define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true); define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true); No Runny Eggs » steveegg

No Runny Eggs

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.

Archive for posts by steveegg.

February 4, 2008

Roll bloat – historic edition

by @ 10:41. Filed under The Blog.

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).

Top 13 reasons why I will not ever vote for John McCain

by @ 10:37. Filed under Politics - National.

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.

February 3, 2008

I’ll be taking the Hoffa seats at Jerry Jones’ new stadium

by @ 21:12. Filed under Sports.

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.

WWII German subs found in the Black Sea

by @ 16:11. Filed under History, War.

(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.

Another true Pubbie-only state contest, another Romney win

by @ 10:29. Filed under Politics - National.

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.

The Game That Cannot Be Named – your official bet sheet

by @ 10:00. Filed under Sports.

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

February 1, 2008

The bipartisan nanny state of Mississippi wants to banish the fat folks from the restaurants

by @ 18:09. Filed under Health, Politics.

(H/T – Jon Ham, more discussion from Rick Moran and the Imperial Torturer and silent E, and lawhawk)

Mississippi House Bill 282, written by Republican W.T. Mayhall Jr., and introduced by him, fellow Republican John Read, and Democrat Bobby Shows, would prohibit restaurants licensed by the state of Mississippi from serving the “obese” under pain of closure by the state. That’s right; if this becomes law, 30 percent of the residents of Mississippi would be banished to the home kitchen. Don’t believe me? Allow me to pull the text from the bill:

HOUSE BILL NO. 282

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

SECTION 1. (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.

(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.

I probably shouldn’t be the one to judge, but if Rep. Read’s House portrait is still still accurate, he’ll be shut out of restaurants. Brilliance, bipartisan P-I-G. Sheer, unadulterated BRILLIANCE!

Revisions/extensions (6:42 pm 2/1/2008) – Sorry about the slight, silent E. I didn’t finish reading my seriously-overloaded reader before punching this out initially.

R&E part 2 (7:22 pm 2/1/2008) – Once again, I have to issue an apology. Somehow, I missed lawhawk’s run at this.

Mr. Pelican Pants – Bush-Clinton dynasty, 1980-2008 (or longer)

by @ 17:28. Filed under Politics - National.

Since I’m doing lists, I’ll bring one created by Mr. Pelican Pants up from the comments….

1980: Bush is VP
1984: Bush is VP
1988: Bush is Prez
1992: Clinton is Prez
1996: Clinton is Prez
2000: Bush 2 is Prez
2004: Bush 2 is Prez
2008: Clinton 2 is Prez??

In other words, if HRC is elected this year, two families will have effectively run this country for 32 years.

If she’s elected, it would more likely be 36 years when all is said and done, Pelican. There have been only three “natural” one-term Presidents (which takes out the never-elected Gerald Ford) since the turn of the last century (William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter), and only Carter did not take the Oval Office from a fellow party member. Also, all 3 turned over the Oval Office to the opposition party.

Iraqi WMD revelation buried somewhere in the memory hole

by @ 10:59. Filed under Presstitute Follies, War on Terror.

(H/Ts – Bluto/The Jawa Report and memeorandum)

The editorial page editors at The Wall Street Journal take their makeup-and-camera counterparts at CBS‘s “60 Minutes” to task for buring a rather telling portion of Scott Pelley’s interview with George Piro, who was the one who debriefed Saddam Hussein after his capture:

Mr. Piro: “The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there.”

Mr. Pelley: “And that was his intention?”

Mr. Piro: “Yes.”

Mr. Pelley: “What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?”

Mr. Piro: “He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program.”

Mr. Pelley: “Chemical, biological, even nuclear.”

Mr. Piro: “Yes.”

Now, why do you suppose CBS would bury evidence of Saddam Hussein’s continuing desire to get all manner of weapons of mass destruction, especially in the fall 2002-spring 2003 time frame, countries such as Russia, France and Germany were chomping at the bit to satisfy Hussein’s desire for WMDs? Could it be that it might suggest that President Bush was right in taking his regime and ultimately him down?

Flashback – John McCain wanted to be a ‘Rat in 2001

by @ 10:04. Filed under Politics - National.

