Huffington Unimpressive Again

In another attack dog strike at John McCain, Huffington once again proves how extremists are unable to see the eccentricities in complex issues. In the article called, "John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban", Huffington proves herself either too dense or too enraged from GWB syndrome to understand that our military and intelligence agencies are different weapons against terror and obviously cannot be utilized or regulated in the exact same way.

She begins her rant with this, "Has there ever been a more repugnant example of political pandering than John McCain's decision to vote against a bill banning waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?" The level of intellectual dishonesty in this statement comes straight out of the Karl Rove handbook. She might as well have written that McCain was against a bill banning the eating interrogatees' body parts in order to gain information. Huffington implies with this statement that all of the acts she mentions are not already illegal and John McCain is a-okay with them.

Huffington then goes into a not surprisingly simple argument as to why McCain has gone against everything he has ever said about torture by voting against the bill, "The CIA has to abide by rules prohibiting torture but we can't tie the CIA's hands by making it abide by rules prohibiting torture. Straight talk, RIP...What's more, McCain said he voted against the bill because it would be a mistake to "tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual" -- a Manual he gave a ringing endorsement to in a November debate". Let me put forth the obvious, John McCain believes that the CIA should work within the rules of not only the Geneva Convention, but also any other international treaty the US has signed and federal law. He has said it on the Senate floor, he believes it, his opinion will not change. The Army Field Manual is for the Army. Federal rules and regulations are for guess who? Civilians. In no way did McCain ever say that the CIA did not have to abide by rules prohibiting torture. To say such a thing is an outright lie.

What Huffington does not understand is that in the real world, our military and intelligence agencies are regulated in completely different ways, one military and the other civil. In the real world, the US military is the face of the United States in foreign countries all over the world and the CIA is the hidden force gathering intelligence and sadly overthrowing the occasional government. In other words, they are not to be seen and they do the dirty work that other countries are to not know about. It is obvious that the US military has to be held to a higher standard than even the average American. As the face of America, their actions are on the front page of every newspaper from here to Timbuktu. Why Huffington does not realize this or refuses to acknowledge this is either a result of her own lack of brain power or most likely her bias for Barrack Obama shining through.

I find these types of attacks on John McCain disgusting. The man fought for this country. The man endured years of torture, turning down his own freedom because he could not abandon his fellow soldiers. To attack a man that has been tortured because of his specific stance on torture is the type of pathetically bias political maneuver that should be categorized with the Swift-boaters for Truth.

Huffington has become exactly the same type of political monster she once spoke out against. Now who is the hypocrite?

SuperPathetic SuperDelegates

It was reported by CNN that each superdelegate's vote equals 13,000 normal votes. The democrats have given their superdelegates the power of a million voters. I've already touched on how horribly undemocratic and disenfranchising this is to democrat voters. Now lets look at who these superdelegates are. We know some are governors and former Presidents, but not all of them can be held in such high regard...and here they are.

Jason Rae was 17 years old when he received the title "Superdelegate". Kare Travers reported, "Rae was elected as a DNC member at the Wisconsin state party convention in June 2004. He was 17 years old at the time but there are no party rules that say a DNC member has to be of voting age. Rae ran against and defeated the president of the state firefighters' union and a state legislator." Yes, not even old enough to vote, yet still a superdelegate with the power to disenfranchise 13,000 registered adult voters. Mr. Rae is now 21 and fielding phone calls from some of the most influential democrats in America. I wonder what they are talking about? I think it is reasonable to assume his political career is topic 1 on Mr. Rae's mind.

Sarah Swisher is a nurse. She is also the political director of the Johnson County, Iowa chapter of the Service Employees International Union. She had first pledged her delegate to John Edwards. After Edwards dropped out, she pledged her delegate to Hillary Clinton. Now she has once again changed her mind and is pledging her delegate to Barrack Obama. You have to love the strength in principle shown by this particular superdelegate. I can understand leaving Edwards once he left the campaign. I don't understand jumping to Clinton so quickly and then dumping her for Obama once it appears he is the current front runner. This isn't speed dating.

Manny Rodriguez and Maria Handly of Colorado are Internet ghosts. I am not sure if they actually exist. So far all I could find out about them is that they have never once held any sort of political office.

Debbie Marquez, also of Colorado, appears to be a house mom dabbling in getting her MBA. You can get the details here at her website.

In Kansas, we find Randy Roy who appears to be a professional DNC member, if that is possible. We also find E. Lee Kinch, who is a defense attorney.

