The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
The view out a northwest-facing window about 10:30 this morning (I would have done the one out the southwest-facing living room one, but that, along with all the northeast-facing ones, have significant precip on it)…
Sorry; I blew up the wrong folder. No pic.
It’s so bad that my church, St. John’s Ev. Lutheran in Oak Creek (the one on Howell, not the one on Oakwood), has postponed its Ash Wednesday services until tomorrow (still at 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm).
The Blogfather (Cheddarsphere edition) has a very active discussion (both on the blog and on his 50,000-watt microphone) on the four broad categories conservatives are faced with because of the inevitability of John McCain:
Conservatives are now breaking down into four categories:
CATEGORY ONE VOTERS: Think McCain is conservative enough and will rally around him as the nominee.
CATEGORY TWO VOTERS: Depressed, disillusioned, angry. Backed someone else, disagree with him on a lot of issues, but will hold their noses and vote for McCain in the general against either Clinton or Obama.
CATEGORY THREE VOTERS: Depressed, disillusioned, angry. Will sit out the general election if McCain is the nominee.
CATEGORY FOUR VOTERS: Depressed, disillusioned, angry. Following Ann Coulter off the cliff and actually vote for Hillary or Obama.
Charlie is currently a Cat 2, with the right to flip to either Cat 1 or Cat 3 depending on the VP nominee (Mike Huckabee would cause him to move to a 3). As for me, I’m a “Cat 5”; I will write two people of my choice in on the Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket, and then work on trying to get conservatives (not synonymous with Republicans, though every conservative in federal politics is a Republican) into Congress.
I’ve already laid out my case why I cannot vote for McCain, but I’ll repeat myself. The War on Terror notwithstanding, and then not even all elements of that, he would be far happier as a ‘Rat. Indeed, he sought out an opportunity to become one twice in the last 8 years, once attempting to do so with someone diametrically opposed to the War on Terror. Except for certain elements of the WOT and his opposition to earmarks (which, depending on the earmark, is also shared with the ‘Rats), every issue he’s passionate about is shared with the ‘Rats: from his persistent attacks on the rich to McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act, from closing Club Gitmo to supporting liberal Supreme Court Justices (yes, McCain supported Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer), from torpedoing tax cuts becuse the government “cannot pay for them” to ending pharmaceutical research by allowing reimportation of drugs at Canadian prices, from enriching trial lawyers by claiming he’s “for the people” to his active support of various liberals and liberal causes against conservatives to his acceptance of Gorebal Warming and government’s heavy-handed role in “ending” it.
Voting for the ‘Rat, whether it be Obama or Clinton, is similarily not an option. I am not prepared to bow to Mecca or pay the huda to stay alive, and that is the inevitable conclusion of failing to win the WOT. I am also diametrically-opposed to the expansion of the welfare state, and both Obama and Clinton will do so.
I know that writing in somebody else will not mean anything; however, since I am in Wisconsin, I reject the premise that not voting for McCain is a vote for the ‘Rat. If Bush could not carry Wisconsin in 2000 or 2004, the former with a Republican in the governor’s mansion, no non-Democrat will carry Wisconsin, at least as long as Doyle and company are in charge of the machine, and probably for decades on end. We have become North Illinois, and the Milwaukee/Racine/Kenosha corridor has become North Chicago (side note; I guess that’s why the KRM train is being shoved down our throats).
Instead, I will focus on getting conservatives in to Congress. It has been proven time and again that it is the brake on liberal tendencies out of the Oval Office. From stopping the first attempt at universal health care (remarkable because both the Oval Office and Congress were occupied by ‘Rats) to stopping shamnesty, it was pressure on Congress and the presence of enough conservatives (though barely in both cases) that stopped the shift.
I am a realist; in state after state after state, far more ‘Rats than Pubbies showed up at the polls for the primaries. It’s likely I, and the shrinking number of those that think like me, will be no more successful in stopping the ‘Rat tide than we were in stopping McCain. However, I will die with my boots on.
Perhaps the only greater irony of this election season would have been if Blooper Tuesday would have fallen on the 6th.
