Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

Well, duh. Interestingly, the chart shows how much gas prices have increased over the last four years. And I haven't personally had a pay raise in 4 years, but instead get phantom pay cuts with every increase in the costs of insurance, etc. I've spent 4 years essentially going backwards. I hope you have fared better.

First it was guns, now its abortion

First, Obama sends out a fake gun rights group to convince gun owners to vote for him. Now, he has a "pro-life" group that has set up a website to suggest that Obama is pro-life. CitizenLink has more. The group behind the website (Matthew 25) says that Obama would do more than McCain for the pro-life cause. Give me a break.

Palin Causes Arthritis

Well, the headline actually says Pain Causes Arthritis, but with all the Palin bashing by the media, my mind read "Palin" instead of Pain when I first saw it. It's almost like we are being conditioned by the media to believe she is responsible for all the ills of the world. Hey, did you know that Mrs. Palin isn't a trivia expert? That's what I took away from her interview with Katie Couric. Mrs. Palin's inability to trot off a list of McCain's regulatory proposals is insignificant, particularly in light of many of the supporters of her opponent's inability to articulate a single legislative accomplishment of Barack Obama.

The Palin / Couric interview stands out in one respect. It is painfully clear that Couric hates Palin to the core. Watch the YouTube video, turn down the sound, and simply observe Couric's body language.

Oh no! Sarah has a tanning bed.

Well, I guess now I will have to change my vote. Apparently, Sarah Palin had a tanning bed installed in the governor's mansion at her expense. When will the Palin scandals end?!?

Great McCain Ad

Watch as a slew of Democrats praise John McCain. I guess they were just taken out of context. Some view this ad as racist. I am not surprised. /sarcasm

It depends on the question.

Time has a rather silly article with a rather silly headline: Is Al Gore the Answer? Well, it depends on the question. The answer is "yes" if the question is any one of the following:

1. Which 2000 Presidential candidate lost the Florida vote no matter how many times it was recounted?
2. Which 2000 Presidential candidate made a movie so full of inaccuracies that a judge in England set viewing guidelines before students could watch it?
3. Which 2000 Presidential candidate would have won the election if he could have carried his home state?
4. Which former Presidential candidate preaches from the church of global warming while sucking enough energy for his own home to light a small town?

The answer is "no" if the question is any one of the following:

1. Which former Presidential candidate wanted to streamline regulation and reduce taxes so that the economy would grow?
2. Which former Presidential candidate is not an environmental chicken-hawk opportunist?
3. Which former Presidential candidate is willing to make personal sacrifices to help the environment?

Enough about Al Gore. The author is about par for the course in showing his liberal bias. Here are a few examples:

"Which is not to say that Clinton's candidacy is entirely without purpose now that she is pursuing a Republican-style race gambit, questioning Obama's 20-year relationship" with his pastor. Why, exactly, is this a "Republican-style" race gambit?

"and a year that should have been an easy Democratic victory, given the state of the economy and the unpopularity of the incumbent, might slip away. " Really?

I can't figure out if this guy is really concerned about the "easy Democratic victory" slipping away or if he is one of the many media morons who still can't get over the fact that Al Gore lost the election.

Bloomberg is out

Good news for a change. Or maybe not. I dislike him intensely due to his untenable position on gun rights. The only bad part about it is that I suspect he would take more votes away from the Democrat than from the Republican.

Hillary will pull out all the stops.

Megan McCardle is flabberghasted that Hillary is considering a scheme to try and make sure she gets the nomination by finding a way for pledged delegates to vote for her. Let me be perfectly clear. There is nothing that the Clintons will not do to get re-elected. Yes, I said re-elected. She knows that this is her last realistic chance to be President. Her defeat will be viewed by many as the "End of the Clintons" and a statement about the legacy stench of the Clinton years. People, don't be fooled. She will stop at nothing. She does not care if the party is destroyed. If the Clintons believe that there is any chance for her (i.e., them) to get the nomination, no shenanigan is beneath them.

Personally, I want to see it tied up in court. The Democrats tend to prefer to use the judiciary as a solution to everything that they can't otherwise accomplish, but I have a feeling that letting the courts decide their internal policies might not sit too well with them. It would be the perfect irony - an internal struggle in the party about whether to disenfranchise voters who do not have a Constitutional right to vote on the matter to begin with.