California is full of mostly union organizers whos addresses are listed on the Internet, not safe. Steven Alari had this written about him, "My ambivalence about Alari is caused by his job classification (AGPA) -- one that doesn't require much education or analytical skills --". Not exactly a raving review for a union worker that carries the weight of 13,000 voters. It gets worse. Mary Ellen Early only has a BA in psychology and was appointed to the California Board of Psychology by the State Senate.

There is also good news! Christine Pelosi, daughter of Congresswomen Pelosi, is actually very qualified, go here to see why.

I will keep this blog going as I discover more about these "superdelegates". You can go here to get a list http://superdelegates.org/Main_Page

Obama the Hypocrite

Barrack Obama has often spoke out against Hillary Clinton taking contributions from Washington lobbyists. Obama said, "In this campaign, [Clinton has] taken nearly double the amount of money from lobbyists than any Democrat or Republican running for president," he also said. "That's not being a part of the solutions business. That's being a part of business-as-usual in Washington."

Apparently Obama believes it is wrong to take money from lobbyists, but it is perfectly fine to take a land discount from a dirty political power broker, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, in the state of Illinois. Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz reported, "While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000...Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,500..." They further reported that, "An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation."

The following is another report from Tim Novak.

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor."

Now who is Rezko? "Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars", reports Ross and Schwartz.

Obama explains this incident by saying he made "a bone-headed mistake." Really? A bonehead mistake? It sounds more like Obama and Rezko found a way to give Obama a little under the table money. Who needs to abide by campaign rules when you can hand out cash in dirty land deals? This was not a bone-headed mistake. This was a deliberate and successful attempt to flaunt campaign rules. This was Rezko getting his fingers into Obama before he hit the big time. This reminds me of a dirty sports agent going after a 16-year-old basketball player before he makes the NBA, and like with basketball players, Obama takes the help, anything to get himself out of the "ghetto" state Senate.

I am sorry, but it is no coincidence that Rezko's wife and the Obama family just happened to purchase land next to each other. It was not merely a convenient deal for Obama to purchase the land from Rezko's wife. This was a dirty land deal and this is what Obama "hopes" people continue to ignore.

It is completely hypocritical for Obama to point his finger at Clinton after what he has done. Obviously Obama does not have to stoop to such behavior now, but there is a historical precedent here that we cannot ignore. When Obama needs something, he is more than willing to get dirty in order to get it. That sounds awful familiar...that sounds a lot like the Bush Administration.

A really nasty question that no one wants to touch

Will the nomination of Obama drive Latino voters to McCain and maybe even permanently to the Republican party? I am not trying to fear monger or play some race card on why Democrats shouldn't vote for Obama. I think it is a legitimate question considering the less talked about race issues between black and brown voters. Living in Los Angeles gives me a unique perspective on the relationship between the two and I think this is a valid question. I don't think the question is relevant in regards to the current nomination process, but I do think it is something people will need to think about come November and maybe further into the future.

Please understand that I am not trying to single out Latinos as racist. You can find racists in every culture. I think the question needs to be answered because the Latino voting block is exploding and will have a massive affect on politics in the future, which it rightly should.

If this is true, the Democratic party is going to have to find a way to pull these voters back. Karl Rove found a way to get them in 2000 and 2004. If Obama is nominated, I think Democrats will have to do the same. If this question is ignored, Democrats could have problems in years to come.

The Fat Man's Fat Head

Have to post this now and will comment later....Rush has lost it. He is backtracking and looking like an idiot in the process.

"If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything."

"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."

"Couldn't it be said, if somebody wanted to…that I am secretly supporting McCain, because I secretly do want him to win, but I know full well that if I come out and endorse him, he's cooked?" Limbaugh asked. "Who may be in this whole kit and caboodle, this who shebang, the most valuable asset McCain has?"

"Me."

Arianna Huffington, I never cared much for you

Huffington has always been a little crazy. She is like the Ann Coulter of the far left, just not as lizard-like as Ann. Her opinions are usually over the top and whenever I see her in a debate I want duct tape her mouth shut. Huffington almost always starts out with a logical argument and then turns into a rabid dog by the end of any debate. If any of you have seen her on Bill Maher, you know exactly what I am talking about.

Today Arianna has gone after John McCain an article called "End of a Romance: Why the Media and Independent Voters Need to Break Up with John McCain", saying about McCain, "If you love George Bush, and all that he's brought you over the last seven years, you're gonna love John McCain." She goes into a rant about McCain loving Karl Rove and McCain wanting to spend 1,000 years in Iraq. This is from the same woman that had invited McCain to be a guest speaker at one of her own conventions.