One last semi-drunk/semi-hung over post before I grab a quick wink. The popular meme is that it will be Mike Huckabee, based on the deal the two reached to help send Mitt Romney into the Super-Duper Loseday death spiral. That is not exactly a sure thing. McCain doesn’t exactly need a lot of help in the South; he held his own south of the Mason-Dixon line. Further, Huckabee is a social conservative, and McCain is likely going to be drunk with delusions of grandeur since he (all-but-)won the nomination of the “conservative” party by spitting in the eyes of the conservatives, be they economic, governmental or social.
Rather, I suspect he will go with a moderate-to-liberal woman, probably Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Given there will be either a black man or a white woman at the head of the other ticket, he will be under intense pressure to respond in kind. Rudy Giuliani would be the RNC choice, given that the schedule was originally set up with him in mind, he is also a liberal, and he yielded and endorsed McCain to deliver the Northeast. However, he is a white guy, and that just won’t do. At last check, Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice, who would both be yet another spit in the eyes of conservatives, are not interested. Michael Steele and J.C. Watts, while qualifying on the minority front, are probably too conservative for McCain.
Thoughts? Suggestions? The comments are open.
Note; I wrote most of this yesterday afternoon/evening; I’m rushing this out while hung over because the inevitable has happened.
Back in April, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute asked some of Wisconsin’s best and brightest right-of-center minds to answer the question, “Is Conservatism Out Of Gas?” (easier-to-follow archives than what they provide here for week 1 and here for weeks 2-4). I threw in my two cents on both Wisconsin and the national scene, and given the events of the Republican Presidential primary/caucus season, it’s high time to revisit this.
As the title says, this revisit will focus on the national scene, but I would be remiss if I didn’t briefly mention the Wisconsin one. While the situation hasn’t changed since I last visited the question, there is some progress on the judicial front. We did find a judicially-conservative judge, Mike Gabelman, to take on Doyle appointee Justice Louis Butler for the Supreme Court. Depending on what happens in that race, I may revisit that portion.
There are four basic legs of the conservative coalition, three of which are essentially unique to American conservatism and two of which are shared by libertarians. The first one I’ll deal with is governmental conservatism, shared with libertarians. At the federal level, it is a basic respect for the Constitution, and for federalism, which precludes using the federal government as an “overlord” to either push a particular philosophy or to buy votes. The three candidates who espoused this, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul, all were summarily rejected. In no state did the three of them even amount to a quarter of the vote. Mitt Romney attempted some outreach in this regard after a governorship spent growing the public-private partnership in Massachusetts; however, his only success in a state where he faced competition was after once again dipping into the bigger government well.
Why did this die? Simple; decades upon decades of government cultivating a dependence of the populace on it has, as surely as nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, or caffeine, created a dependence on government that is exceptionally hard to break, even as the country plunges into an economic mess caused by the creation and expansion of that dependence. One could say that it died when the 104th Congress lost the government shutdown battle in 1995, and he or she would have a valid point. One could also say it died when George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate ‘conservative'”, and again he or she would have a valid point. It just hasn’t been recognized until now.
The second portion that is at best on life support, almost as a direct result of the death of the first, is economic conservatism, also shared by libertarians. The few tax cuts that aren’t specifically targeted at a small subset of the few taxpayers left are sold not as actually reducing the amount of money the federal government receives. Indeed, it is hard, if not impossible, to use government as a way to buy votes without a complete lack of fiscal restraint.
There is a little bit of hope in this regard; John McCain does recognize the need to not have earmarks; however, the fight against earmarks is but a small part of economic conservatism, and that’s the only part that McCain recognizes. Morever, the fallout from the method of his primary win, including the likelyhood of humiliation in November, makes even that moot.
The third leg, a victim of suicide, is social conservatism. Rather than embrace candidates that also espouse the remainder of the conservative coalition, the voters listened to the RNC’s thinly-veiled call to push out those that believe in small government and fiscal restraint and pushed a candidate who, franky, is a big-government socialist, Mike Huckabee. The remainder of the conservative coalition pushed back, and after a surprise win in Iowa, Huckabee didn’t have a single win until today with a “stop-Romney” parliamentary move in West Virginia, with follow-on wins in his home state of Arkansas and heavily-Southern Baptist Arkansas.
