The Left's "Pack" Mentality

Everything you need to know about the human condition has already been written by H. L. Mencken. He observed nearly 100 years ago that "The chief preoccupation of mankind is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue."

This indisputable "Natural Truth" is one reason why Barack Obama is the political phenomenon among liberals that he is. It is also the reason why Misha Defonseca of Dudley, MA is a best-selling author...and an obvious fraud.

I had never heard of Ms. Defonseca's autobiography, Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years, until I read about it in the Boston Globe-Democrat this morning. This "true story" is a huge hit in Europe, has been translated into 18 languages and the French have made it into a film. If an unrelated lawsuit hadn't stopped US publication, the book would be sitting next to "The Audacity Of Hope" on bookshelves across America.

What's is Misha's story? The Boston Globe-Democrat reports:

In the book, 6-year-old Misha is rescued at school in 1941 when her parents are arrested and deported. She is spirited away to the De Wael family and given a new name, Monique. Unhappy with her host family, she runs away in hopes of finding her parents. Over the next four years she wanders alone across Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia, across the Adriatic Sea by boat to Italy, then through Italy across the Alps to France and back to Belgium. Along the way, she is sheltered by packs of wolves, kills a German soldier, witnesses an eastbound freight train full of Jews, wanders into the Warsaw Ghetto, and escapes. A 2001
story in The Boston Globe raised questions about the book's veracity, but Defonseca insisted that it was all true. [emphasis added]

Here's a hint: Any book that features the storyline "was raised by a pack of wolves" should immediately go in the "Fiction" section.

If you are a rational person, you won't be surprised to learn that, not only is Misha's story of being raised by wolves untrue, but this little Jewish girl wasn't able to roam in and out of the Warsaw Ghetto at will because a) she was in Belgium at the time; and b) she's not Jewish.

The author now insists that "the story in the book is mine. It is not the actual reality - it was my reality." It's a line that was no doubt well received in the English Lit Department at Harvard. In fact, it summarizes the philosophy of the modern Left on issues from global warming to the threat of Islamism: "Just because what I say isn't true doesn't mean I'm wrong."

Personally, I think Dan Rather and CBS News should sue Ms. Defonseca. Isn't "Fake But Accurate" their line?

I Hate To Say "I Told You So"...

OK, actually I love saying "I told you so" to anti-war weenies who've thrown away their brains.

Sen. "He's Not A Muslim" claimed in a debate that American soldiers in Afghanistan forced to rely on captured Taliban weapons and ammo because "it's easier to get weapons from the Taliban than from their Commander-in-Chief." I called BS on him, a call that was echoed through the media.

Many Bush-bashers insisted the story must be true because "Bush sucks." That's considered an argument by the American Left.

But Jack Jacobs, a retired Army colonel and Imus regular is no friend of Bush, and he confirms what every person I've told to who's served in Afghanistan has told me:

But last week, during his debate with Clinton, Obama tried speaking about substance when he mentioned the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he displayed an astounding ignorance of the military instrument. He said that an anonymous U.S. Army captain told him that his infantry platoon was split and sent to different areas of operations; that they were lacking vehicles; and that they had insufficient ammunition to fight.

Although problems do occur in combat situations to be sure, none of what Obama related makes any sense and is, according to people with whom I spoke, untrue. Units the size of platoons are not sent to separate theaters, ammunition has been plentiful, and an investigation indicates that the unit in question was missing only one of its Humvees, all to no peril of the unit.

In other words, Sen. "Not A Muslim" had no idea what he was talking about. But the mainsteam media ignored it, possibly because the Illinois senator not understanding military matters simply isn't news.

He Made It Cool To Be A Conservative

There is a moment that many conservatives of my generation share, a moment that we owe to William F. Buckley. It goes something like this:

You're at a party in the '80s or early '90s with your smart, liberal friends. Some political issue comes up, and you discover to your own surprise that you are holding the floor alone. Five people are arguing, shouting, screaming at you, and you are answering every argument and...winning? Could it be true.

Then it dawns on you that you've already heard their arguments, and the answers. You know why their position makes no sense. You're not winning. The ideas, facts and logic are winning. And you got them all from Bill Buckley and National Review.

It wasn't that you were a better debater or had brilliant insights. It's that you had the advantage of being exposed to the wit and wisdome of WFB. That's to him, you really were the smartest person in the room. Your liberal friends, hobbled by their exposure to the feeble intellects featured in the New York Times, never had a chance. Buckley had them outnumbered, all by himself.

My colleagues at National Review share their thoughts today. It is today's "must-read."

UPDATE: This Charlie Rose WFB retrospective is good, too.

For Democrats, No Idea Is Too Good To Bash

Back before she faced a challenger on her left, Hillary Clinton bragged about the success of free trade under her husband, Bill Clinton. But today, with Barack Obama taking the Democratic Party back to the halcyon days of McGovern and Mondale, she's all about hatin' the NAFTA, too.

