Thursday, January 31, 2008

Mitt and the Frenchman?

OK, the gloves need to come off for Mitt. He has been ganged up on for the entire campaign season, with the other candidates seemingly having a dislike for Romney in common. If that wasn't enough, they started picking aging action heroes to be their "media champion".

Leading the way was Huckabee teaming with the personable Mr. Chuck Norris. Chuck was paraded in front of the TV cameras and microphones to act as Huckabee's surrogate mouthpiece, saying things that the candidate couldn't actually say and get away with.

Then came John McCain gaining an endorsement from the human growth hormone, Sly Stallone. Now I like Sly, and I love the Rocky and Rambo franchises. In fact, if he were ever to make another Rocky film, wouldn't John McCain make an excellent "Paulie"? Now it appears that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be jumping on McCain's wagon.

I don't know about Ron Paul's action hero. If I had to guess, I'd go with Clint Eastwood. Not Clint Eastwood the actor, but Clint Eastwood the director. The actor was a very cool Dirty Harry, etc. Clint The director has turned into quite the panty waste. Perfect for Paul.

Giuliani didn't get an action hero, but he did get TV preacher Pat Robertson's endorsement. Hmmmm. Too little, too late Rudy.

So who can step in to fit this bill for Mitt? We need someone who can kick both Rocky and the Terminator's asses at the same time, after flinging Chuck Norris out of the way like so much baby poop.

Action Stars

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Shat on the Loo

Brent questioned the line I used in a prior post that described Obama's facial expression during the SOTU address. Well, what would you call it?

Right wing extremists unite behind.. err...hmm.

With "Maverick" John McCain's win in the Florida primary, what's a conservative to do? Fred Thompson is a distant memory, and all we have left is bits and pieces of true conservatism to pick from. Rudy didn't foot the conservative bill on social issues and with his loss in Florida, is likely to bow out of the race. Oh yah, then there was that guy from Arkansas that you never hear about anymore. What was his name? "Huck-a-who?" And don't talk to me about Ron Paul. He is a whack job.

So it is down to McCain and Romney in my opinion. Should we go with McCain because the liberal media establishment has endorsed him? Can there be any doubt what-so-ever that if McCain is the Republican nominee, the next president will be a Democrat? At least there is a chance that Mitt Romney can energize the base and turn out the vote in the general election by bringing together the "Rick" wing and the "Greg" wing of the party.

Of course, there is another possibility. Talk show host Michael Reagan suggests that Newt may well jump in at this late stage to save the day, in this article titled, "Michael Reagan on Newt: The Real Dark Horse?" I would poo poo the possibility except for the fact that it's posted on Newt's own website. Hmmmm....

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

This is beautiful....

Thanks Hot Air!

The Sate of the Liberal Union is pathetic

I watched President Bush deliver his last SOTU speech wistfully. I have always liked the man and have never wavered from the belief that he was the right man at the right time to become president of this nation. I still shudder to think where we would be today if we had to suffer with a president algore. Say what you will about Bush (my only criticism is that he has been TOO liberal), under his leadership, our brave men and women in uniform have transformed Afghanistan and Iraq and strategically positioned us squarely in the thick of this hellhole on earth of Islamic extremism. We will have to deal with Iran, after all. They only understand strength and this is the best chance we have of winning with diplomacy. Liberals and Ron Paul would have us retreat within our borders and not engage this enemy. If only we made nice with them, maybe they wouldn't hate us!

Scarier than algore in charge is watching the rise of obama. Isolationism from the world in order to concentrate on domestic socialism would be the position of a president Obama, make no mistake. He is a stuffed suit, no substance, feel good candidate who has a real shot at winning the presidency. He obviously has the black vote (85 to 95%) and most white liberals are flocking to him because he assuages their white guilt.

During the speech when Bush addressed Iraq by stating, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt.” The right side of the aisle vaulted from their chairs to cheer. Barak sneered from his seated position, presenting the same body language of disdain as when the National Anthem is playing.

When Bush promised to “ask Congress to meet its responsibilities to these brave men and women by fully funding our troops,” Obama looked like he was taking a shat on the loo.