That leaves the last leg, foreign policy. It is the one that is not, at least historically, uniquely-American. I will note that Paul is the outlier here; as a libertarian, he espouses weakness in the face of attacks, and that has been roundly rejected by the Republicans. The remainder of the candidates, both surviving and withdrawn, do recognize that to retreat in the face of attacks is only a recipe for the ultimate defeat of America. However, that is not, on its own, enough to carry the day. By focusing solely on this to the mutual exclusion of the other three legs, the RNC has planted the seeds of its humiliation in November. There are many conservatives, both influential and bloggers, who have vowed not to vote for John McCain.
I briefly considered tossing this, or at least postponing it again, after a rather lengthy discussion with Brian Fraley over beers. However, I’ve put it off too long. I hope the RNC is happy with the separation of the Republican Party from the conservatives and the resulting death spiral last experienced by the Whig Party. I also hope the rank-and-file is happy with being a national minority party for the remainder of its marked time as it is poised to nominate a candidate who would rather be a member of the other party. Lastly, I hope the “conservatives” who participated in the systematic destruction of every candidate who came forth to carry the broad-based conservative banner by voting for or supporting somebody else because of some perceived slight are happy about being shoved into the dustbin of history, because neither McCain nor the Democrats will let conservatives back into the political game if they can help it.
Revisions/extensions (1:06 am 2/6/2008) – There is a lot of good discussion over at Michelle’s place, as she notes there is an actual CPAC topic called, “Is the GOP lost?”.
I just got back from my precinct caucus. According to those that have been a part of this process over the past many years we had more people at the caucus tonight than they have had in the last 5 or 6 caucuses (we caucus every 2 years) combined. Rumor has it that throughout MN caucus locations are overflowing with people at both R and D locations (haven’t heard anything about the I’s).
After electing a president a secretary, talliers etc. etc. we finally got around to the straw poll. Surprising to me the results of the straw poll was that Romney accumulated more votes than the Huckabee, McCain and Paul together. Being we are a caucus state and this is a straw poll it’s hard to say how this will translate into actual delegates when all is said and done.
So other than being reaffirmed about the general quality of my neighbor’s thinking, what does all this mean?
First, while MN nice was in full force (over crowded caucus building, shortage of supplies etc.) there was defnitely a passion in the group. People weren’t there just doing their civic duty. The large turnout was driven by people who are genuinely concerned about this election. This was NOT a group of Republican zombies.
Second, I was really encouraged by the age demographics within the group. With all the talk about young folks scrambling toward BO you’d think there would not be any R folks under the age of 30! I’m happy to report that about 15% of our caucus were folks that were 25 or younger.
Third, I think the McCain folks anticipated getting whacked at least in this area of the burbs. We have been strong Bush supporters and have House representation that is VERY conservative. We had one (likely) McCain supporter who made a speech telling each of us that we needed to support the R party nominee whoever that ultimately was! Sitting out the election, according to this person, was never acceptable.
I’ll wait and see but it sounds like MN might go for Romney. However, I don’t know if that’s going to matter in the end. I just don’t know that he can overcome McCain especially if you assume that Huckabee’s delegates are likely going his way also.
I’ll end with a piece of advice for the McCain campaign that comes from my experience tonight….Rush and Ann Coulter are not the only two people who have no confidence in you as a conservative. In fact, I’m no longer the only person in my little corner of the world that agrees with them. There are lots of R people out here who have grave concerns about electing you President. Remember that we got our “You must vote for the nominee” lecture? At the end of that lecture a lady looked back at the party zombie and told him politely but directly, “There are breaking points for me which I can not go beyond. I will not vote for a candidate who goes beyond that breaking point. I will either sit it out or I may even vote for the other candidate.”