The Natural Truth, as virtually every economist in the world will tell you, is that free trade makes more people more wealthy, and it has been a boon to the US economy.

Rich Lowry from National Review offers a few basic facts about NAFTA in his most recent column:

Since 1993, the U.S. economy has grown by 54 percent. The jobless rate has dropped from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 4.9 percent today. Manufacturing output has increased by 63 percent. Canada and Mexico are our first- and second-largest export markets, and U.S. merchandise exports to them have increased at a slightly faster clip than exports to the rest of the world.

A Canadian journalist also tries to help Barack Obama with his math:

Over the past 10 years, average real compensation paid to American workers has gone up by 22 per cent, according to a Washington-based policy think-tank called the Cato Institute. It also estimates trade accounts for only about three per cent of dislocated workers, far less than technology and other domestic factors. While 3.3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 10 years, there has been a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in better paying sectors.

And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has said the combination of income gains and tariff reductions has provided the average American family with additional income of up to $930 a year.

And we're going to get RID of NAFTA? That's change, all right. From better to worse.

Could A Beacon Hill Legislator Find This Liquor Store With Both Hands?

Good question.

There's an entire web posting of "ill-advised business names" and our friends at Bunghole Liquors made it to the top!

Massachusetts Democrats: 15 Years Older, 0% Wiser

Our friend Andy McCarthy from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has the "must-read" article of the day. It's about this date, February 26, a date that should live in infamy. The fact that it means nothing to most Americans speaks volumes about American culture and politics today.

It was on this day 15 years ago that the Islamist War Against Modernity first came to our shores. The truck bomb attack on the World Trade Centers should have been a wake up call. Instead, we all but ignored it. President Clinton treated it the same way he treated the repeated attacks against America on his watch: No bid deal.

That mentality should have ended on 9/11/01. The fact that Democrats in the House of Representatives have stopped our foreign surveillance program over the issue of trial lawyers hounding US telecom companies shows that, for some people, the past 15 years never happened.

Hillary Clinton Tries The "Fried Chicken And Watermelon" Strategy

Is there some OTHER reason why her campaign is mailing out this photo?

Your "Holy Crap These People Are Out Of Their Minds" Audio...

...is provided today by Michelle Obama during a recent appearance at UCLA.

At one point, Ms. Obama says that we can be confident of her husband's qualifications for LOTFW because Oprah Winfrey says so. Well, I guess that settles that...

And both Mark Steyn and Jim Geraghty focus on this high (low?) light from Ms Obama:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you
engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Yikes.

My reaction is similar to Steyn's:

The "shed your cynicism" bit sounds like a scene from one of those dystopian movies where you get slid into the Cynishedder as a bitterly sardonic old crank in a pork-pie hat and after 30 seconds bathed in the rays of the Obamatron you emerge in a turquoise 1970s catsuit with a glassy-eyed stare.

President Obama? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

America's Favorite High School Newspaper

The longer I live, the more I believe that life is just like high school. The same, arrogant, clueless dopes who ran the Student Government eventually grow up to run America. And, they run it the same clueless, arrogant way.

And remember the snarky gits who ran the student paper, trying to whip up campus anger of the sugary snacks in the vending machines? They're now running the New York Times.

I have no idea what the truth is regarding John McCain and the blonde lobbyist the NYTimes is writing about today. I suppose it's possible that, back when McCain was a youthful 64 years old, he was puttin' the moves on the ladies. I suppose it's possible that he was cutting deals in the US Senate on behalf of her clients in order to get into her undergarments.

Sure, all this is possible. But unfortunately for the NYTimes...it's not IN THE STORY! They got nuthin'. Bupkis. This is the entire story: "I talked to a guy who said he thought it LOOKED like McCain might be having a naughty relationship so we told her to stay away, even though we never saw anything." So the NYTimes is reduced to reporting a literal rumor as a news story.

I'm not sure that even a high school paper would do that.

The NYTimes defends itself by saying "Hey, the story is really about McCain's corruption problem." Then they fail to give a single example of said corruption. Instead, they show just how clueless they are with "reporting" like this:

By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning “soft money,” the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws. [emphasis added]

It did? Really? Gee, I've been watching the 2008 race since, well, 2004, and I haven't noticed a transformation. Instead, we've seen candidates from Ron Paul to Barack Obama setting new records for campaign donations. Mrs. Bill Clinton and Sen. Obama have each raised more than $100 million already, and Obama is almost certain to break his pledge to take taxpayer campaign money in lieu of private donations. He could raise $300 million by November.

Some transformation.

The New York Times is already a joke from a journalism perspective. Their intentional misreporting and newspage bias has been so thoroughly presented that no honest observer can claim it is anything more than a propaganda outlet for the American Left.

But running stories about rumors? If it were a high school paper, the editor would get an "F."

Alas, the standards at the New York Times aren't that high.

