family has tenaciously fought to have Terri live. It's pretty clear they would have no objections if Michael wanted to completely turn Terri over to the rest of her family. Yet in spite of the admirable efforts of Terri's family, Michael still wants to pull the plug on her.

I'm sorry Michael, that makes you look like an ass. Tough luck. Circumstantial evidence made Scott Peterson look like an ass and that greatly contributed to him getting the death penalty. I didn't shed a tear over him, and I'm not going to over you.

My take: Anyway you look at this story, it's inevitably tragic. What makes it worse people like Bill Frist who forsake any kind of medical logic for pandering, and liberals who have no problems saying Michael should exercise his right to kill his wife, like a farmer would shoot his horse. I find both extremes completely unnecessary and offensive.

On the MACRO level, this is what I think needs to happen is this: Congress should stop micromanaging these types of cases and they should somehow tie in patients with vegetative conditions to missing persons. In the eyes of the law, after seven(?) years a missing is as dead as George Washington. After that time, the spouse is widowed, even if they're the healthiest person on earth. Congress should pass a law allowing for the spouse of a vegetative patient to be widowed after a certain period of time. A year? I don't know.

Is there a legal can of worms there? Yes, but not anywhere as big as the following scenario: A husband disappears for seven years, then he meets up with his wife who's married to someone else. In the eyes of the law, the husband is dead, and his widowed wife simply remarries. In actuality, his wife is now a polygamist. Now THAT'S a can of worms.

If congress can take a shotgun approach to solving the missing persons problem, surely they can do the same for people with a vegetative spouse. Unfortunately, Frist lowered the congressional dialogue to calling his critics pooh-pooh heads, so expecting them to adopt my plan is just a waste of time.

On the MICRO level here's what I think should happen: Michael should give his wife over to the rest of her family. I'm not sure I'd want to claim the responsibility to care for someone in Terri's condition, and the fact that they are willing to 1) care for her and 2) fight this fierce legal battle, is a testament to Terri's family's generosity and character.

Here's what I think should NOT happen: I find it very disturbing that someone would "pull the plug" on any human being who, 1) Is not in pain, 2) has survived 15 years after their injury, and 3) has not made it emphatically clear they wish to die. How people can "just pull the plug" on such a person is beyond me. If people who side with Michael are so gung-ho to have Terri killed, then why don't they put her to sleep like they would a dog? As sick as that sounds, it's unequivocally more humane. Should dogs get more humane treatment than human beings? Of course not! Then why does Terri have to suffer a worse death than a dog being put to sleep? Because all those willing to let her starve to death are too cowardly to put Terri to sleep.

Now I'm all pissed.

P.S. If I find the the name of the guy that actually pulled the plug on Schiavo to kill her, I will post it. If I find trash on that person, I may actually relish it.

Cronkite

So the drudgereport.com says "Cronkite: Dan should have stepped down long time ago."

I feel sorry for people who get all their news from Matt. That's just a flat out lie. Go to the source people!

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's going to be hard to find anybody who is going to be as much liked and appreciated and does such a job as Bob Schieffer. I think he's one of the great television journalists of our time. And he was a good journalist when he came to television from Fort Worth [Texas].

He is, to my mind, the man who, quite frankly -- although Dan did a fine job -- I would like to have seen him there a long time ago. He would have given the others a real run for their money.

BLITZER: Better than Dan Rather would have done? Because he was perennially in third place in the ratings behind Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

CRONKITE: Well, that's certainly true. And it's quite a tribute to him that he -- that CBS held on to him so long under those circumstances. It surprised quite a few people at CBS and elsewhere that, without being able to pull up the ratings beyond third in a three-man field, that they tolerated his being there for so long.

BLITZER: So, you would have been happier if Bob Schieffer would have replaced Dan Rather a while ago?

CRONKITE: I would have thought so, certainly -- if not Bob, someone else.

...later...

BLITZER: Do you sense right now that being the anchor of a major broadcast network is the same as it was when you were the chief anchor at CBS News? In other words, has the situation changed now given the Internet, cable news, all the various ways that people are getting their information?

CRONKITE: Yes, Wolf. It's turned -- it's over on its head. It is vastly different.

When I was there, we -- the three traditional networks, NBC, ABC and CBS -- we shared 100 percent, practically, of the audience. There were just maybe 98 percent or 99 percent of the audience, we had every night. That other half a percentage or 1 percent were the few independent stations in the country. We had no other competition.

Today, of course, we've got all of these other channels that are competing. And, actually, the traditional networks are sharing down around 50 percent of the audience, which is still remarkably high, considering all of the excellent competition they have with such networks as yours.