It wasn’t exactly a secret at the time, and when the story finally made print with details in March, 2007, I don’t remember if I had already considered it old news. However, Drudge pulled it out of the memory hole today (H/T – Allahpundit, who is also the one that remembered it was 10 months old). Another new bit comes from Jack M., who offers some fresh first-hand confirmation. Guess it’s time to break out the ugly stick (on page 2 because it will not be for the squeamish or for those at work at a place they don’t own).

January 31, 2008

Rats debate in LA (let the last body hit the floor)

by @ 18:50. Filed under Miscellaneous.

This one’s not going to be for the squeamish. The ‘Rats are down to the last 2, Hiliary Rotten Clinton and Barack Hussein Osam…er, Obama. As you can tell, I’m already in the spirit (or is that spirits?; who cares at this point, those will be flowing just like the blood). CNN starts in 10 minutes, I’ll start momentarily.

I forgot to add the courtesy lamp is out, so enter at your own risk.

Joining in the insanity:

– Hot Air (Allahpundit says it’s nuclear war)
– Jim Geraghty (he’s chaneling Michael Buffer)
– Michelle Malkin (who’s in charge of the cackle meter)
– Roger L. Simon, head of PajamasMedia
– Free Republic
– The Lizards at Little Green Footballs

The top half of the ticket is solved in the event of a McCain nomination

by @ 18:07. Filed under Politics - National.

Leave it to the Emperor to come up with an elegant, kick-ass solution – write in Fred Dalton Thompson for President. Of course, that still would leave the bottom half to solve. Question; who for the bottom half? It would have to be somebody not in Virginia.

SB380 – Sent back to committee for now

by @ 17:32. Filed under Corn-a-hole, Politics - Wisconsin.

The corn-a-hole lobby and the bipartian P-I-G are still searching for two votes for passage of SB380 according to Mark Belling. Therefore, they sent it back to committee looking to flip 2 to the dark side.

Do not let that happen. Keep on calling and e-mailing your state Senator; tell them “NO!” to a forced replacement of almost every single gasoline engine in the state.

Revisions/extensions (5:43 pm 1/31/2008) – My Anti-ethanol rant page has been rewritten.

Speaking of stopping, the horrid corn-a-hole bill is up in the Senate TODAY!

by @ 10:15. Filed under Corn-a-hole, Politics - Wisconsin.

Revisions/extensions (9:42 am 1/31/2008) – This will be up at the top of the blog until the Senate is done with it (originally posted at 7:43 am 1/31/2008); look for fresher posts below. Also, just as a reminder of how important you the citizen can be, I went back into the NRE archives and found my thanks to, among others, the 17 Senators that killed the previous attempt.

My Senator, Jeff Plale, has an e-mail waiting for him urging him to repeat his rejection of this mandate. Does your Senator have a fresh reminder? If not, make it happen now, they’ll be in session in under 1 1/2 hours.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (5:52 pm 1/31/2008) – They’re two votes short, so they sent it back to committee for a vote hunt, and will bring it back immediately should they find 2 votes. Since they’re going to keep up the skeer, we’re going to have to keep up the skeer. Also, I got too fancy in my math in the second half of the article (thanks for the gentle reminder, Dad29).

Charlie’s all over this attempt to drive Wisconsin-based Briggs & Stratton and Harley Davidson out of Wisconsin’s marketplace for the benefit of the corn-a-hole lobby by eventually requiring 25% of all fuel in Wisconsin come from “renewable” sources in the form of Senate Bill 380. The bipartisan P-I-G fast-tracked this, passed a couple of meaningless amendments, and it’s on the floor of the Senate today.

What, the federal mandate, as odious as it is to the driving public, is not enough for the corn-a-hole lobby? Historically-high prices for corn is not enough? I believe you know the phrase I have for them, and the last part is “…and the combine you rode in on.”

Related to that, Marcus Aurelius has some numbers in his great corn squeezings experiment. While he didn’t provide a specific mileage for driving with regular E0 gas (he’s outside the Algore/Whitman Memorial E10 RFG mandate hell I have to deal with), and the estimated price for E85 in Appleton (based on his calculation on cost per mile, it’s $2.31/gallon) is a heck of a lot lower than it is in Milwaukee (I semi-regularily pass one station that offers E85; it was going for $2.60/gallon during that time frame and now it’s up to $2.85/gallon), I have enough to start running with. Given his rough estimate of mileage on E0 of 15-17 mph, I’ll assume that, just before he began this experiment just before Christmas, he was getting about 14 mpg with his flex-fuel Chevy Suburban. He got 11.1 mpg with 3 fill-ups on E85, and though most of his driving was what the EPA would consider “city” and in and out of 4WD, he did have an extended highway run.