Sorry, Hil, But I'm Reaching For The Fork

If I had to bet today, I would still bet on Mrs. Bill Clinton getting the Democratic nomination for president. But I wouldn't bet a dime I couldn't afford to lose.

My bet would be out of respect for the Clintonistas and their relentless, shameless, vicious determination to win at any cost. For me, the Clintons are like political vampires: things that would kill another politician (lying to federal judges, obstruction of justice, hiding evidence from courts, illegal possession of FBI files, sex on the floor of the Oval Office with young interns, etc) only make them stronger. I won't believe the Clintons are defeated until I see the wooden stake in her political heart, and the candidate corpse surrounded by garlic and crucifixes.

And even then, I'd wait for daylight and make sure she didn't move.

Having said all that, after Sen. Obama's big win in Wisconsin, we are almost at "the fork" moment in this campaign. As in "stick a fork in her, she's done." Read Jay Cost's analysis at RealClearPolitics, and the question arises "where does she go to win?"

Sen. Obama got more votes from black people, white people, educated people, folks with no college degrees, and he even got more votes from women. He tied Hillary among WHITE women and union households. All in a midwestern, moderate-income, "looks like America" state.

And, it should be noted, in a state where pre-election polls showed Mrs. Clinton was supposedly competitive. Wisconsin isn't Hawaii or Illinois for the Clintons. The RCP poll average had her within 5% of Obama the morning of the election. She lost by 17%!

So we have reached a new moment in the Democratic presidential race. We are now at the moment when, for Mrs. Clinton to win the nomination, something must happen. The candidate of "change," Obama, wants nothing to change at all. He'd happily have votes in Ohio and Texas tomorrow.

Meanwhile. Mrs. Clinton needs something to happen or, to be more direct, is looking right now at how she can make something happen that will change the course of this election. The two upcoming debates offer opportunities, but no guarantees. She'll probably take a few punches at Sen. Obama, but don't look for a "Hail Mary." Debates are tricky. You never know how Obama, the moderators or the audience will react.

The Clintonistas need something they can control.

We will find out in the next two weeks leading up to Ohio and Texas if the Clintons have something real on Obama. Is there a drug crime he's successfully hidden, is there some paper he wrote on the dietary value of cannibalism or--if they're really prepared to dive into the sewer--is he a secret fan of talk radio?

If there is a scandal to be sold, the Clintons will be working it in the press like a hooker at Shriner's convention.

This is the moment. Now or never.

I doubt that there is, not because we haven't seen it yet (if Hillary had won Wisconsin, she'd still have a shot without the scandal card), but because Sen. Obama has been so open about his problems. He brought up his youthful drug use, he's written about his childhood in a Muslim country. His wife loves telling us how "stinky" he is. What's left?

But if it's true that the Clinton's don't have anything on Obama, don't be fooled into thinking they won't play the scandal card anyway. They'll make it up. They'll grab some statement, twist it out of context and spread outrage over the fact that the media aren't twisting it, too. Or they'll just lie.

They're Clintons. That's what they do.

Which is why I'm just reaching for the fork this morning, and not sticking it in. With anyone else, this race would be over.

With the Clintons, it's just starting.

CNN: "We're EXTRA Fair and Balanced For Communist Dictators!"

Employees at CNN arrived at work this morning to find an email from management urging staff members to take special care to "cover the end of the Castro era.

Here is part of the email, verbatim:

From the International Desk

Some points on Castro – for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration.

* Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically – something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call “the imperialist,” meddling in their affairs.

* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Gee, I wonder if a similar email went out at CNN when Ronald Reagan died? Based on their coverage at the time, I'd have to say "no."

But Ted forbid we treat Castro unfairly by reporting the facts. And now that you mention it, I haven't heard a single reference to the thousands of political prisoners in Cuban prisons under Castro in any of CNN's coverage. They did mention the fact that he has been repeatedly re-elected, but I don't think they ever mentioned he was essentially unopposed.

That crazy Castro! You gotta love him--or else CNN will fire you.

What's Really Going On In Cuba?

Val Prieto and his crew at Babalu Blog have the inside story and insight.

And should we send Sen. Barack Obama (that's his Texas HQ in the photo) a condolence card now that his friend Fidel is unemployed? Sen. Obama is no doubt heart-broken.

Will The Last Liberal Dumb Enough To Defend "Gun-Free Zones" Please Shoot Yourself?

The emails are pouring in from angry gunhaters about our conversation Friday pointing out the Left's culpability in the bloodshed at NIU. Interestingly, the "Guns Are Icky!" liberals aren't arguing that so-called "gun-free zones" work. (Kind of hard to with all those shot and bleeding students lying at your feet, isn't it?)

Instead, they're left to argue that allowing college students to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights would be worse. It has to be, otherwise, legal gun ownership would be a good thing--and that is simple impossible.

