No Runny Eggs

(H/Ts – Mary Katharine Ham, Matt Lewis, Amanda Carpenter and Professor Stephen Bainbridge)

Bob Novak tossed former Ohio congressman/former Bush OMB director/former Bush special trade repesentative Rob Portman’s name out there, while RNC deputy chair Frank Donatelli floated former HP CEO/Team McCain economic advisor Carly Fiorina’s name.

First, Portman. He’s moderately-conservative (89 ACU rating in his time in the House), was part of the House leadership (not necessarily a positive in my book), and a tax-(rate-)cutter. The bad news is he is rather tied to the Bush administration, not only as a member of his administration, but as a member of Congress (thanks, fellow FReepers). Moreover, he’s been at times rather accomodating to the Democrats, at least according to the archived Columbus Dispatch article.

Next, Fiorina. She was once the darling of the business media, but as the Professor notes, she wasn’t exactly successful at HP; indeed, she was fired by the board. She does have the advantage of being a member of a key Democratic demographic that may well be “disillusioned” by the results of their nomination process, and she also is a blank slate on non-economic issues (both a blessing and a curse, depending on how the slate gets filled).

Given the comments in both Matt’s and Amanda’s posts, I may as well collate a couple of earlier thoughts on why being John McCain’s VP nominee is the ultimate high-risk/high-reward. I’ve previously noted that, since 1956, the Republicans have gone to the next person in line. In order, that would be sitting President, sitting Vice President, second in the previous contested Presidential primary, an ex-Vice President, and family member. That is a pretty powerful argument to be the Vice Presidential nominee if McCain were to win in November.

Conversely, there is the fate of a Vice Presidential nominee on a losing ticket. I’ve also noted that only 4 times since the 12th Amendment separated the Presidential and Vice Presidential elections did a failed Vice Presidential candidate become a Presidential candidate. The last two who did so, and the only two in the “modern” era (post-22nd Amendment), had other extenuating circumstances. Walter Mondale was previously Vice President, and thus fell into the less-rigid Democratic version of the “next in line” scheme. Bob Dole had to wait until the two people in front of him each had their turn as the Presidential nominee, and then work to earn his own place in the Republican “next in line” scheme.

Jimmy Carter says that while he will talk with an organization that launches attacks against unarmed civilians and is listed as a group responsible for terrorist attacks by most western countries, Hamas, he doesn’t  “see any redeeming features” of another terrorist organization, Al Qaeda.  

I can’t seem to get the link to work correctly so here’s the low tech connection :   http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=81983

According to Jimmy, the difference between Hamas and Al Qaeda is that Hamas has the support of their constituents.   To Jimmy an elected  government is legitimate and should be accepted regardless of what it’s policies are.

Using Jimmy’s logic, Jimmy should also agree that the Civil war was unjust and just the North imposing it’s will on the South.   After all, the Confederate States of America had the support of its constituents.

If only Abraham Lincoln had had the benefit of Jimmy Carter’s logic the country could have avoided the war and the  loss  of 620,000 American lives.   It would have been so much better for everyone……except for the 4,000,000 slaves that were emancipated.

Revisions/extensions (10:59 am 4/22/2008; steveegg) – I think I’ve got the right embed code. Still, I like the folks at Breitbart, including the absent-from-blogging Ian Schwartz, who if memory serves is one of the main guys behind the TV version of Breitbart.

I wrote earlier  about  a study  by the NYFED, that provided insight as to what the average subprime loan looked like.   The study laid out the horrific terms of these subprime loans but didn’t talk about the people or circumstances that caused the subprime loans to be enticing.   Sunday’s Star and Tribune chronicles one such circumstance.