Maybe it's just me, but why do I feel like Cronkite is making it sound like a bad thing that 3 people no longer control what news everyone in the country sees?

...finally...

BLITZER: What would you do if you had your way? What would you advise all the broadcast news organizations to do right now?

CRONKITE: Give news a little more time and don't request that they also, in their news time, entertain. We're not entertainers. We're journalists. And we need more time to do our job well.

I think he took a shot at Fox News. But even if he didn't, he certainly took a shot at the Daily Show. Funny too because I feel like i can watch 20 minutes of the Daily Show and know more of what's going on in the world than if I watch an hour of Larry King. So I guess you can come to two conclusions: A) Cronkite is wrong --entertainment and news DO go together, or B) the news media is so bad that they actually make Comedy Central's Daily Show look good.

My money is on A).

Bono to head world bank?

There's something different about Bono that separates him from all the other activists out there. Recently it hit me, Bono is one of the precious few activists that doesn't hate people. I guess it's easy to start thinking that hating is a prerequisite to activist-ing, but Bono is living proof that it's unnecessary. How refreshing. I'm not sure of he's cut out for the job, but I think it would serve as a great example for those activists out there that should be spending their energy helping people rather than hating people --who they perceive-- to be standing in their way.

Ward Churchill

I realize this post is late in the game. There's always nuts out there that hate their own, and in the US, some of them even thrive. What makes his case so special?

I think in retrospect, a few things stand out.

1.) People jump to his defense saying he shouldn't be fired because of his right to freedom of speech. I think that's crazy. I could lose my job by saying 2 words. That's the world we live in, deal with it.

2.) I think there's a striking resemblence beteween Ward Churchill and Timothy Mcveigh. One of Ward's initial reactions was to write about how the United States had it coming. Mcveigh also was defiant even after he was captured. Years later, Chrurchill expressed grief for some of the people killed on September 11: bystanders, firefighters, and janitors. Timothy Mcveigh did all he could to remain defiant until his execution, but his lawyers have hinted that Mcveigh had expressed grief for the 19 children that he killed in the Oaklahoma City bombing. Interesting indeed.

If I was to ask Ward Churchill one thing it would be this:
Can you name a single Iraqi that was as as outpoken against Saddam as you are outspoken against the US Government. Did he flourish in his own country like you currently are? Why or why not.

Pandering

So I'm reading this editorial. What a bunch of shameless, blatant pandering. Whoever wrote it took it upon himself to pander no less than 7 times!

Pander Count:
=============
Blacks - 4
South L.A. - 2
African Americans - 1

Total:7

But it doesn't stop there:
Different circumstances, different police agencies, different culprits. But to many, the incidents delivered a single message: Society says that you don't count. The rules of fair treatment by police don't apply to young black males.

-and then-

Now the peacemakers are at it again. Ministers, gang workers, community activists and elected officials are trying to channel anger into activism, to push for better youth services, more cooperation among neighbors and a continuing dialogue with police. Their efforts should be encouraged, not feared or disparaged.

So I guess this means we can derive the formula:
Social injustice -> Anger -> Leaders -> Activism that we should all encourage.

At the risk of oversimplifying things every bit as much as the editorial I'd like to suggest the my formula:
Pandering to specific groups -> perceived injustice -> Angry mobs that are controlled by powerful people and groups. That's hardly something that should be encouraged.

So which formula is right? I don't know, but if the second one is, the editorial is unquestionably part of the problem.

Homo Sapians

A couple archaeologists discover that the human species is several thousand years older than previously thought. According to them, humans are 195,000 years old. Hmm, interesting.

So here it is, the history of the world. 189,000 years go by (that's 97% of the lifespan of the human race), and humans live like a bunch of animals. After almost 189 milleniums go by, a bunch of groups get together on new year's day and say, "Enough of this, let's resolve to make millennium 190 a good one!." So a bunch of PARALLEL societies get together and build some of the most awesome architectural achievements ever: the pyramids of Egypt, the pyramids South America, and Stonehenge. Another thing they decided to do overnight was to invent writing. Then they invent forms of governments that were able to rule over tens of thousands of people. It's these same people that were previously running around touting fire as the pinnacle of human achievement that, almost overnight, were able to buil the pyramids! How the heck could that possibly happen? If humans were able to flaunt these magnificent achievements 6,000 years ago what was preventing them from doing the same thing 50,000, 100,000, or 175,000 years ago? What magically made them decide to make these shocking breakthroughs in architecture, literature, and government, and why did so many societies that were not even in contact with other developing societies somehow do it all at the same time?