Unfortunately for these gutless "It's not my job to defend myself or my family" liberals, the impossible just happens to be true. Here's Dr. John R. Lott:

A three-year prison term for violating a gun-free zone represents a real penalty for a law-abiding citizen. Adding three years to a criminal’s sentence when he is probably already going to face multiple death penalties or life sentences for a murderous rampage is probably not going to be the penalty that stops the criminal from committing his crime...

Bill Landes and I have examined all the multiple-victim public schooings with two or more victims in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

No other gun-control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks. [emphasis added]

I realize that facts have little or no interest to the anti-gun loonies. What they are really arguing against isn't guns, but rather the notion that citizens have any responsibility for their own security. As hard as it is for normal people to believe, a good Cambridge liberal would rather find himself lying defenseless on the floor of a classroom waiting for a shooter to re-load and shoot him, then be burdened with the responsibility of legal gun ownership.

The sad irony is that, right now, there are responsibile citizens carrying guns who are prepared to use them to stop loonies like the NIU guy from killing these irrational, gun-fearing liberals. Meanwhile, those same liberals are pushing for laws to strip their would-be saviors of their weapons and force them onto the floor beside the cowering cowards of the Left.

Links From Friday's Show

Filling in for Severin always means a crazy day for me, so instead of full postings, here are the key links from today's show.

Dr. John R. Lott's website gives you links to all the information you need to know about the killing fields called "gun-free zones."

I talked this morning to Adam Reilly at the Boston Phoenix about his story on Mark Helperin's potty mouth and what John Edwards called Sen. Barack Obama.

And experts speak out on our plan to shoot a satellite out of the sky at Wired.com.

But Will It Matter

Kimberly Strassel in the WSJ today is, I'm sure, absolutely right about the economics of a Barack Obama presidency:

This is going to be an old-fashioned debate on spending, and here thedivide will be of Grand Canyon proportions. Democrats have presented themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility of late, a message that contrasted well with spendthrift Republicans in the 2006 elections. The Democratic presidential candidates will struggle to make that case, given both are inching toward the $900-billion-in-proposed-new-spending mark.

Mr. Obama's wish list for just one term? Some $260 billion over four years for health care. Another $60 billion for an energy plan. A further $340 billion for his tax plan. A $14 billion national service plan. A $72 billion education package. Also, $25 billion in
foreign assistance funding, $2 billion for Iraqi refugees and $1.5 billion for paid-leave systems. (I surely forgot some.) Mr. Obama says he'll pay for these treasures by stopping the Iraq war and taxing the rich. But both Democrats have already spent the tax hikes several times over, and even a Ph.D. would struggle with this math.

The question is, will it matter? Here in Massachusetts, Deval Patrick ran in a three-way Democratic primary as an unreconstructed Lefty, openingly calling for more government spending, more leniency towards criminals, higher energy costs to home and business owners, etc. And guess what--nobody cared. He beat an experienced, moderate sitting Attorney General and a well-known, wonky liberal multi-millionaire with no problem.

Why? Because Gov. Patrick is aided by the same psychology that is boosting Sen. Obama. Call it the "Reverse E.F. Hutton Syndrome." Remember the ads, "When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen?" Well, when Deval "Together We Can" Patrick and Barack "Yes, We Can" Obama talk, nobody can hear a word they're saying.

People feel them. They cheer them. Women even (literally) swoon over them. But nobody is paying even a tiny bit of attention to what they're actually saying.

Which presents an astonishingly difficult challenge to the McCain campaign, should the two face off in November: How do you defeat a candidate, when nobody cares what he's actually going to do as president?

Nobody--I mean NOBODY--is voting for Sen. Obama because of his policies or plans. Obamas's voters are guilty white people and disaffected black people who will feel so, so good having cast that vote for a black president.

After that? They don't care. Can John McCain, or anybody else for that matter, make them?

Happy Valenti....er "FRIENDSHIP" Day!

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Call me your valentine
and my lawyer will sue.

Welcome to Valentine's Day 2008!

"But Don't Question His Patriotism!"

Holy Crap, Barack-man!

That was my reaction when I saw this photo from one of Barack Obama's campaign offices in Texas.

Yes, that IS the national flag of Communist Cuba (delegate count, 0; political prisoners, 7,000+). And yes, that IS the face of Communist terrorist Che Guevara printed on it.

If you're thinking "Hey, didn't Sen. Obama take the American flag lapel pins off his suits AFTER 9/11?"

You're right!

Well, nobody can say Sen. Obama doesn't represent the true spirit of modern American liberalism...

(h/t NewsBusters)

Welcome Friends (and others) From The Newton Tab Blog!

Glad you're enjoying our conversation about Crazy Davey Cohen's "Thurston Howell III Taj Mahal" High School. Please keep up great work, and I hope some of our 96.9 FM TALK listeners will join in at your blog as well.

Meanwhile, feel free to be part of the Natural Truth, 9am-noon, and send your comments about the $200 million taxpayer fiasco to michaelgraham@969wtkk.com.