You have to love the stark contrast presented time and time again between what Republicans believe vs. what the Democrats stand for, Obama in particular. Take, for example, the following excerpt:

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens."

That line best states the differences for me. As the great Ronald Reagan once stated, "Government is not the solution... Gov't is the problem."

Bush continued: "To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy."

I was sitting on my couch getting fired up and excited. My pulse was quickening. This usually only happens in front of the TV during a Red Wing playoff run. I wanted to hear more...

"American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: make the tax relief permanent."

And I finally errupted from my comfortable couch and joined the Republicans on the screen in applause and wild cheers." And the Democrats continued to sit on their hands. Give me more Dubya!

"To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options. We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control."

I'm sure that at this point, a tear ran down my cheek. Talk to me George...

"On matters of science and life, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries. In November, we witnessed a landmark achievement when scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life."

Yes! However, it will not end the acrimony from the left. They have never let facts get in their way before. The whole embryonic stem cell argument was just a front used to excuse abortion. Now that this chair has been pulled away from them they'll find another. Like a macabre game of "duck duck goose", a woman's right to infanticide must be protected.

One thing is certain. We can not afford a Democrat in the white house, especially Obama.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

The wreck of the William J. Clinton

Bill Clinton, the proclaimed "first black president", is looking a little more pale since Obama's run-away victory over wife Hillary in South Carolina primary. The Democrats are a fractured bunch these days, and it is a joy for me to watch them turn on each other ruthlessly. It reminds me of how some starving animals in the wild will eat their own young during times of hardship and drought (due, no doubt, to Republican's SUVs).

Obama's victory speech was filled with not so thinly veiled Clinton bashing. "We are up against conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House," he preached. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

How's that for politics of "hope"?

Of course, it's all bullshit (the democrat platform continues to encourage race, gender, and class warefare for their own empowerment), but ya gotta love him going after Clinton. Clinton used to be untouchable as far as the left was concerned. It never seemed to matter what he said, did, or didn't do. He was unanimously defended against the attacks from the "right wing conspiracy."

The 1990's seem like so long ago. The economy was strong mainly because of the lasting effects from the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. The 90's were NOT prosperous because there was a fat intern giving the commander-in-chief blow jobs in the oval office. It's a "cause and effect" thingy that democrat voters don't seem to understand.

Never-the-less, things were good then and he was giving the credit for it by virtue of his ability to make a good speech, wag his finger at the right, cry on demand and bite his lip like he cared. Perjury, smurgery! Who cared!? Gas was cheap.

That was then, this is now. Clinton is no longer untouchable by the left. Take, for example, Frank Rich's latest column in The New York Times, titled "The Billary Road to Republican Victory." In it he asks, "Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?"

Wow! "fact-challenged?" That creeps very closely to the line of calling Clinton a liar. Of course, this tid bit has been known forever, it's just that stating it used to be taboo for the left. What has changed? Is it because Hillary is no longer the candidate of inevitability?

Politics is a messy business, and the primary season has always been a period to shake out the ideas and ultimately find the candidate worthy of nomination in the general election. I just enjoy watching the Clinton machine go down in flames. It doesn't even matter to me that Clinton's power and influence has been made impotent by his own party instead of the right.

Eat their young indeed! Pass the pepper, the salt is passe.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

The Carlson Caucus

My two older brothers had an interesting email exchange yesterday that I'd like to share with you. They both included me on the "CC" list, but I barely got a word in edgewise! Here it is in it's entirety... (I'll try to keep score for you...)

(From Rick to Greg)
Dear Brother Greg: While I am openly proud of your sincereity and committment to the core religious values we were brought up with (wow, did you really attend weekly Mass last week then get on a bus to DC to participate in the "right to life march?" ), i offer this as food for thought. Roe v Wade is many years old and remains a Sup Ct precedent which may or may not be overturned in whole or in part by the present (new conservative) court with Alito & Roberts joining Scalia and Thomas as the conservative voices of reason. It may or may not be overturned later with a new Supreme Court Justice appointed by the next president if one of the old liberal f***ers dies or retires and a republican is in the white house. While I do not disagree with the basic right to life premise as you know, that each and every human life has innate value (therefore the killing of human embryos for a woman's so called "right to choose" whether to be a mom or not, or for the artificail creation of stem cells for research on medical issues l8ike alzheimers, etc, or for cloning are simply wrong) I wonder if this issue of enormous and overwhelming significance, i.e., "protection of life itself" at some time in the distant future, is the most important issue of the day when determining who should be our next president. The following is the best recitation of the present illegal alien problem of immediate danger to us all that I have seen or heard since listening to my wife (a county public health nurse, as you know) complain of the % of her time now devoted each day to providing her taxpayer paid services to illegals and their families. Since the partial solution is the closing of the Mexican border, thereby making entry by terrorists more difficult as well, another fairly important immediate issue comes to mind. Ponder it. If we can elect a president to deal with each issue great. If not, which really is more immediately important????? Rick