My advice for McCain is that there are many people who believe you have gone beyond the breaking point. Maybe you don’t care. Maybe you think that you can get enough of the I’s, the middle R’s and a few D’s to get you elected. If you’re interested in those of us who believe you’ve passed on, don’t tell us how we need to support the R, don’t tell us what a great conservative you are, don’t invoke Reagan’s name EVER again. If you’re interested in us, show us, between now and November show us by your action that you value our vote. If you show us, there’s a lot of people out here who are really concerned about this election and will help you. If you don’t show us, don’t be suprised when a large group of us just sit this one out.
Update……
McCain ought to be taking my advice but it appears he isn’t:
By Jed Babbin at HumanEvents.Com http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24859
According to my source, McCain has prepared a video featuring President Ronald Reagan to make the introduction. If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly. This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."
There’s an old story about two guys who are out hiking in the woods. Long into their hike, in the deepest part of the woods, they stumble upon a bear. The startled bear turns and begins to growl at the two men giving every indication that it is about to charge. Immediately, the first of the two men sits down, takes a new pair of high quality running shoes out of his backpack and starts putting them on. The second man looked incredulously at the first man says, "What are you doing? You can’t out run that bear!" The second man replies matter of factly, "I don’t have to, I just have to out run you!"
OK this is an old joke but it seems to sum up John McCain’s approach to winning the Republican nomination. McCain’s shenanigan’s in WV show that if he can’t win outright he’ll do whatever he needs to make sure that Romney gets eaten by the bear!
Some of you folks may find McCain’s tactic in WV surprising although I can’t imagine why. McCain has shown on numerous occasions that his need to be in the MSM spotlight far outweighs any sense of team or camaraderie, at least with anyone that would be considered conservative. Off the top of your head, can you name any legislation that McCain sponsored that didn’t include one of the most liberal of liberals as a cosponsor? McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Feingold?
Anyone who thinks that a "President" McCain will reach across the aisle (to the right!) or move towards the right are living with greater H.O.P.E. than the staunchest Obama supporter.
Since Mike Huckabee teamed up with both John McCain and Ron Paul (Nick? Chris? Flashy? Care to explain?) to take West Virginia from Mitt Romney, I’m going to be taking the rest of the afternoon to write my answer to the question.
I’ll let you guys in on the vomit-enducing fun a bit early, however, with a new NRE poll:
Is conservatism dead?
Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed
Total Voters: 93
Loading ...I’m working on a couple of divergent things, and I am preparing for the Fat Tuesday Drinking Right, so I will not be offering coverage of Super-Duper Tuesday. I can’t speak for any of my guest-bloggers (except for Fred, who will also be face-down in beads before the night is over; just don’t tell Mrs. RDW).
If you are looking for coverage, I highly recommend the following places (hopefully I remembered to shut off the pingbacks for those few who I’m putting links to posts instead of the main blog for; since this place will likely be silent tonight, I don’t need the traffic of those looking for SDT coverage):
– Michelle Malkin
– Mike’s America (he’ll have a live chat going)
– American Princess (E.M. will be a bit late)
– Hot Air
– TownHall
– Pajamas Media
– VodkaPundit (who is also part of the PJM coverage)
– Free Republic
– Sister Toldjah
– Suitably Flip
– Little Green Footballs
– Ace and the fellow moronbloggers
– The Campaign Spot
– bRight & Early
If I forgot you, I apologize; this one’s going up early. Leave a comment/pingback/trackback, and hopefully a few people will find their way into your place from the comments section (no, I will not be updating this; I don’t feel like having to check and uncheck the auto-notification option).
It’s been way too long since a HamNation has come down the pike, but this one’s worth it. Since I don’t want to steal from The Hammer, go, watch, and marvel at the genius that is MKH.
10-14″ total, starting about the time of the afternoon rush, may keep the rank amateurs away from alcohol-related Fat Tuesday parties, but if you’re here, I doubt you’re a rank amateur. Therefore, if you’re in the Milwaukee area, I do believe you’ve been invited to a very special Drinking Right tonight.
On a semi-related note, I may not be a Catholic, but I don’t believe snow cream is something you have to give up for Lent. Heck, I might even try it with a chocolate twist this time around. A word to the wise; you may want to mark where you leave the collection bowl tonight and secure it; there will be a lot of snow and wind.