That, my friends, is about a 27% drop in fuel mileage from E0. Given my historic estimate of a 5% drop in fuel mileage between E0 and Algore/Whitman E10, that’s about a 19% drop between that and E85. For one to break even, E85 would need to be about 21% 27% cheaper than regular gas and about 17% 19% cheaper than Algore/Whitman E10. Given E0 gas went for about $3/gallon during that time frame, and Algore/Whitman E10 went for about $2.85 in that time frame, E85 would need to go for about $2.36/gallon during that time frame to be as cost-efficient at the pump as either E0 or Algore/Whitman E10 $2.19/gallon to be as cost-efficient at the pump as E0 and $2.30/gallon to be as cost-efficient at the pump as Algore/Whitman E10 during that time frame. It didn’t even get close to that in the Milwaukee area. Hell, it didn’t even get there for Marcus.

Roll bloat – there can never be enough morons

by @ 10:14. Filed under The Blog.

For those of you who don’t know the definition of “moron” I’m using, it’s a regular over at Ace of Spades HQ. Today’s addition to the roll is Weasel Times and Stoat Intelligencer. Anybody who puts a pancake on Islamic Rage Boy’s head ought to be a regular read.

Early Drinking Right alert

by @ 9:03. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Because Dickie is going to be throwing a righteous Fat Tuesday party on February 5, the executive committee (namely, Fred and the folks who showed up over there) has decided to move February’s Drinking Right to the first Tuesday in February, the 5th. The rest of the particulars remain unchanged (7 pm, Papa’s Social Club, 7718 W Burleigh in Milwaukee).

That means I will not be live-blogging Super-Duper Tuesday. As Sean Hackbarth said before he went to DC, the first fool that liveblogs from Drinking Right will be tossed out. Besides, if McShame rolls, I’m going to need to drink early and often.

Defending the American Dream-Wisconsin Summit – your 10-day warning

by @ 8:39. Filed under Defending the American Dream.

Yes, I know, CPAC is closing the same day, Saturday, February 9, but DAD-Wisconsin is a lot cheaper ($29 for general admission, $15 for students) and closer (Country Springs Hotel in Pewaukee), and we have some rock stars in our own right (including a pair of guest-bloggers here):

Confirmed speakers include:

Paul Ryan,
U.S. Congressman

J.B. Van Hollen,
Attorney General

Scott Walker,
Milwaukee County Executive

David Clarke,
Milwaukee County Sheriff

Mike Gableman,
Judge, Candidate for Supreme Court

Scott Fitzgerald,
State Senate Minority Leadert

Leah Vukmir,
State Representative

Steve Moore,
Wall Street Journal

Dan Schnur,
President, Command Focus

Vicki McKenna,
WISN & WIBA Radio

Todd Berry,
President, Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance

Patrick McIllheran,
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Leslie Graves,
President, Lucy Burns Institute

Owen Robinson,
Boots and Sabers

Fred Dooley,
Real Debate Wisconsin

So, register already. I’ll be there with the laptop, camera and digital voice recorder, and unlike the DC version in October, I know what settings to have that DVR at to get somewhat-decent audio.

Party in the Oval Office – 1945-2008

by @ 8:18. Filed under Politics - National.

I don’t recall specifically hearing this scary-sobering factoid, but I’ll toss this list out there.

1945-1953 – Democratic Party
1953-1961 – Republican Party
1961-1969 – Democratic Party
1969-1977 – Republican Party
1977-1981 – Democratic Party
1981-1993 – Republican Party
1993-2001 – Democratic Party
2001-(at least 2009) – Republican Party

I started with 1945 because, while Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1944 to a 4th term, his Vice President, Harry Truman, assumed the office near the beginning of the term and thus the term was more his than Roosevelt’s, and the 22nd Amendment term-limiting Presidents was ratified during Truman’s administration, though it did not apply to him.