Obama can run, but he can't hide.

It's funny how the Internet insures that politicians can't get too far from their anti-gun history. Of course AP and it's fellow travelers like to say that Obama supports individual gun rights. Note that the prior post is now updated to show the new link. Yahoo or AP must have changed the headline. They changed much of the story at the old link. Here is the new link, with my more aptly named headline:

Obama and Willing Accomplices Hide Obama's Gun Rights Position

Hillary's best photo yet

I would say Sieg Heil about sums it up.

Obama's Gun Control Position

According to this headline on Yahoo news, "Obama supports individual gun rights." What a complete load of bull. He supports individual rights as long as the government controls every aspect of the right. That is not a right at all. That is a mirage. Neither he nor his willing accomplices in the media get away with such a twist on the reality of his gun rights position.

Apparently, he doesn't want to take ALL guns, just those that look scary (regardless of their functionality). Also, he wants to make it so expensive to buy bullets that the RKBA would be near meaningless. In this same article, it is mentioned that he supports DC's TOTAL HANDGUN BAN. Yeah, he's a real champion of our rights.

NY Times Endorses McCain in Republican Primary

Here is a link to a free story about the story. In the Republican primary, they endorse McCain, not because they particularly like any of the Republicans, but because they believe that he "is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." Further, they loathe and despise Guiliani, stating that "The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power."

Does this influence my choices? Yes. It makes me even more certain that I will not vote for McCain in the primary. It is not surprising that he is the Republican that the liberal lunatic fringe likes the best. It is also going to make me take a closer look at Guiliani. I had pretty much decided that he was third on my list of current primary potentials. I am revising that upward. If the New York Times hates him so much, there are probably plenty of reasons for me to like him and vote for him.

Thompson for VP?

Looks like someone else has figured out what I said almost six months ago:

If Fred decides to run for President (which he will), could it be that the end game is to be a vice presidential pick? Personally, I think he should be at the top of the ticket, but look at the other two front-runners, Guiliani and Romney. Forget McCain - he is finished. Both Guiliani and Romney are from the northeast and are barely conservatives. Fred is a decidely strong, southern conservative. He can provide the balance for any ticket. If either Guiliani or Romney are nominated, they will not pick the other as a Vice Presidential candidate due to their close geographic bases. They will need someone who can help them carry some states that they would not otherwise carry. Fred is the only obvious choice that fits the bill. Newt Gingrich might also fill the bill, but I don't think he has his eyes on the second chair.

I think the converse may also be true. If Fred gets the nomination, I think the area where "help" will be the most valuable will be the northeast. I think Guiliani is the obvious VP pick for Fred. Guilini is a liberal Republican and would give Fred his best chance of carrying NY. It would be too funny if Hillary could not carry her "home" state. I'm still laughing at those who whine about Al Gore in Florida. Tennessee beat Al Gore. Florida was just a side show.

Maybe I should keep score on that post.

"Racial" or "Racist"?

Instapundit dubs this Rasmussen poll a "racial split". Reynolds certainly points out the money quote: "But, among white voters, Clinton leads 41% to 27%. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 66% to 16%." Liberal pundits who suffer from white guilt, such as Chris Matthews, love to attack whites by claiming that whites vote against black candidates on the basis of race. Undoubtedly, some whites do that. Matthews would most assuredly call them racists. But what do you call it when blacks vote for someone because of his race? You don't have to be a statistical genius to see the disparity among whites and blacks in choosing their candidate, apparently based on race. Blacks overwhelmingly support the black candidate, to a much greater degree than whites support the white candidate. This was the same issue I pointed out earlier with respect to Harold Ford, Jr. I suppose one could argue that blacks believe that the black candidate is more likely to support "black issues" whatever that is. Isn't that a racist, stereotypical assumption in and of itself? Is Hillary's record on issues affecting blacks any worse than it is on issues affecting other races?

Fred Thompson Scores Big in South Carolina

By all accounts that I have found, Fred Thompson scored big in last night's South Carolina debate. Hang Right Politics has a nice roundup of reaction to Fred's debate performance. It is clear to me that Fred Thompson is the candidate that conservatives can get behind. We need to get moving on this before it is too late.