Apparently, there was a flaw in previous versions of WordPress that allowed a subscriber to assume more control over a blog than intended. For those of you with your own WordPress installations, please upgrade to 2.3.3 now. I do not know if this also affects stand-alone WordPress MU installs (Jim, you might want to check on this one), but those blogging through WordPress.com should be safe.
Also, if you’re running the WP-Forum plugin (I’m not), it is highly recommended you disable it until a major security flaw is fixed.
Stephen Green describing Congress to somebody north of the longest undefended border in the world (no, not the Mexican-American border, at least not yet):
The Senate is kind of like the House of Lords, only we’ve been stupid enough to let them hold on to real power.
The House is 435 people so offensive that their neighbors think it’s worth spending a couple hundred thousand dollars a year just to ship them away to Washington. These same bozos determine our taxes.
To which I add, the Speaker of the House tends to think that he or she is Prime Minister, when it is the executive that presides over the Senate.
At the risk of wearing out my welcome…..
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Xvx17scJk[/youtube]
Now, is it just me or did The Straight Talk Express just say that he would continue the Bush tax cuts as long as the economy was doing poorly? I wonder how well the economy needs to do to be able to sustain tax increases? Does it bother anyone that McCain has refused to take the “no new taxes” pledge?
This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated in response to Fred’s activation of the Drinking Right Preferential Tuesday Alert System. This is not a drill (they go Black-and-Decker-Black-and-Decker-Black-and-Decker), nor is this a test (no grades will be handed out).
Drinking Right will not be held the second Tuesday of the month (as usual), Drinking Right will be held tomorrow, the 5th of February at Papa’s Social Club.
See you there.
In addition, unless Patrick, Shoebox, or Leslie want to liveblog Super-Duper Fat Tuesday, there will be no liveblog of that here. Your crazy humble blog host will have details on who is live-blogging tomorrow (Fred and Steve will be too busy drinking, Aaron will be too busy in Ohio). This concludes this activation of the Emergency Blogging System.
I’m sort-of encouraging Shoebox, a good guy who stumbled in on the last couple of liveblogs, to start blogging. While he doesn’t have a blog of his own (yet), he now has an open door here.
Please give him a warm welcome.
While I tend to feel strongly about positions I take, I try to ensure that emotion doesn’t come into play until I’ve made a sound decision. This is why I’ve been puzzled by why I have such a strong aversion to John McCain as the potential Republican nominee when I hear that the American Conservative Union (ACU) has given him a lifetime rating of 82.3. Is it possible that I’ve gotten myself wrapped up in the McCain derangement rather than doing a thoughtful analysis? After looking at the ACU it turns out that like most things McCain has said lately, while the fact snippet is true, there is much more to the story.
McCain does indeed have a lifetime rating of 82.3 from the ACU. However, his recent ratings tell a different story. In 2005 McCain’s rating was 80, still not bad. In 2006 McCain’s rating dropped to 65. Why has McCain dropped?
One might say that McCain’s drop is somehow related to issues that are peculiar to his representation of the people of Arizona. One might say that, but if they do they would have to ask McCain’s Arizona counterpart, Senator Kyle why he has a lifetime rating of 96.9, a 2005 rating of perfect 100 and a 2006 rating of 80. Obviously the issue isn’t representation of Arizona residents. No, Senator McCain’s issue is that in 2006 he decided to vote against positions that are solidly conservative.
Everyone is aware that McCain went AWOL regarding the amnesty issue but does anyone remember that in July of last year McCain voted against the building of the border fence? Oh yeah, I forgot, he’s learned his lesson now!
How about taxes? I can’t figure out whether McCain is for or against Bush’s tax cuts. He seems to dance around the issue each time it is asked. Does anyone remember when McCain voted for a Senate bill that would have increased the number of votes required to LOWER TAXES from a simple majority to 60 votes? Does this really sound like someone who thinks tax cuts are important?