Bradley Collins Jr.  is a painting contractor.   He averages an income of $60,000/year and supports his family of 5 on that income.   According to the article, about 3 years ago, Collins and his wife thought they would take advantage of the real estate boom occurring in the NW part of the Minneapolis metro.   With the encouragement of two salesman from a “property management company,” they bought 4 houses for a total price of $1.2M.   The story as we all know, continues with the real estate market busting, the resales of the homes not occurring, the owners failing as landlords and the homes falling into foreclosure.
(more…)

(H/T – Jim Geraghty the indispensible)

If you’ve been hearing the meme flying around the Leftosphere, you know they’re trying to say John McCain is too old. David Benzion at the Lone Star Times has your retort. A couple that I like from there:

– John McCain is older than betraying national security secrets on the front page of the New York Times.
– John McCain is older than having to explain to your children why everyone on the TV is talking about the President’s penis.
– John McCain is older than politicized CIA agents distorting a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program because they don’t like the President’s (i.e., their boss’) policies.

Jim chimed in with a few winners as well (I’ll “borrow” a couple of them):

– John McCain is so old that when he was born, Obama’s neighbor and donor William Ayers hadn’t tried to kill anyone with a bomb yet.
– John McCain was born in those long ago days when if you went into church, you could count on the pastor saying “God bless America!”
– When John McCain was a toddler, the national average tax on a gallon of gasoline was under four cents.

I’ll take Jim’s invitation to play:

– John McCain is so old, when he joined the Navy, the only federal health care was in the armed forces.
– John McCain is so old, he outlasted four dictatorial states that viewed America as its “class enemy”.
– John McCain is so old, he remembers a time when Wisconsin government was clean.
– John McCain is so old, he was born during a time when the Panama Canal Zone was American territory.
– In John McCain’s day, a high school diploma meant something.
– John McCain is older than Red China.
– John McCain is older than the UN.

(H/T – Kate, so I’ll try not to swear)

Usually, resolutions to commemorate public figures fly through Congress. However, one Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), is so deep in the pockets of what Rush Limbaugh calls the NAGs she could not abide the following words in the resolution honoring Pope Benedict XVI:

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life;….

I honestly don’t know what’s worse; the fact she held up the resolution for a couple days, or the fact the RepubicRATs caved. Do note the pro-death-penalty crowd didn’t have a real problem with the language, even though the official position of the Catholics, at least the last time I checked, is there should be no death penalty.

How appropriate is it that this one’s going to come from the city that booed Santa Claus? If you’re in, near, or west of the Rockies, this may well be a spoiler thread. Stephen Green noted that his drunkblog will be late because his ABC affiliate is tape-delaying things. That’s right, it’s on free TV, but most of the stations in the West will be tape-delaying it to show it in prime time. The live version kicks off at 7 pm beer time, so I’ll start the drinking about 6:45.

I really thought about simply simulcasting Skye’s liveblog (she’s a friend of Mike from Mike’s America, so he’ll be co-producing), but I’m going to need copious amounts of alcohol to deal with this one, and that’s almost certainly going to be more genteel than my mood can stand. I’m sure the usual suspects will also be liveblogging, and I’ll try to put the links up in this space.

For the 2 people still in this thread, I’ll quickly review things because it’s been a while since I liveblogged a debate and longer since I drunkblogged one. Since it’s the ‘Rats, and it’s a drunkblog, I’ll probably be taking many gratuitous shots along with the non-gratuitous ones, I paraphrase a lot as I’m not the fastest typist on the planet, the questions will be in italics, the answers in plain text, and my comments in-line with either a question or an answer will be in parentheses.

– Ace
– Allahpundit/Ed Morrissey
– Michelle Malkin
– The Lizards
– The Freepers

I feel a little bit like I’m running in a remake of “Airplane”…boy,  I picked  the wrong  week to quit blogging….so much fun that I missed!

Just for a couple:

China called Nancy Pelosi the “least popular person in China,” for her comments about China’s handling of their Tibet “crisis.”   This maybe the only issue I’ve ever agreed with Nancy on but even so, it can’t be good for your ego to be the least popular person in at least 2 of the world’s major countries!

Barack Obama’s now well publicized comments talking about how non coast line people handle the stress of economic uncertainty "it’s not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them . . . as a way to explain their frustrations".  

Giving Barack, or his wife for that matter, opportunities to ad lib are the best way to ensure that he does not win the election in November.   Contrary to what he has in his carefully prepared and scripted speeches, when ad libbing, Barack shows his contempt for anyone who has any tie to traditional values.   His ad lib script continues to show his  conviction that if you believe in anything other than the government solving all your problems, you are just another flat earther.