"Too Scared To Sign His Own Spam."

"What’s the difference between an illegal alien stealing an American job, and Martin Luther King Jr. fighting for American rights?

Don’t know?

Congratulations, you too could be on the Boston City Council!"

More on Captain Courage, Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon (staring adoringly at Deval, left), in my Boston Herald column today.

Just Don't Call Him "Articulate!"

This from John Dickerson at Slate.com:

"Clinton's support among these key demographics also provides her with her electability argument as she tries to make the case that Obama is a modern-day George McGovern—the pet rock of the party's wealthy liberal wing."

Hmmm, I wonder how Sen. Obama feels about being described as anyone's "pet rock." And while I don't want to fall into the racial hypersensitivity of the Left, isn't there an inference of tokenism in that comment? It's one thing to be the movement liberal who can't win. It's another thing to be that movement's "pet," mascot or plaything.

Then again, it could be the natural fallout of running a virtually content-free campaign as Sen. Obama is doing. When your resume is wafer thin, and your stump speech is as thin as prison camp soup, it's easy to be viewed as a dilettante. But a "pet rock?"

It's going to be an interesting race.

City Councilor Sam Yoon: A Profile in Courage

Boston City Councilor Sam "Speak Truth To Power!" Yoon refused to join us on the air Friday and discuss his resolution in support of the "Welcoming Massachusetts Pledge." Does he really believe, as the pledge states, that illegal immigrants have the "civil and human right" to come to America and live on the taxpayer's dime here in Boston?

He wouldn't say. Said discussing the topic at all would be "destructive." To what--the perception that Sam Yoon knows what the heck he's talking about?

Whatever.

Well, several 96.9 WTKK listeners called and emailed his office regarding his "illegal immigrants = MLK" resolution, and here's the answer they received:

From: "Yoon, Sam"

Dear Sir or Madam,

First, thanks for taking the time to reach out about your concerns.

Councilor Yoon welcomes your input on policy. The immigration system is broken and out of date. It is clear that we have to get the system under control. Councilor Yoon feels it is important to ensure that illegal immigrants register for legal status, pay taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks if they want to stay in the country.

Councilor Yoon is committed to finding solutions to the problems facing our city. That is his job as a city councilor. Finding solutions begins by having a serious, reasonable discussion.

The resolution passed unanimously by the city council and signed by the mayor commits your government to having a serious discussion about the serious problem of immigration. Nothing more and nothing less.

Please feel free to take a look at the resolution.

Best,

Jacob

Jacob Baker
Office of Sam Yoon, City Councilor At-Large
Boston City Hall, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02201
617-635-4217

Now, what's the first thing you notice about Sam Yoon's reply to his constituents? It's NOT from Sam Yoon! Even when he's sending out a "Dear Sir or Madam" reply, he still refuses to speak. It's from some guy named Jacob Baker. Why--so if there's too much heat, Yoon can throw him under the bus?

Secondly, Jacob is right that the email doesn't commit the city council to do anything. It's just p.c. puffery. But that doesn't change the fact that the pledge specifically declares the enforcement of immigration laws a violation of "civil and human rights."

So we're back to the beginning: What does Sam Yoon believe? What does the City Council think? Do they even understand the principles explicitly stated in the Welcoming Massachusetts Pledge they have endorsed?

Until they start answering their own email, we may never know...

Marines Chased Out Of Urban Area--More Bad News From Iraq?

No, Toledo.

Toledo, OH, which, if my Google maps software is accurate, is still part of the United States. Unfortunately. (See photo left)

Read this story about the idiot city government and their treatment of the US Marines, and you'll want to give Toledo to Canada.

Not that the Canucks would be dumb enough to take it.

Is It Really "McCain vs. The Insane?"

That's how the McCain-anites, the McCain "true believers" are trying to portray the opposition to his nomination by GOP conservatives.

Either you're with McCain, or you're some kind of nut.

Andrew McCarthy, who shares my same concerns about McCain, confronts this argument directly today.

But for me to conclude McCain would surely appoint conservative judges, I also have to believe campaign-finance and the Geneva Convention weren’t all that big a deal to him after all — a possibility that runs counter to everything McCain’s fans tell us about his fidelity to principle. He’s fought tirelessly for years, in the teeth of blistering criticism, to establish campaign-finance regulations, and I’m now supposed to believe he’ll just shrug his shoulders and meekly name judges who’ll torpedo the whole enterprise — all in the name of upholding a judicial philosophy I’m not even sure he grasps? How exactly is it deranged to have my doubts?

McCarthy also points out that McCain got beaten twice this weekend by the travelling tent revival known as the Huckabee campaign, and that three out of four Republicans who voted this weekend voted AGAINST McCain. He's virtually unopposed, and he's still losing the Republican vote.

For two weeks, I mocked Mitt Romney by pointing out that he was such a weak candidate he couldn't even beat Mike Huckabee. Now John McCain has the same problem. The big difference, of course, is that Romney isn't going to be on the ballot in November.