What is scary-sobering is only once in the last 63 years (64 by the time President Bush is officially term-limited) has a party maintained control of the White House for more than 8 years, and the party in control now is the Republican Party. Of course, the one long-term outlier is the Republican Party.

Presidential Pool: A time of choosing

by @ 6:38. Filed under Politics - National.

Revisions/extensions (11:44 pm 1/3/2008) – This was originally posted 12:51 pm 12/17/2007; I bumped this to the top because the Iowa caucus is today. Also, I redacted Tom Tancredo’s bit; he dropped out after the initial posting.

R&E part 2 (5:08 pm 1/3/2008) – I didn’t realize that with “pretty” permalinks, I had destroyed those that had linked to the page before I bumped this up to the top. Sorry about that. I fixed that oversight.

R&E part 3 (7:58 pm 1/7/2008) – Back to the top again just in time for New Hampshire.

R&E part 4 (5:59 am 1/29/2008) – Cold, hard reality has set in with the ouster of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. At this point, I can’t recommend anybody, but I’ll put this back at the top.

R&E part 5 (6:37 am 1/31/2008) – Call it rationalization, call it what you will, but if the Double Talk Express wants to lie through his teeth, I will do whatever I can to stop him. Also, scratch Rudy Giuliani.

I wanted to do this last week as a companion piece to the “24 campaigning days to Iowa” one, but things got a bit topsy-turvy. John Washburn took me to task for not including Ron Paul in the look at why the top-runners would and would not get their party’s nomination; I’ll briefly explain why not. While Paul’s support is a mile deep, with another $4 million+ money bomb yesterday, in terms of Republican voters, it’s two feet wide, with no real support in any early-state poll.

With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, it’s time to note that there are 17 campaigning days until the Iowa caucuses and climb the molehill. Wisconsin set its too-late-to-matter Republican primary ballot order in a very convenient way for me (H/T – Jib/Badger Blog Alliance), so that’s the order I’ll take the candidates. John, and supporters of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, will be glad to know I’ll include them this time.

Rudy Giuliani

Why I could support him: He is very willing to engage in the war against radical Islam, indeed calling it just that. He says he wants to appoint conservative judges. He has a track record of cutting taxes.

What mitigates against supporting him: Oh, where to begin? Let’s start with his unabashed support of Roe v Wade and subsequent court rulings imposing abortion-on-demand from the bench. Instead of cutting spending to match cut taxes, he raised fees. He ran a sanctuary city. He loves the idea of grabbing guns. I could go on all day, but I’m out of time.
The policy takeaway: Given I believe that borders are meant to be enforced, the role of government and especially the judicial branch is to be limited, and the Second Amendment means we the people can defend ourselves against among other things a tyrannical government, I cannot support Giuliani in the primary.

Mike Huckabee

Why I could support him: He won’t attack Christianity or gun owners.

What mitigates against supporting him: Oh, where to begin, part deux? I’ll start with his tax record; he begged for tax hikes while in Arkansas. Staying with taxes, he wants a national sales tax of 30% to replace everything else. He is a lover of big-government solutions to problems. He likes the idea of an intrusive government. He is, at best, terribly naiive on foreign policy and at worst the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Once again, I could go on all day, but I’m out of time.
The policy takeaway: There is absolutely, positively nothing conservative about Huckabee, so I cannot support him in the primary.

Duncan Hunter

Why I could support him: He recognizes we need a secure southern border, and pretty much alone among the candidates, he recognizes the threat that Red China poses.

What mitigates against supporting him: His support of the “Fair”Tax.
The policy takeaway: Hunter is very intriguing.

John McCain

Why I could support him: He’s pretty tough on the war against radical Islam, and very outspoken against pork-barrel spending.

What mitigates against supporting him: Again, where to begin? He does not comprehend the First Amendment. He has a rabid opposition to tax cuts (not to be confused with his opposition to tax hikes). He has a mistaken, though personally-justifiable, aversion to torture and near-torture.
The policy takeaway: Between McCain-Feingold and his opposition to tax cuts to try to force a cut in spending, out goes McCain in the primary consideration.

Ron Paul

Why I could support him: On most domestic issues, he is a Constitutionalist.