I'll give Huffington some credit. She did briefly go into why she liked John McCain at one point in time. Huffington wrote, "The old John McCain once stood tall as a fearless leader on immigration, co-sponsoring a humane, bipartisan reform bill with Ted Kennedy." Sadly, she fails to mention campaign reform, voting against tax cuts for the rich, and forming the gang of 14 that kept the far right from appointing hard core conservative federal judges. McCain also supports embryonic stem cell research and is firmly against torture, another reason the far right does not like him.

Ms. Huffington takes a very "what have you done for me lately" stance, ironically the same stance Ingram took with McCain at CPAC, with a man that has been very moderate and independent throughout his career and is in the middle of winning the Republican nomination. What exactly is he supposed to do? Tell the far right to go to hell and then get destroyed in the general election?

She isn't being fair to John McCain. I guess I shouldn't expect fairness from a liberal extremist. They are now in attack mode...go after the opposition no matter who it is. A fair warning to you Ms Huffington, John McCain will be returning to the Senate and he is not the kind of political beast you want to upset.....don't make John McCain angry, you wouldn't like him when he's angry.

Novak and Estrich on focus point

Susan Estrich from Fox News just wrote an article that mirrors Novak's. Susan doesn't drop in details this time. Novak was murdered on realclearpolitics by readers that caught him on his bad data and maybe Susan was smart enough to look at the response before putting out her own article. It looks like the Republican machine is back on the march. They don't want Obama and they will do anything to keep that from happening. I would quote her article, but if you have already read Novak's, then there is no reason to read Susan's.

I think the Republicans are a little delusional right now. Clinton will not be much easier than Obama and if they keep tearing down McCain, November will be a cake walk for whoever wins the Dem nomination.

Novak's The Bradley Effect

I just finished a horrifically written and disturbingly biased article by Robert Novak. Novak, in a pathetic and transparent attempt at scaring the American public, played the race card today. America won't vote for a black guy, implies Novak. It is the Bradley effect all over again. He uses California as his premise and bad data to back it up. First he states that two polls showed Obama winning California, when really only one of those polls had Obama ahead.

"Zogby and SurveyUSA polls showing big Obama leads in California, it is argued, were just plain wrong."

SurveyUSA had Clinton ahead 52-42 on the day before the election

Then he says that people, not wanting to be seen as racist, just said that they voted for Obama, when they really voted for Clinton. Novak conveniently forgot that a large number, 42%, of California ballots where mail in ballots. A lot of these ballots were most likely mailed off before Obama made his push.

The truth is, Novak and his conservative masters, want no piece of Barrack Obama. Hillary is an easy target, but Obama seems almost untouchable. If Bill Clinton can't even imply race, then what is a Republican to do??? As much as I like John McCain, Barrack Obama would destroy him in a general election....Novak knows this and is doing whatever he can to make sure Hillary is the nominee.

What Novak doesn't get, is that George Bush has insured that no Republican will win in the general. McCain doesn't have a chance...voter turnout alone is proof enough of this.

Mr. Novak, and I use "Mr." loosely, we can see the fear in your lies.

The AntiBush

The anti-Bush is getting killed today in the...how to say it...more religious than intelligent states. But that gets me thinking about McCain and his favor with moderate and independent voters. I think it is because he is viewed as the anti-Bush. Between his battles with Bush in 2000, his record against Bush policies in the Senate, and his constant rattling about the need to fire Rumsfeld, I think McCain has set up himself up as the one guy that won't be George Bush. After the complete "thumping" the Reps received in 2006, the moderate Reps are looking for an anti-Bush, but a pro war guy that won't pull out of Iraq.

It also didn't hurt that Rudy had a horrible personal life and was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and very gay friendly. For some reason Rep power brokers thought that being the Mayor of 911 would make conservative voters forget about those things...out of my cold dead hand, said the conservatives to that. Fred, who really was the guy that could unite the blue blood reps with the social conservatives, simply didn't appear to care. Mitt put up a good fight, but in the end, you simply couldn't trust that his change was real change or just his current stance in order to get the nomination. Huck is still fighting the good fight and pulling in delegates. Personally, I think the only reason he is still in the race is so people won't accuse him of working with McCain to get rid of Mitt....and believe me, they would, and they still might!

Super Delegates to the Rescue??

It's the new buzz word. Superdelegates! Talk about disenfranchising voters. There is nothing moderate or middle of the road about giving hundreds of people more say in an election than millions of voters. Caucuses are bad enough, but superdelegates? My goodness, I bet the Democrats are kicking themselves for not getting rid of this little kink in their primary process. I know people in the midwest that stood out in the freezing rain so they could take turns caucusing in a building that was too small for the turnout. 1200 people took turns in a tiny building, 100 at a time, caucusing for the person they felt would be the best person for the job of President. And Joe Blow political brown noser gets to cancel out those people with his one vote. How fair is that?