Your "Must See" Video Of The Week

Mark Steyn, at CPAC, hitting home run after home run as usual. It's terrific.

Watch it here.

Boston City Council Takes The "Pledge"

This week, Boston City Council unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by Sam Yoon and Michael Flaherty "supporting the principles of the 'Welcoming Massachusetts Pledge,' thereby committing to publicly reject the politics of division and isolation, blah, blah, blah." (I paraphrased that last part.)

You can read the "Welcoming Massachusetts Pledge" for yourself, but here's the part that jumped out at me:

"[We] Believe that harsh immigration enforcement policies violate civil and human rights of [illegal] immigrants and therefore the core vale taht all people are endowed with unalienable rights."

To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Holy crap!"

So illegal immigrants have the "unalienable right" come to America? Illegal immigrants who are denied the "civil right" to live in America are equal to black Americans denied their civil rights during the Jim Crow era?

Is that really what the Boston City Council believes?

I could give a more accurate answer if the sponsor of this resolution, Sam Yoon, had the guts to come on my show and explain his support for the Pledge. Instead, his office told us that "he's not going to engage in destructive dialogue." Whatever that means.

If you're looking for some "destructive dialogue," you might want to try Steve Bailey's column in that notorious right-wing rag, the Boston Globe-Democrat. He quotes economists from Harvard and Northeastern (two more havens of reactionary xenophobia) confirming that illegal immigration hurts low-skilled Americans--particularly black and Hispanic Americans.

Does City Councilor Chuck Turner understand that's what he voted for?

Who knows--he ain't talkin', either.

WTKK Listeners To Slackers: "Enjoy Our Money"

The $168 billion "Stimulate My Re-Election Campaign" package has passed the Congress and is headed to President Bush's desk. He's already agreed to sign it.

Gee, President Bush signing a huge, big-government spending program--I'm shocked!

The Wall Street Journal lays out the details of this government giveaway program:

Under the final bill, most taxpayers would receive checks of up to $600 for individuals, or $1,200 for married couples, amounts that would begin to phase out at incomes above $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples. Millions of people who don't pay income taxes but have incomes of at least $3,000 would receive smaller rebatesof $300, or $600 for married couples...People receiving rebates would receive $300 credits for each child.

First of all, how the heck can you call it a "rebate" when you give $600 to a family who never "bated" in the first place--who didn't pay any federal income taxes?

That's not a rebate. That's charity. And who is paying for it? Why, the folks who work hard, pay their own bills, and get stuck with the taxpayer tab. Remember: nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. About 30% of the folks getting the "rebates" didn't pay any either.

All that money coming out of the pockets of our hardest-working, most productive citizens--the kind of people who tend to listen to 96.9 FM TALK.

Meanwhile, economists agree that the rebate checks will do little, if anything, to stimulate the economy. (There are other business-related tax reductions in this package, however, that actually might do some good.)

Granny will get an extra $300 to blow at bingo night. The unmotivated, part-time worker who spends most of his day watching re-runs of Three's Company will buy an additional $300 in lottery tickets and microwave burritos.

And the responsible, taxpaying families of America will get little or none of their own money back. They'll just get the shaft. Again. And, because they're good people, they'll just shake their heads, roll their eyes, and get back to work.

Oh, one more note: Guess what straight-talkin', tough, principled conservative voted "yes" for this package yesterday?

One hint: His first name is "Juan."

UPDATE: If you really want to help the economy, Larry Kudlow tells you how.

The GOP Veepstakes: The Winning Number is Three

The denial phase is soon coming to an end, and disgruntled conservatives (as well as "gruntled" McCain supporters) will be asking "who is the running mate?" The media speculation has already begun.

First answer: NOT Mitt Romney.

Second answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT Mike Huckabee.

So who?

Start with this premise: Winning as a Republican is going to be extremely tough in 2008. If the GOP does everything right, odds are they'll still lose. Forget the current "McCain's leading in the polls, while Hillary and Obama are still beating each other up." That will change.

The Democrats will unite behind a nominee (probably Mrs. Clinton). The media will turn on McCain. And the presidential race will be a state-by-state, door-to-door fight.

So who should be at McCain's side? Here's my three-point test. The VP nominee must:


1-Be perceived as "ready to be president" immediately. One of the major issues of the '08 general election will be John McCain's age. That Washinton Post story about McCain being required to get a special life insurance policy will come back in the fall, I guarantee.

2-- Add a state to the GOP column. If the GOP has any hope of holding the White House, it will likely involve state by state fighting and getting smart, lucky or both in one or two key states. A Great Lakes state maybe, or Florida.

This is mandatory, in my opinion, for any Veep choice: No potential state pick-up, no nominee.