What mitigates against supporting him: How many times am I going to ask, “Where to begin?” Let’s start with a complete lack of comprehension of how those outside of the United States think. I’ll toss in a lack of knowledge of world history. He is a goldbug who refuses to acknowledge the Golden Age of Gold has ended.
The policy takeaway: Given I’m an amateur student of history, Paul’s lack of comprehension is a disqualifier in the primary.

Mitt Romney

Why I could support him: All of his flips have been to the right.

What mitigates against supporting him: He who flips tends to flop back (I didn’t mention it earlier, but Michelle Malkin has the transcript on the flopback on amnesty). One of those flips that haven’t happened and indeed was reinforced was his gun-grabbing tendency.
The policy takeaway: If only I could believe,….

Tom Tancredo

Why I could support him: He is the strongest candidate against illegal immigration. He does exhibit some federalist tendencies.

What mitigates against supporting him: He also is the strongest candidate against legal immigration.
The policy takeaway: So close, yet so far.

Fred Thompson

Why I could support him: He’s strong on the war against radical Islam, his tax plan (borrowed from my Congressman, Paul Ryan) is eminently supportable, and he has serious federalist tendencies.

What mitigates against supporting him: He had a significant lapse of reason regarding the First Amendment, and that was only partially remedied.
The policy takeaway: He’s the second-most-intriguing candidate on the issues.

With the policy cases made, I can now take intangibles into account, such as popularity. I would have recommended Duncan Hunter, and indeed, I have donated to his campaign, but he failed to catch on with even the Republican faithful. Similarily, I would have recommended (and did recommend) Fred Thompson, but once again, he didn’t catch on with even the Republican faithful outside the blogosphere.

Taking everything into account, I am recommending Fred Thompson nobody at this time Mitt Romney in the Republican Presidential primary.

Revisions/extensions (11:18 pm 1/1/2008) – Welcome, those of you who followed in from the subtle pimping over at Hot Air. Well, Michael in MI asked for a listing of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and I had noticed a certain lack of collation of same. I am usually a man of few words, but I tried to stick to “hard” items I could verify.

McCain MUST be stopped

by @ 6:35. Filed under Politics - National.

Folks, I don’t know if you paid any attention to last night’s debate, or the McCain/Alito mess, but between McCain saying in private and denying in public that Justice Alito is too conservative, McCain outright lying about Mitt Romney’s position on Iraq when he had the exact same position a couple months prior, and McCain’s double-talk on the Bush tax cuts, he cannot be allowed to get the nomination.

I’m now on my third choice for President, and while I said I wouldn’t support Mitt Romney nearly as much as I did Fred Thompson, I’d rather deal with the flips I do and don’t know than the knives I know will be shoved in my back. Therefore, I’m officially a FredHead for Mitt.

The judicial nail in McCain’s coffin (R&E part 2 – confirmed and bumped)

by @ 0:38. Filed under Lawgivers-In-Black, Politics - National.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (12:38 am 1/31/2008, H/T – Allahpundit) – Since Robert Novak has double-blind-sourced this (triple-or-more sourced assuming those two sources weren’t lying about not being John Fund’s source), this thing is back on the top after an initial posting at 1:53 pm 1/28/2008.

I had been unwilling to bring John Fund’s assertion that John McCain would not have nominated Justice Sam Alito to your attention, mainly because, like Bull Dog Pundit, I was concerned that it was unsourced and uncollaborated. However, since Kathryn Jean Lopez has collaborated it and Rich Lowry notes that the Straight Double Talk Express response doesn’t exactly deal with the charge, it’s time to toss it all out there:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” (John Fund’s column)

(Steve) Schmidt (of the McCain camp) was a major player in the Alito confirmation fight, and says this: “It’s absolutely false. Sen. McCain was instrumental is helping confirm Justice Alito. We relied on him a great deal during the confirmation process to reassure the American people that Alito was the kind of justice America needed. John McCain was a warrior to get Alito on the bench.” (McCain camp’s response per Rich Lowry)

The non-denial denial isn’t exactly selling. Bryan Preston sums it up best (as usual):

…Second, is Alito really too conservative by McCain’s lights to be a SCOTUS nominee under a McCain presidency? McCain needs to answer this immediately. Different types of conservatives vote based on many things, but judges have to rank in the top five for nearly all of us. While most conservatives have soured on the Bush presidency either because of spending or immigration or this or that policy, most of us still consider Bush’s SCOTUS nominees (minus Miers) to be reason enough to consider his presidency, on balance, worth support and certainly better than the alternatives that were available in 2000 and 2004. If McCain won’t appoint nominees similar to Bush’s, no speech at CPAC will help him repair the rift with conservatives, and conservatives don’t have much reason to support him if he’s the GOP nominee.