Revisions/extensions (5:19 pm 4/8/2008) – I apologize to the Fox News gang for the auto-pingback on an AoSHQ-worthy rant.

(H/T – among others, Ace, whom I’m using because this is not going to be profanity-free, and because Slublog fed Ace a classic Slu-Shop)

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller (D for dumbfuck DhimmiRAT) really stepped on his crank earlier today when he uttered the following horseshit:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

Shall we play, “How Many Ways Is the Jackass Wrong?” For $50, when were laser-guided munitions introduced to the Southeast Asia area of operations? 1972, which was, give or take a few months, 5 years after McCain was shot down.

Let’s go for double-Jeopardy, where the scores can really change. Has any of the US Navy versions of the A-4 ever been provisioned to carry laser-guided weapons? BZZZZT!!! The only precision-guided weapons the early-Vietnam era of the Skyhawk carried were the AGM-12 Bullpup command-guided missile (for those in Rio Linda, the pilot had to hand-fly the missile over its 10-nm range) and the AGM-62 Walleye EO-guided bomb (entered service in 1967, range of 15 miles, and was a fire-and-forget weapon). Later A-4s did carry the AGM-65 Maverick EO-guided missile as well as the Walleye II, and, after the Navy retired the A-4 in 1975, some versions did gain the ability to use laser-guided munitions, but those came about after McCain was shot down.

As for not seeing them hit, McCain typically carried plain iron bombs at low level, which meant he saw them hit and what they hit. Indeed, that was the mission profile on the mission he was shot down.

Oh, and CDR Salamander corrects the idiotic claim the A-4 is a “fighter plane”; the “A” stands for “Attack”. Yes, the Marines and other countries later slapped a couple of Sidewinders on the A-4, and TOPGUN (and “Top Gun”) used them as the analog to MiGs in Dissimilar Air Combat Training, but the Navy didn’t slap the Sidewinders on them.

Yes, there is late news that Rockefeller did apologize for being abso-fucking-lutely wrong. I can’t speak for McCain, but the phrase, “too little, too late” comes to mind.

From the Politico.Com  

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.
But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

I find it interesting that rather than address his position on the ability to own and use handguns, Barack Obama is busy telling people that he has a background in constitutional law.   This sounds  a lot like an answer I  used to  give my young boys when they’d debate me on why they should do certain things.   If it was a subject that I didn’t think they were old enough to debate, they would occasionally get a; “Because I said.”   While this is an adequate answer for 5 year olds, I don’t see how that  kind of response gets Barack  in good with pro-gun folks.    Beyond that,  I have other questions:

1. Is a lawyer having a “background” in constitutional law all that unique?   Gosh, I kind of thought that a lawyer  having a “background” in constitutional law is like a doctor having a background in medicine.   Yes I know he taught some constitutional law courses but there is a vast difference between teaching a class and actually practicing it.   This follows along the well know and factual sports analogy of those who can’t play coach, those who can’t coach ref.   Barack is somewhere between a ref and a coach when he is implying to the pro-gun audience that he is an actual  player.
2. OK, I know why the slobbering media hasn’t, but why hasn’t  an attender of one of these  pro-gun rallies  asked Barack straight up, what his position on hand guns is?   There’s plenty of evidence that gives every indication that Barack doesn’t believe that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own handguns for self defense.   Instead of allowing him to “position himself” let’s ask him and deal with his answer…assuming he’ll actually give an answer that has substance.
3. Having a “background” in constitutional law, does Barack believe the whole constitution should be enforced or does he take the Animal Farm approach to the constitution where all amendments are equal but some amendments are more equal than others?

With District of Columbia versus Heller  likely to have a decision by June, Barack may be able soft shoe himself through the primaries but it won’t be so easy in the general election.   Heller, and the fact that its decision will be the first rendered on gun control by the US Supreme Court in nearly 70 years, will give a focal point for gun rights issues.   Assuming, as many who  ARE constitutional lawyers  have, that the Supreme Court finds the law, that in essence causes the complete abolition of handguns, not to align with the Constitution, Obama needs to be asked whether and why he agrees or disagrees with the Court’s decision.   Drawing on his extensive constitutional law background it should be easy for Barack Obama to explain why the Supreme Court is wrong.  