I hope we've learned this lesson. In the summer of 2000 I told my listeners that Bush's choice of Cheney was a dumb mistake because it didn't help Bush close the gap in any state. Many Bushies dismissed my criticism...until the 2000 debacle. Imagine if a vote-getter like a McCain had been on the ticket (He wasn't an option). Imagine a Veep who brought Michigan or Pennsylvania into the GOP fold. The entire history of the past 7 years would be profoundly different if Bush had just won the popular vote.

3--Be a woman or a member of a minority group. It's tragic but true. 2008 is the year of identity politics. It is dominating the political conversation this year. Yes, Democrats should be embarrassed that their exit polls focus on race while Republicans focus on ideas and ideology. They should be embarrassed, but they're not. Neither are the race-obsessed media, who spend more time talking about skin color than the admissions office of Bob Jones University.

The GOP can complain and lose, or play and win. Is it fair? No.

But did your mom always tell you about life: It's not fair.

So forget a Veep who "adds to McCain's conservative credentials." If McCain is struggling for conservative votes in November, the election is lost anyway. A woman from Florida or Ohio who is ready to be president--that's the ticket.

The question is, does such a Veep exist? And if so, why isn't that candidate at the TOP of the ticket?

The CPAC Speeches You WON'T Hear Today

This afternoon, Sen. John McCain is scheduled to appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference - the single most prominent gathering of conservatives in America. Many GOP officials want McCain to use this opportunity to reach out to the disaffected conservative base of the GOP.

What follows is the speech conservatives would like to hear from McCain, but never will.

My friends:

I was wrong.

I was wrong about illegal immigration, because I was more worried about appearing intolerant than I was about the rule of law and national security.

I was wrong about campaign finance reform, because I cared more about positive press than protecting the First Amendment.

I was wrong when I opposed, as I called them at the time, tax cuts for the rich, because I wanted to please the New York Times, not promote conservative economics.

But now, I understand. Thanks to your principled opposition, I have seen the error of my ways. In fact, just moments ago in the green room, Mike Huckabee led me through the sinner's prayer, hallelujah.

I am a changed man. I love tax cuts. I can’t wait to build a border fence. And when it comes to waterboarding terrorists, well, if we catch some al-Qaeda wannabe who knows about an imminent terrorist attack, I’ll hold the little [expletive deleted’s] head under the water myself.

And I will proudly do so under the watchful eye of my choice for Vice President, Rush Limbaugh.


This, on the other hand, is the speech Sen. McCain would love to give at CPAC, but never will.


Hello, losers!

Now that I’ve kicked your conservative aspirations up and down the Electoral College map, let’s get a few things straight: I never liked you, either.

You talk-radio yahoos and Bible-thumping rubes can squeal like the cast of “Deliverance” - or as you call it, video from your last family reunion - but I don’t care. I’m not one of you. Never have been.

Why do you think I keep going out of my way to pick fights with you? Seriously - campaign finance reform, the Gang of 14 fight over conservative judges, illegal immigration? This is stuff that only two groups of people care about: right-wing nuts like you, and members of the mainstream media.

You think I am really pumped up about promoting illegal immigration? I’m from Arizona, for cryin’ out loud. Of course allowing 12 million illegal immigrants to stay in this country, make money and receive tax-funded services, is amnesty. I only deny it because it drives you cranks completely crazy.

You call talk radio and complain about me, I compare you all to racists from the Jim Crow South, and Newsweek does another story about my courage.

I’m not some anti-government activist from Huckaburg. My father and grandfather were both Navy admirals. I’ve spent most of my life with Beltway swells in politics and the media.

I like government. As the Weekly Standard wrote about me, my goal is to end the anti-government era of Gingrich and Reagan. I’m for a strong, good government run by strong, good people like, well, me.

So we’re gonna have amnesty, and we’re gonna have gas taxes to fight global warming and all the rest. And if Rush Limbaugh and his pals don’t like it, wait until I control the FCC. Keep messing with me, and they won’t be able to get a license to use a CB radio.

What are you gonna do about it - sic Mitt Romney on me? My 96-year-old mother can handle that walking hair cut.

You conservatives had your chance. Now it’s my turn.

[From the Boston Herald today]

What's The Next Big Game In The Primary Season?

Our pal Jim Geraghty has all the answers at the Campaign Spot.

"...Every Candidate's Strategy Has Failed."

Another on-point observation by Michael Barone, in today's Wall Street Journal.

He tells the tale of the GOP nomination this way:

Mitt Romney's strategy of changing positions to win the early contests was foiled by Mike Huckabee in Iowa and by Rudy Giuliani's decision to withdraw from New Hampshire, opening the way for Mr. McCain there. Fred Thompson's decision to delay his announcement to avoid an embarrassing finish in the Iowa straw poll left him past his peak when he did announce, while his campaigning in South Carolina probably siphoned off enough votes from Mr. Huckabee to give Mr. McCain a 33% to 30% victory.