If McCain truly does consider Alito to be too conservative, then on judges even Rudy Giuliani is to McCain’s right and would make a less problematic GOP nominee than McCain.

I do take issue with the assertion that Giuliani would be better than McCain on the issue of judges. While Giuliani has said that he would appoint “strict constructionists”, he also signaled that he would reject any potential nominee that does not believe in stare decisis, specifically with regard to abortion.

Revisons/extensions (2:18 pm 1/28/2008) – Byron York got some face time with McCain and asked him point-blank about this:

“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”

“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.'”

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. “No, no, of course not,” McCain said.

I asked about the “wore his conservatism on his sleeve” line. “I’m proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,” McCain told me. “Remember, in all my remarks, I’ve said, look, we’re not going to take somebody’s word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time.”

On this issue of the quote/non-quote, the ball is back in Fund’s (and Lopez’s) court. McCain went on to defend the Gang of 14, and gave a piss-poor defense of that. It really is an issue for another post, but it reinforces the basic objections I have with McCain regarding conservative judges.

Republican Presidential nominees, 1956-2004

by @ 0:26. Filed under Politics - National.

James Taranto, who is still running the last surviving element of OpinionJournal.com, the Best of the Web, points out an interesting and disturbing trend in Republican Presidential nominees over the last 48 years. I’ll distill out the two one-person items in that trend, previous nominee (Richard Nixon) and immediate relative of a previous President (George W. Bush), and point out that, except for 1964 and 2000 (which have their own unique “next in line” aspects), Republican nominees have fallen into one (or more) of these three categories:

  • Sitting President (1956, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992, 2004)
  • Sitting or former Vice President (1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992)
  • Runner-up in the previous seriously-contested nomination (1980, 1988, 1996*)

* Bob Dole was the runner-up in 1988 and Pat Buchanan finished 2nd in 1992; however, Buchanan did not win a single state in 1992 and had at the end 18 delegates.

In sum, every single Republican nominee the previous 13 election cycles has been either the incumbent or the one with the strongest “next-in-line” case. That’s bad news for those of us who would rather eat broken glass dipped in arsenic and radioactive goo than have John McCain as the next Republican nominee because McCain is undeniably the next in line.

Revisions/extensions (7:50 am 6/21/2008) – I thought I had expounded a bit on the special case of 1964, but I hadn’t. Barry Goldwater actually finished well down in the 1960 election season, but he was the highest-finishing serious candidate to run in 1964, as everybody who finished ahead of him either chose not to run or couldn’t due to death.

Also, I can’t explain why WordPress is claiming there are two comments, while there is only one. Fixed via database hack.

January 30, 2008

McCain supported “benchmarks” before he didn’t

by @ 22:56. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – Ace via Bryan)

I don’t know if the Navy taught A-4 flyers to check six back in the early 1960s, but if they did, John McCain forgot the lesson. Commit this little nugget from the Arizona Star circa January, 2007 to memory:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain’s thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.

McCain said Thursday that he hadn’t yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They’d have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

Say, wasn’t “benchmarks” the buzzword for “cut and run” at that time? Damn if my “Double Talk Express” play on McCain’s trademark phrase isn’t accurate once again.

Roll bloat – Steves of the world unite!

by @ 22:33. Filed under The Blog.

I’ve noticed I have a certain lack of Steves on the roll. It’s time to start rectifying that with Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

The Terminator latest to be assimilated by McCain

by @ 22:18. Filed under Politics - National.

Jim Geraghty the Indispensible has the details of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of John McCain, as well as the transcript of his impersonation of Arnold.

Don’t ask me why I did it, but in a (not-so-)rare bit of insanity, I did mine.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]