Obama may  be able  to pass off his “centrist” persona in the primaries but states like Pennsylvania are going to play much differently in the general election.

The primaries have gone horribly wrong for the “Candidate of Inevitability.”   When she sees how Mugabe is being supported by his party, do you think she cries alone, at her Chappaqua home, “Why  don’t they love MEEEEEEEE?”

Mugabe Will Fight On, His Party Says

Didymus Mutasa, the governing party’s secretary for administration, told journalists after an all-day party meeting that there was a consensus that Mr. Mugabe should stand in a second round of voting.

"Mugabe, our dear old man, remains our candidate," Mr. Mutasa was quoted as saying in The Herald. "We shall take him and carry him along with us."

Or do you think her thoughts are, “if someone who can actually arrest and torture their opponents can’t fix an election, what chance does mere lying and personal assassination stand?”

(H/Ts – Allahpundit and Matt Lewis)

I’ve chronicled wacky endorsement after wacky endorsement after wacky endorsement in this Presidential election season. Now, we have the wacky unendorsement:

More than 20 leading social conservatives signed an open letter to Senator John McCain expressing their displeasure over the prospect of an "M&M" ticket being pushed by Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and others in the economic wing of the Republican Party.

Among the signers are those, such as Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, who once supported Mitt Romney and now publicly regret it.

Strange days indeed.

Shamelessly swiped from silent E, who swiped it from somebody, who swiped it from somebody, who swiped it from Moonbatologist Claire…

From left to right – Moebama, Shemcain, Larrary.

I thought Barack was going to improve the  reputation of the US throughout the world?  

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) – Colombia’s president sharply criticized U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama on Wednesday for opposing a trade deal with his country, calling the Democrat out of touch with the realities of the South American nation.

It’s good to know that it’s not just North American countries Obama is out of touch with!

As I noted on this morning’s edition of The Morning Scramble, John Hawkins asked RNC Chair Mike Duncan about those conservatives who might sit out in November (Hawkins’ question in bold, Duncan’s answer in normal type):

Here’s an argument that I don’t agree with, but that I hear a lot: it goes something like this, “The GOP is doing a poor job of representing conservatives. So, what we need to do is deliberately lose in 2008 and then, after a few years of Hillary or Barack in charge, America will be sick of the Left, the GOP will be serious about conservative principles again, and the Party will come back stronger than ever and more representative of conservative views.” Again, I don’t agree with that, but I hear it a lot. What do you say to that?

Well, that is a fallacious argument. It’s also dangerous and let me paint a picture of why. Taken to the extreme, that would return us to 1964 when the Democrats controlled the government entirely.

Look at all the programs that were introduced during that period of time that we’ve had trouble managing, that were are expensive, that have caused us to raise taxes.

So, I think if people sit down and think about turning the entire government over to the Democrats and what that would do to them individually — it would take money away from their families, take jobs away from small businesses, and I think it would be disastrous for our economy. That would be a nightmare in my estimation.

I am not a Party guy, so I’m not overly-wedded to voting for the person with an “R” behind his or her name no matter what. At the same time, I recognize that this is a two-party country, and while the Republican Party mostly tolerates conservatives even as certain elements including its last few standard-bearers stabbed us in the back, the Democratic Party has no desire for anything approaching conservatism.

I also recognize that while conservatism is still the most-popular philosophy in America, it is shared by neither the majority of Americans nor the majority of those who care enough to vote. Indeed, the liberals’ two-pronged strategy of driving people out of the political arena and creating a sufficient number of teat-suckers wholly dependent on government has pretty much borne its fruit.

I personally believe it’s now or never for conservatives in the GOP. I say that knowing we’ve already lost the executive on paper, and knowing the NRCC and NRSC will do everything in its power to save the liberal incumbents. There is a reason I didn’t use “Democrats” in the previous paragraph; it’s a bipartisan rush to liberalism among those in government. Indeed, I’ve called them the bipartisan Party-In-Government.