How about prolife? McCain’s record is consistently conservative when it comes to abortion. However, in my book, prolife issues also extend to embryonic research. I find it hard to reconcile being prolife but accepting the use of embryonic stem cells. At the very least, embryonic stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government. Yup, that would be the consistent prolife position but it’s not McCain’s. McCain voted FOR the bill that allowed the use of federal funds for embryonic research. I could go on with other examples of McCain’s recent lack of conservatism but I won’t. The nauseating details can be found here: http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm
So why do I think I’m schizophrenic when thinking of McCain’s lifetime ACU ratings and his non-conservative rap? The answer is I’m not, he is! While having a lifetime rating that is not perfect but is acceptable, during the most recent 18 months his liberal leanings have become more apparent. When the likes of Chuck Hagel and Norm Coleman have better ACU ratings than you do I think it’s safe to say that you’ve left the conservative wing of the party!
Revisions/extensions (5:11 pm 2/4/2008; steveegg) – Fixed some formatting issues.
Revisions/extensions (1:30 pm 2/6/2008) – McCain is now inevitable. “Thank” you RNC, rank-and-file, and “conservatives” who refused to back and ultimately coalesce around a conservative candidate.
Flip has been doing a bang-up job on keeping track of the delegate counts. Indeed, I’m going to, er, borrow his GOP Primary Scoreboard – Maine Edition…
Sorry, I blew up my pics folder
Flip also ran the math on what Mitt Romney would need post-Super-Duper Tuesday to get the nomination based on what he gets on SDT. He figures that, for any candidate to remain viable after SDT, the candidate would have to need no more than 2/3rds of the delegates unspoken for by SDT. In Romney’s case, that would mean he would need to get at least 34% of the delegates in SDT.
Because I’m not satisfied by looking at just the latest candidate the LeftStreamMedia is trying to dump out of the race, I decided to resynthesize the viability factors for the remainder of the candidates, taking each through the full gamut of 0% of the SDT delegates (or the percentage a particular candidate would need just to remain mathematically in it without taking from one of the other 4) to 100%. Of particular note, I also ran a set for John McCain that assumed he would get all of Mike Huckabee’s delegates after SDT, and that Huckabee would have 165 delegates coming out of tomorrow (in short, his percentage of delegates now). First, the chart for McCain and Romney:
Note that, if McCain does not get Huckabee’s delegates, he will need to get 34% of the SDT delegates to remain “effectively viable”, that is, he needs to get no more than 2/3rds of the remaining delegates. That is the same (give or take rounding) as what Romney needs. Similarily, for McCain to become “effectively inevitable”, that is, he would need no more than 1/3rd of the remaining delegates, he would have to get 69% of the SDT delegates, compared to Romney’s 70%.
Where it gets interesting is when one adds Huckabee’s delegates to McCain’s. I’ll ignore the “effectively viable” number I originally calculated, as an 18% showing would make McCain anything but viable. However, if McCain and Huckabee got a combined 66% of the SDT delegates (the example in my chart has McCain getting 53% and Huckabee 13%), and all of Huckabee’s delegates went to McCain (or vice versa if you’re a Huckster), he would become effectively inevitable. Also, even if McCain and Huckabee took every delegate on Tuesday, their combined delegate count would not be enough to mathematically lock up the nomination.
Next up, the surviving also-rans, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul:
In order to remain “effectively viable”, both Huckabee and Paul would need to get at least 40% of the delegates on SDT. Morever, while both could theoretically be mathematically eliminated, only Paul is in serious danger of that. He would need to more than double his average delegate performance in order to have any shot whatsoever.
(Extension) Now that Super-Duper Tuesday is over, let’s go back to Flip for an analysis of the numbers. He does assume that McCain got all of California’s delegates because he won every county, while Jim Geraghty says that Romney will end up winning between 2 and 4 of California’s Congressional districts and thus between 6 and 12 delegates. There are also currently a few anomalies between plugging the percentages into the above analysis and the current Flip analysis that I cannot currently explain.
What is clear by any metric that includes California is that McCain has somewhere more than 60% of the delegates he needs to get the nomination on the first ballot. Worse, specifically for those hoping for a brokered convention, there already has been a deal cut between McCain and Huckabee, specifically in the West Virginia convention, where the McCain delegates flipped to Huckabee en masse on the second ballot. If the inverse holds true, McCain would have roughly 75% of the delegates he needs.