(Greg's response to Rick)
Greetings my Brother! Thank you for the kind words in your opening and let me just say that I am equally proud of you for your shared "core religious values we were brought up with." Yes, Gregory and I did attend the March for Life in our nation's capital and in fact attended mass each of the three days we were there (the trip was a pilgrimage to the grand "Basilica of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception" located in DC, as well as to the march itself). The Basilica is the largest Catholic Church in the country and was well worth the visit all by itself (several beautifully ornate side chapels, mosaic tiled domes, grand statuary, continuous masses, confessions, rosary's being said, etc)... it took our breath away! Now, if I may respond... First, to your "food for thought": As you no doubt remember, much was made during the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings of the Roe v. Wade "precedent" being somehow sacred, with calls for judicial nominees to vow their allegiance to it precisely because it was "already settled law." Even the Republican Senator Arlen Specter railed against any suggestion of over-turning this precedent. My only question to them would be how then did slavery become illegal in this country given that there had previously been a precedent setting court ruling allowing it? The truth is that it took right thinking people of the time to over-turn that bad precedent by recognizing that an immoral law cannot stand... so it will eventually be with Roe I have no doubt. With regard to the questions you posed: I firmly believe that the "protection of life itself" is now the most important issue of the day, especially with respect to the issue of illegal immigration. Yes, a terrorist could come across the border and could cause some death and destruction. But with abortion having actually already killed in excess of 40 million real live people (and more every day), I prefer to deal first with the devil I know. In addition to this modern day holocaust of abortion of course, is the embryonic stem-cell murders performed in the name of science (this in spite of all actual scientific advances with adult stem-cell research by the way). Finally, as to the point you made near the end of your opening remarks that "closing the border will also have the added benefit of keeping out terrorists" I completely agree with you. In fact, I believe that single sentence of yours made a better, more succinct point then did the entire rambling message that followed... it seems that the gist of it is that the author doesn't like the monetary costs associated with illegals? Whatever... that hardly rises to the level of either my core life issues, or your concerns for maintaining our national security. Concerns for economic and other social ills resulting from illegal immigration really do pale in comparison. This isn't just my opinion by the way, as there is in fact a hierarchy of issues defined by the Church whereby the life issues are deemed "non-negotiables" whereas issues such as war and capital punishment can sometimes be justified. It's kinda like comparing jay walking with murder: they are both against the law yet nobody would argue that they were equal offenses to society. Later, Greg

Now I could sense some tension, so I fired back this email meant to diffuse...
(Jerry to G&R)
Brothers, A most enjoyable repartee! An interesting hypothetical, yet a conundrum one not necessarily face. Mitt will satisfy your need to close the borders, Rick, and the Romney will also come down on the side of life every time Greg. As an added virtue, he will carve up the entitlement mentality that permeates and pollutes Washington. Jerry

(Rick to me, with some shots taken at Greg)
Perhaps you are correct; however I suspect that our dear brother referred to by the pundits as a fundamentalist is singularly convinced that the Rev. Huckabey is the best right to lifer, right to life is the most important issue of the day (whensoever it may be solved) and therefore no other issue being quite as important, no other issue need be considered in deciding for whom to vote. Again, I like Mike, but not quite as much on the so called secondary issues of "war on Terror" and potential nuclear obliteration of our major cities, and border control of illegals which may have as much to do with the rescession at present as the war funding, as some of the other candidates of our party. For example Rudy, who I believe has little if any chance at the nomination, to me is hundreds of times more trustworthy than Huckaby to protect us from terrorists, yet Greg has told me many times he will not get his vote for two reasons: 1. his stance on right to life does not equal Mike's; and 2. he is ugly. Really, these are his arguments. Rick

