No Runny Eggs

(H/T – Jon Sanders)

Where, oh where do I go with this story about a dead goldfish named Princess registered to vote through a third-party voter-drive effort from Lake County, Illinois? I could go with the whole FISH angle, but that isn’t exactly family-friendly (FISH is one of the vulgar acronyms we on the good side of the toll booths apply to those on the far side of them).

I could go with the fact that the owner of the dead goldfish, Beth Nudelman, is a registered Democrat, but according to The News Organization That Cannot Be Quoted™, she’s the one that blew the whistle. Wait a minute – I will start there. From the article…

She said she wrote election officials a humorous note explaining why the fish was ineligible to vote.

I’ll bet the letter read something like this: “I really would like to register Princess to vote, but she’s worm food, and this isn’t Chicago where the dead are 110% ‘Rat voters.”

I could, and will, also point out that the tactics of the third-party group, Women’s Voices, Women Vote, are quite similar to sometimes-partner ACORN’s tactics. Indeed, Steve Strum, legal counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, notes that this particular effort, which used a mailing list purchased from a vendor, has generated numerous complaints. Also, this particular episode has attracted the attention of the Lake County sheriff’s and state’s attorney’s offices.

Now, how did Princess the dead fish end up on that list? The Nudelmans used her name on a second phone line for a computer modem. That in itself raises a question; why did they feel the need to do that? Ameritech and its follow-on companies SBC and AT&T, didn’t prohibit one from having 2 lines.

The more-observant may ask, “Why are they targeting Illinois when no Republican will likely ever win a statewide election again?” Lake County is, or at least was very-recently, a Republican area marked for takeover. Indeed, there was once a barn on the north end of the Tri-State that was essentially a GOP billboard.

Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson put together a very lengthy case against Barack Obama over at Hot Air, edited by Ed Morrissey. From abortion and especially the “punished by a baby” line (pursued by mostly Shoebox here), to taxes, to radical associations, to lack of foreign policy judgement (which was not at all cured by his running mate, specifically Biden’s inexplicable like of Iran’s Mad Mullahs), to a distain of American life, to the race card, to a lack of accomplishments, they make the case far better than I can.

I saw Colin Powell’s endorsement on “Meet the Press” as I waited for a flight home on Sunday. I had other focuses yesterday so didn’t get a chance to put my comments up on the endorsement.

After reading the transcript, I note that Powell did not address any policy issues that he liked of Obama’s. Rather, his entire endorsement appeared to come from a drinking of the “Hope and Change” kool-aid.

Powell tried to use his observations of how the two candidates addressed the last few weeks of economic debate as his deciding factor:

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

Now I know that Powell has always been at best, a moderate Republican. He firmly believes in abortion and affirmative action. However, what is Powell referring to when he says that Obama is “not just jumping in and changing every day?” Is Powell really that obtuse not to see the numerous position changes that Obama has taken in the past two years? For example, I’ll bet that Colin Powell would label the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization but Obama has been on both sides of the issue in June alone.

What is Powell thinking when he says that Obama “has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.” If he ever held Republican views, Powell would have aligned on fiscal values. Can Powell actually believe that Obama’s admitted redistribution of wealth aligns in anyway with what “would serve us well?” Can Powell believe that spending an additional $1 trillion each year “serve us well?”

I’m sorry. I had a great deal of respect for Colin Powell. I believe him to be an honorable man. However, is endorsement of Obama leads me to conclude that Powell never was a Republican and registered as such only for personal attention or gain or, he is now being intellectually dishonest about his reason for endorsing Barack.

I will continue to honor Colin Powell’s service. However, from this day forward, this blogger will view all of what Mr Powell says with an enormous amount of skepticism.