The collapse of Mr. Giuliani's wait-till-Florida strategy opened up the state to Mr. McCain and delivered the Cuban-American bloc, which produced half his popular vote margin in his 36% to 31% victory. And it enabled Mr. McCain to win 198 delegates in Northeastern states, where Mr. Giuliani's backers imposed winner-take-all rules.

Yep, that's about it.

You Read It Here First. Unfortunately.

On the night of the Florida primary, here's what I wrote:

Assuming there is no shocking revelation or health issue, the GOP nomination is over. Conservatives need to start practicing the phrase "Nominee presumptive John McCa....."

Sorry, I can't say it. Not yet.

But it's true. When the campaign comes here to Massachusetts on February 5th, I'll proudly cast my vote for any option on the GOP ballot other than You-Know-Who, up to and including Ron Paul. But it will be a futile gesture. Mr. "1/3rd Of The GOP Primary Vote"--who lost among Republican voters again in Florida--is going to be the Republican nominee.

He's going to win the big, left-leaning states on Tuesday. Huckabee will campaign in the midwestern and southern states, denying Romney the one-on-one contest for GOP voters that Captain Amnesty would almost certainly lose...

So it is over. Finished. In November, Republicans will be sending their most liberal, least trustworthy candidate to take on Hillary Clinton--perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.

I'm not happy about it, but it's the Natural Truth. Time to get out the fork, folks. Mitt Romney is done.

Mrs. Bill's Bay State Victory In Living Color

Props to the Boston Globe-Democrat for this cool, and very helpful, graphic of Mrs. Bill's strength in Massachusetts.

Sen. Obama won Boston and the Cape...and not much else.

A "Natural Truth" Bonus For Primary Day

Jeff Greenfield, writing for Slate.com, makes an observation about the presidential primary process that speaks to the differences between the two parties as well:

"If Republicans treat their primary contests like a poker game—you win the hand, you get the pot—the Democrats treat theirs like a parent cutting up a birthday cake at a kids' party, with every slice is as equal as possible."

Getting A Delegate Migraine Yet?

Every day, people in the press tell us that Super Duper Tuesday is all about delegates. Then they skip over that key bit of information: How are the delegates handed out?

Jim Geraghty has a great item at the Campaign Spot that includes both a description on how the GOP delegates are won in each state, and his state-by-state analysis regarding who is likely to win them.

Meanwhile, this piece by Bob Novak gives a brief description of the Democrats somewhat proportional system:

There is no mathematical possibility of Mega Tuesday balloting in 22 states tomorrow for 1,681 delegates -- labeled the first "national" primary -- giving either Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama close to the 2,025 delegates necessary for nomination. That unexpected reality is produced by Obama's appeal, Clinton fatigue and extreme proportional representation adopted by the Democratic Party.

All of which means we likely won't understand the consequences of Super Duper Tuesday until well into "What The Heck Was That" Wednesday.

Me And My Big Mouth

Thanks, Bill Belichick.

Because of you, I have to vote for John [insert FCC-violating profanity here] McCain!

OK, technically speaking, my oversized mouth and undersized mind may have played some small part in this. But while I might be a moron ("whaddaya mean 'might,' Graham?) at least I put my money...er vote, where my mouth is. I made my call. I'm standing by it.

Now I'm going to take my medicine.

But...

C'mon, Coach. You watch the Patriots offensive get pushed around like a PETA protester at a cattle drive for the entire first half--and make NO adjustments? The greatnest of the Patriots was the fact that they always had another way to beat you. OK, so the Giants defense dominated the front line. Fine. Then throw short, quick passes for 5-7 yards and drive down the field.

You know--like you FINALLY DID IN THE FINAL PATRIOTS SCORING DRIVE? AAARRGGHHHH!

(ahem).

If I sound a bit upset, it's not because of football. Following the 18-1 season of the Patriots has been a blast, and watching a competitive Super Bowl is always fun. Sure, the ending was lousy, but it was also a reminder of what makes sports fun.

No, the reason I'm on suicide watch is because, thanks to Coach Beli-Choke letting the wheels fall off the best team in football, I now have to cast a vote for a pro-amnesty, anti-tax cut, global-warming-kookery supporting, anti-Alito, ideologically-irrational, reckless and arrogant jerk who has openly stated he supports gutting the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

And you think Tom Brady's having a bad day?

One final note: I've received a few emails from listeners urging me to go back on my word and vote against McCain tomorrow anyway. I assume these are new listeners to the show. Sorry--ain't gonna happen.

Trying to get me to go back on my word is a low-percentage play. Ask the folks at CAIR.

But all is not lost. Keep in mind that I made, not one, but two predictions: The Patriots would be unbeatable in the Super Bowl AND Mitt Romney is a lock here in Massachusetts. If I didn't firmly believe both of those predictions, I never would have gone so far out on a limb.

As of this morning, the RealClearPolitics polling average has Mitt Romney up in Massachusetts by 25%.

I may be dumb, but I'm not (that) stupid.

The REAL Benefit Of A Ted Kennedy Endorsement