(Greg's response)
I know, I know you say that stuff to get a response... so here goes. The pundits rightfully refer to Huckabee as a "Fundamentalist" given that is his particular religious affiliation. Guys like me however, are more accurately referred to as merely "Catholics" given our beliefs. As for Governor Huckabee, I happen to believe that while probably a viable candidate and a decent man, he is not the best choice for the job. That for me would be Mitt Romney given the choices we have who can actually win the thing from a DemocRAT. If old Mitt can't make it, then I find it a toss-up between Huckabee and McCain. You see, even though Huckabee is a Fundamentalist Christian, I haven't drank the media koolaid to condemn him for that. A Mormon President also do not scare me even though they don't align with Catholicism any better than Fundamentalists do. ANYBODY but Guliani would be fine by me... a bit ironic in that the only so called Catholic in the race is the least in line with Catholic principles and teachings huh? ps - It is not an "either or" choice we face my misguided older brother, but a "both and" right in front of you - as Jerry said: Mitt will satisfy us both. Why you seem to think that the three time married, gay marriage supporting, pro-abortion Guliani would be better for national security is a mystery. All accounts I read of the post 9/11 tragedy concluded the utter lack of preparedness and communication between New York emergency responder firemaen, policemen, etc... and under HIS watch. pss - If you insist upon misquoting my very clearly stated (and well thought out I might add) positions, I will feel compelled to take to the Snapper web site for a little character assasination of my own... Your serve... GC

I tried again...(I don't think it worked)
I feel compelled to put forth this slice of wisdom.
Say what you will about Rudy, Greg. While not a booster of his, you must admit there would be no terrorist bastards squeegying our windshields against our wishes under President Guiliani's watch!

Be glad to comment on the "utter unpreparedness" thing you been reading if I get a chance to read it and see whose saying it. I haven't read those things. I will acknowledge that Rudy probably like the rest of us were as unprepared for 9/11 jumbo jets into buildings as we all are now for nuclear bombs in our cities or more likely still assault rifles in our malls, none of which has happened since 9/11 under dubya causing too many to think it just won't happen on its own cuz it hasn't. Haven't read that though. Everything I read says Rudy was a true leader in a time of chaos bringing calm and emergency responce in so far as possible in a real city he calls home. Just cuz it didn't happen before your eyes in your city doesn't mean it wasn't kinda important to deal with then in responce and clean up and now in preparation for the next and hopefully continued avoidance of same. Kinda the same reason I was the best speaker for MADD for a dozen years after Donnie. Somebody else paying lip service to the importance of his death & the problem causing it who never felt the pain but somehow recalls reading something about it somewhere (it was a sad thing wasn't it?) & therefore never really elevated the problem to the highest priority just would not have been the better one to handle that job at the time. I don't know where Huckaby was during 9/11 or what he did to make it better, or even whether it is as deeply rooted in him to avoid and prepare for now as it is Rudy. I would suspect not. If I were a single issue "right to lifer" I would simply vote Mike. If I were a single issue "war on terror" guy, common sense tells me its Rudy. My point again, is that we probably should in fact elevate one issue over the other in terms of importance to us then also decide what is more immediately addressable, then see if somebody can handle of it and vote that way (Jerry says Mitt). As to the right to life issue, Presidents can influence a change indirectly by appointing conservative justices when there are openings and signing federal laws against (partial birth abortions or stem cell research bans) when those bills are passed by the congress and sent to his desk for signing. Presidents do other things though on a day to day basis while waiting for Supreme Court openings and congressional bills to come in that say something other than "let's stop the war". Commander in Chief is one that comes to mind for me. That is what I am looking for above all else right now because it is doable. Gotta go home now and look at my weekend honeydo list. I know it says to replace the living room carpet and buy and install the gas fireplace and this is by far the most important thing on the list. I'm probable gonna take out the garbage, shovel the walk, fix dinner and do the dishes first because I can actually accomplish those things in the time allotted. Rick