The road is all-but-impossible for Romney. Most if the states and territories up in the next 2 weeks, including Wisconsin, use by-district WTA schemes, and I expect McCain to take both of the “state”wide WTA contests (the largest prize of Virginia and the District of Columbia) as he is the Beltway and veteran candidate.
The Cheddarsphere’s Blogfather obtained a copy of an e-mail exchange between Paul Olsen (yes, the brother of Sen. Luther Olsen, both of the Olsen family distillery infamy) and Luther’s chief of staff Heather Smith over Luther’s decision to once again recuse himself from the corn-a-hole debate after initially being a cosponsor, partly because it went onto the state’s e-mail system and thus is a public record, but mostly because it went out to upwards of 40 people legitimately. What is quite telling is a portion of Smith’s response…
…There are a huge number of people in southeast Wisconsin – not just talk radio, but certainly including them, who are looking for a reason to take out Luther, and make him the next Mary Panzer. Bob can tell you this easily – there are a ton of the “true conservatives” (who also are the ethanol-haters) from down there who have pledged to defeat any republican who would dare to vote for this….
So they start by ginning up support in the moneyed Milwaukee market which HATES ethanol. Whatever. If it’s only Milwaukee people, you can probably withstand the storm, because you can assume your constituents are OK. But, and clearly you don’t realize this, Luther’s constituents heard this, and reacted. And not 3-4-5-10 people. We got dozens of
calls and emails just yesterday alone. From constituents. Not from just people who hate ethanol, although there were a few of those. But from people who think that Luther is dirty. That he’s deceitful. That you are. That he’s pulling a fast one on everyone, so that you and he benefit. These are the people Luther asks permission from every few years to keep his job.There were not a hundred calls, or ten, or EVEN ONE CALL from a constituent who wanted to tell Luther, “Heck yeah, vote for this, it’s great!” We got a memo from a “special interest group” and the DNR, and heaven knows the DNR should always be listened to.
As a Milwaukee-area ethanol-hater (no need for the scare quotes when it’s burned; put it into a glass and I rather like ethanol), I will work to oust those that want to burn our food. ‘Tis good to hear the folks of Olsen’s district have risen up, and also good that he has listened to them.
As an aside, I don’t exactly buy Smith’s contention that it’s dead. The last time we whacked this, it started in the Assembly, and she’s using the Assembly’s lack of a companion bill as “proof” that it’s well and truly dead. My outside-the-Beltway view is that the corn-a-hole folks thought that they’d try where they failed last time (namely, the Senate), and take for granted they still had the support of the Assembly and Jim Doyle. Given the last attempt went through the Assembly with more than half the ‘Rats (20 of 39) then supporting it, and the leadership in the Assembly now supported it then, it cannot be assumed that the Assembly won’t touch it.
I don’t always get to have history on the rolls, but since Bill Quick is the man who invented the term “blogosphere”, and I’m feeling all historic today, it’s high time I added Daily Pundit (at least while I still have knuckles to type with).
Bill Quick has the first 10, John Stephenson has the last 3. They both do a better job of explaining than I, and since I pretty much agree with the explanations, I’ll simply list the thirteen here…
#13 – The McCain-Snowe-Dorgan Drug Reimportation Act of 2004 (which would have shut down pharmaceutical research and development)
#12 – The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients’ Bill of Rights Lawyers’ Bill of Sale
#11 – McShame’s defense of John F. Kerry against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
#10 – McShame’s siding with the gay activists in a case when the Christian Civic League of Maine attempted to generate grass-roots support for the federal Marriage Protection Amendment
#9 – The Keating Five (mark my words; should McCain become the nominee, the moment he gets the required number of delegates, the presstitutes will be all over this)
#8 – Siding with the pro-abortion lobby when Wisconsin Right to Life attempted to generate grass-roots support to bust the filibuster of an attempt to prevent minors from crossing state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion without their parents’ consent during the re-coronation of Nobody’s Senator, Herb Kohl
#7 – Siding with the pro-abortion lobby again when Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to bust the judicial filibusters while his good friend Russ el-Slimeroad (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) was up for re-coronation
#6 – McShame’s starring role in the Gang of 14, which buried several good Constitutionalist judicial nominees
#5 – McShame’s ongoing class warfare
#4 – The McCain-Kennedy-Bush Shamnesty Act
#3 – McShame’s support for full Constitutional rights for terrorists
#2 – McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act
And the #1 reason why I will never vote for John McCain…
#1 – If John McShame is not a RINO (he said in 2004 when he was flirting with running with Kerry – "I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and in their philosophy."), I don’t know what a RINO is
Like I said, I’d rather deal with the flip-flops I do and don’t know about than somebody who, but for the War (and even on that, there’s a vital portion he agrees with the ‘Rats on), would be happier than a pig in day-old shit as a ‘Rat.