I note that Duncan brought up the aftermath of 1964. It would have made a bigger impact on me had the out-of-control spending on items the federal government has no business spending a penny on, like health care and education, not repeated itself the last 6 years, mostly under effective Republican control. It would have made a bigger impact on me had the tax rate cuts reduced the government’s take of the economy instead of increased it; indeed, those cuts were sold as not reducing the government’s take.

The only reason I am willing to try one last attempt to turn the GOP to the right is I don’t believe the Democrats will make the same mistake they did in the 1820s and 1850s and allow another party to rise up to challenge it on anything beyond the local level.

On last night’s “Hardball,”Chris Matthews took up the case of Hillary’s changing, fantastical recollections of her trip to Bosnia.   Sitting in to fend for Hillary was Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak.   Sestak dissembled responses in a way that made “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” look  accurate and revealing.

In the matter of Hillary’s faulty recollection of her Bosnia trip, the ending exchange was:

MATTHEWS:   Are you defending lying?   Is that what you"˜re defending, or what are defending?   Tell me what you consider fair ball in the game, if you will, of getting elected president.   How big a fish can you claim to have caught, if you caught none?   That"˜s all I"˜m asking.

SESTAK:   Well, Chris, you know, I went to the Naval Academy.   There was an honor code there, but very few people read that honor code.   That honor code says, Hey, you won"˜t lie, steal or cheat.   But it also says if you see someone who does, you don"˜t, then report them.   You have a choice.   You report them or you counsel them because we recognize that we"˜re humans.   Whether it"˜s Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Hillary Clinton or Senator Obama, we all have our faults.   The question is this.   Who"˜s ready on day one because of what she learned in Bosnia…

(more…)

Bolt #1 (H/T – Jim Geraghty) – Mike Gravel has bolted to the Libertarians.

Bolt #2 (H/T – Dad29) – Alan Keyes will be kissing off to the Constitution Party on Tax Day.

Which one doesn’t make sense, or do both of them smack of nonsense?

On February 24th, Ralph Nader announced his Presidential Candidacy.   I didn’t post it here but I made comments on other sites saying that this was going to be a positive for the Republicans.   I made the argument that the ideologicals of the left were likely going to look for an alternative when their particular candidate (either  Hillary or Barack)  ultimately was flamed.   I was heartily pooh poohed at the time being told that the 2000 impact of Nader was a once in a lifetime event and that he wouldn’t amount to more than a raindrop in the ocean in 2008.

Zogby International released a poll on 3/15 that has not received any airtime on a rather interesting item.   In that poll, where they find McCain beating either Clinton or Obama, they have Nader receiving 5% – 6% of the vote.   I guess folks were right when they said 2004 was a one time event, Nader only received 2.7% of the vote in that election!

5%, not much you say?   Generally you’d be correct if we elected President’s on a purely popular vote but we elect them essentially,  state by state.    A quick peak under the historical numbers show some pretty interesting possibilities.  

The following chart shows the states in 2004 that  John Kerry won with less than a 5% margin and Nader’s percent of vote in those same states from the 2000 election:

Assuming Nader could do again as well as 2000 and that he pulls predominantly from Democrats, this could mean that Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and maybe even Oregon come into play.   Some of this is starting show as Rasmussen has released polls showing that McCain has pulled within the margin of error in both Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Take one more twist and assume that Nader did in fact nearly double is vote percentage from 2000 and that it was distributed across the states in the same way that it was in 2000.   Those numbers would look like this:

 This would now have the potential to put 7 states in play.

OK, we don’t know how this is going to play out.   However, I’m willing to bet that the longer Obama and Clinton beat on each other, the more likely it will be that those who are on the losing side will want to find an alternative way to express themselves This should be  especially true if this is decided at the convention and there is little time to adjust. (Hey all you we “I’ll never vote for McCain” folks, remember how that feels?)

OK, it’s early yet and we don’t know how this will play out.   My point is now, as it was when he entered the race, Nader will impact this race and it will be a negative for the Democrats.

If you’re still not convinced consider this; it was likely Ralph Nader who caused George Bush to win the 2000 election. Florida was decided by approximately 540 votes.   Nader received 97,488 votes .   Who do you think those votes would have gone to?   Do you still think Nader can’t impact the 2008 election?