Am I the only one who finds this new discovery to be odd?

If a bunch of people were simply dumped in an earth-like lab, how long would it take for them to produce a historically surviving culture? A few generations maybe? Certinaly not 200,000 years! Yet that's supposedly how long it took earth to produce one.

Transsexuals can play in the LPGA?

Are you kidding me?! This is crazy!

I thought transformers were making a come back, but this is just dumb.

Chalk this one up as blogger against transformers in the LPGA.

More on Steam

A couple weeks ago googleing "Steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers", returned 16 hits, now it's 177. Quite an increase. There's a whole lot more to the controversy over here. Interesting...

Among other things is the question of whether or not the EULA (End User License Agreement) that is required to play Half-Life2 is legal or not.

Gosh, I hope not.

Dean?!

Are you kidding me? Dean makes the short list for DNC head?

Dean is actually one of the person that inspired me start this blog. Why? Because because I think the general public has grossly confused Dean's divisive popularity with his actual popularity.

If you start splitting the population just a couple of times, you can end up with an extremely dangerous sect. If that same sect starts touting someone's popularity, beware.

Dean is the poster child of that. Here's how he divides the population, 1) Are you a Democrat, and 2) Will you vote for the most anti-war candidate on the Democratic ballot? Dean is a hit among the crowd that answers yes to both questions, the only catch is this crowd speaks for about 15% of the American population. Why's that so bad? Well, considering about that many people think Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon, quite a bit.

So anyhoo, this nut has the unwavering support of a generous 1-in-6 American. However, the majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the guy.

Is this a person that should head a party that has lost control of the White House and has actually decreased it's presence in the House, and the Senate? If the Republicans had lost control of all three sects of D.C. would they be trying to get Pat Buchanan to head their party? Only if they were suicidal.

Steam sucks.

So I'm trying to play half-life 2 but I can't because the online Steam server is down. Don't ask me why I even need to actually log in to the server as it makes as much sense as logging in to nintendo.com to play tetris on my gameboy. What's more, if you go to steam's webpage it doesn't even make mention of their colossal screwup. Good job boys.

How do I know it's down then? I had to go the slashdot and usenet to find out it was down.

The error message I get when I try to login is "steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers." At present, googleing that returns exactly 16 hits. I have a feeling it's going to be a lot more than that in a very short amount of time.


I want my money back.

Microsoft Windows

So I'm trying to associate movie files on any program BUT Windows Media Player. Why? Because Media Player is bloatware, none of the buttons make any sense, and I can't even use the hotkeys. What's the point of having hotkeys for media if your.. er. media player doesn't even use them.

Anyway, I do some googleing and find that you flat out CAN'T change the associations of media files to another media player (even mplayer2.exe -which is actually decent). So I think to myself, how on earth can Microsoft get away with this? Wouldn't the makers of Quicktime and Real Player have a good lawsuit on their hands?

Then I install Real Player, another player high on bloat and low on ware. During installation, I'm amused when it asks me if I want to associate movie files with Real Player. I choose yes. Low and behold, It actually worked. Then I wonder if Media Player somehow hacked media files so that I can play them with a different player, but it wasn't. File associations are locked to Real Player.

So then I decide to use the old right click, "open with" function and then check the "always use this program" button and with that, I just associated my movie files with VLC player. (Previously, the "open with" feature would not allow me to de-associate programs with Media Player.)

What did I learn from all this? Microsoft knows they'll run into legal trouble if they stick it to competing companies like they are currently sticking it to their customers. Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

Titan

Maybe I'm just a complete nerd, but for whatever reason, I was really looking forward to the Cassini/Huygens probe landing on Titan. I think I can remember when they launched the mission in the mid to late 90's, but I've definitely been counting the days since the media talked it up last summer. Scientists talked it up like saying stuff like:

We can find out where where we came from. (As if there will be a sign when we get there that reads: "Earthlings came from aliens on planet X").

Maybe we'll see lakes of flowing liquids, not seen on any other body in the solar system. (That would be cool to see.)

Artists rendered these really cool looking images of what they thought me might see:
.




Now I don't want to ruin it for you if you don't already know, but here's what we got:
.

Now, I realize the differences are subtle, but if you'll look closely, you'll notice we've got better quality of pictures of bigfoot. And even if the pics were of better quality, they'd just be clearer pictures of rocks and dust --Hardly something to write home about. Much less travel 2 billion miles for and then transmit messages half way across the solar system.

I guess I'm a bit disappointed. I think some have called Titan the last great mystery of the solar system. Well, if that's the case, the solar system must be pretty boring other than what's here on Earth.