Recapping the piss-poor parlay card after the Giants’ 17-14 win in 42nd edition of The Game That Cannot Be Named (which puts me at 3-8 ATS, 4-7 O/U, 5-6 SU in the post-season):
Patriots -12
Patriots (straight-up) -440
Over 54.5
Team to score first – Giants +130
Will the team that scores first win? – No +190
Team to score last – Patriots -150
Team to punt first – Giants -160
Total touchdowns in the game – over 6.5 -160
Total punts – under 7.5 even
Eli Manning pass attempts – over 34.5 -125
Will Eli throw a pick? – Yes -400 (yep)
Tom Brady pass attempts – over 37.5 -105
Will Brady throw a pick? – No -125
Tom Brady TDs – 6 or more 8/1 (only 1)
I’m calling Obama wiping out McCain in the general right now and fervently hoping that my inability to call jack shit in either the NFL or politics this year continues.
(H/T FReeper Stoat)
Two of the three German U-boats stranded in the Black Sea and ultimately scuttled when Romania turned against Germany in World War II were found by a Turkish team.
Those three U-boats, as well as 3 ultimately sunk by the Soviets, had a very interesting trip to the Black Sea. All 6 were part of the strangling of Britain when Hitler decided to make his fateful turn east. It was decided by the German High Command to move them to the Black Sea to attack Soviet shipping. Because Turkey, which controlled access to the Black Sea through control of the Bosporous and Daradelles straits, was neutral, and those straits were too shallow to allow submerged passage, Germany couldn’t just sail the subs into the Black Sea. Instead, Germany partially disassembled them and floated them via canals and the Elbe River from Kiel to Dresden. At that point, they trucked to Ingolstadt. There, they were floated down the Danube River to Constanta, Romania. They had some success, as they sunk over 45,000 tons of shipping.
This time, it’s in Maine’s caucuses, which CNN had Romney winning 52%-21% at last count. For the record, that’s 5 caucii/conventions, 3 wins for Romney, 1 for McCain and 1 for Huckabee (and in that one, Romney vastly outpolled McCain). Bravo Zulu, Slu.
Tell me again why the fuck a guy who twice wanted to bolt to the ‘Rats in the last 7 years is leading the Pubbie nomination process.
First off, I have to take my hat off to JammieWearingFool, who not only has his team (the Giants) in the aforementioned game, but went 9-1 in the playoffs (bastard!) Well, we’re out of January, so we’re out of my month of discontent (3-7 ATS, 4-6 O/U and 5-5 straight-up) is over. Since the final score will be Pats 62, Giants 13, the obvious bets (courtesy Bodog) of Patriots -12, Patriots -440 straight-up, and over-54.5 are the the ones to take.
However, since this is the Game That Cannot Be Made, and I have to do something to come out of the post-season not dead (or is that buried at the 50 yard line in Jerry Jones’ new stadium?), we’re going into the land of the prop bets, where the profitability can really change.
Team to score first – Giants +130
Will the team that scores first win? – No +190
Team to score last – Patriots -150
Team to punt first – Giants -160
Total touchdowns in the game – over 6.5 -160
Total punts – under 7.5 even
Eli Manning pass attempts – over 34.5 -125
Will Eli throw a pick? – Yes -400
Tom Brady pass attempts – over 37.5 -105
Will Brady throw a pick? – No -125
Tom Brady TDs – 6 or more 8/1
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
