What Kind Of Mileage Does That DTS Get, Anyway?

The Cadillac of Governors is at it again.

Gov. Deval Patrick, fresh from his announcement that "I've never been hostile to taxes" is now reminding all concerned that "I have never opposed raising the gas tax. What I have said is that it is not my first choice."

According to the Boston Globe-Democrat, Gov. Patrick's ready to move on to door number two. Last summer, Beacon Hill was buzzing with the idea of a "temporary gas tax." Not anymore. Now they've dropped the word "temporary."

I assume it has something to do with truth-in-advertising laws.

Why do we need higher gas taxes, anyway? What--$3.50 a gallon isn't high enough for the car-hating loonies in the legislature? Apparently not.

Sadly, many readers of the Globe-Democrat agree with the idea that selfish, mean-spirited taxpayers of Massachusetts aren't willing to pay their fair share for needed roads and repairs.

But if you track down the actual facts--like a study published by the Reason Foundation comparing our spending to other states, you know that this is bunk.

I spoke to one of the key researchers on that study, Dr. David Hartgen, and wrote about our conversation in the Boston Herald last year:

“Massachusetts has one of the very highest road budgets per mile of any state in the country,” Hartgen told me yesterday. “You also have one of the smallest state-controlled systems -- only about 3,300 miles. There are 48 other states that would die for your budget.”

When you add up all the tolls, taxes, bonds and federal bucks that go to Massachusetts roads, it works out to $753,892 per mile. That’s higher than every state except New Jersey, and its numbers are skewed by the fact that it’s the only state entirely covered in concrete.

To put Massachusetts in perspective, Rhode Island -- also in the top 10 in road revenue collection -- gets just $365,624 per mile, and New Hampshire collects a modest $103,000 per.

The spending side is even worse. Massachusetts is also ranked second in per-mile spending on state-controlled roads at $893,236 a mile. New Hampshire spends just $88,191 per mile. For every dollar New Hampshire spends on a mile of road, we spend 10. None of this includes the approximately $710 million in automobile excise taxes we pay each year, which (theoretically) fund local road projects.

Please take a moment to re-read those numbers. We are spending more than $890,000 per mile of road per year--and Gov. Patrick and Beacon Hill's big spenders say you're not paying enough.

The Boston Globe-Democrat, to my knowledge, has never published these numbers. They have never asked a politician to explain why being #2 in spending isn't high enough. They've never questioned the idea of higher taxes--not even while you're spending close to $3.50 a gallon for gas.

Massachusetts Health Care "Reform": So Successful, We Can't Afford It!

If you're still struggling to figure out how Massachusetts can be so overflowing with supergeniuses, nuanced liberals and elite academicians...and STILL be one of the worst-run states in America, this news story on the current budget crisis offers key insights that may help.

You could start with Governor Patrick's direct, unnuanced statement that “It’s not that I’m hostile to taxes." But that's too easy. No Massachusetts politician is "hostile to taxes." They're constantly looking forways to take as much money from taxpayers as they can get away with.

But the real insight comes from the discussion of the Massachusetts health care mandate, a Mitt-Romney-supported state law that forces everyone to buy health insurance, but gives us very little flexibility as to the level of coverage. Everyone is forced to buy the same level of coverage, whether or not they can afford it. So what happens? People who could afford Wal-Mart coverage but aren't allowed to buy it instead enter the taxpayer-subsidized program for Macy's-level coverage. Great for them--lousy for the taxpayers.

Oh, and since more "free" health care means higher demand, the result is higher prices for medical care. That in turn drives up the cost to taxpayers of paying for everyone else's insurance, which means more people can't afford their own health coverage, which drives them to the state's program, etc., etc.

That's how the system really works (or fails, depending on your perspective). But how to Massachusetts pols view the health care problem?

Leslie A. Kirwan, chairwoman of the Health Care Connector Authority Board, acknowledged that the health care law has been so successful that it will cost significantly more than anticipated. Exactly how much more, Kirwan couldn’t say, but she said the cost to taxpayers would be significantly more than anticipated in the governor’s proposed budget for the new fiscal year — a budget that also had depended on casino revenues to help make up a gap in funding for state aid to cities and towns. [emphasis added]

"It's so successful, we can't afford it!" This is what Massachusetts calls a "success?" If so, we better hope for a few state government failures...before we all go broke.

How To Make Sure Your Children Hate You Forever

The Boston Globe-Democrat shows you how with this story on "no-gift" birthday parties for little kids. Instead of getting presents, kids as young as 6 and 7 are told their friends are giving donations to charity instead.

Isn't this a great way to teach children about charity? Uh, no. It's a great way to get them to resent you and the whole concept of charitable giving. So why are parents doing this?

In some circles, parents have become almost competitive in their quest to banish materialism from their children's parties. The nonpresent is quickly becoming the "must-have" gift. The bragging rights are going to be 'How much money did you raise at your birthday party?' " said University of Minnesota professor Bill Doherty, a founder of the group Birthdays Without Pressure, which hopes to launch a national conversation about super-sized parties.

In other words, it's all about the parents making a social statement, regardless of the feelings of their own children.

The smartest person quoted in this story is Bennet Murray a 6-year-old leaving a no-gift birthday party in Brookline. When asked if he might like to do the same on his birthday, he said "No. "I like getting presents."

What some kids need more than new presents, it seems, is new parents.

Sen. Obama Apparently Can't Hear, But Can He Read?

Sen. Obama is back defending Rev. Wright again, and he's returned to his old story--he never heard his racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American mentor say anything controversial.

Well, Sen. Obama is a man, which means he's a lousy listener (that's what my lovely bride, The Warden, tells me anyway). But can he read? And if he can read, did he read this article about Israel published in his pastor's magazine?

Scroll down to page 8 and read Ali Baghdadi's "Letter to Oprah" regarding her visit to "Palestine" (that's what Rev. Wright's pals call the nation of Israel.)

In addition to the usual claims that Israel is a terrorist nation, worse than the Nazis, blah, blah--you know, the usual stuff from a Sunday morning at Barack Obama's church--there's this claim by Mr. Baghdadi, sent out as part of the "Pastor's Page" from Trinity UCC:

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.

Gee, why aren't AMERICAN scientists this smart? We could develop a bomb that only kills the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. We could have a military composed entirely of people of African or European descent, then drop bombs on the battlefield that only killed everybody else!

DAMN THOSE ISRAELI BASTARDS! Why won't they share this technology with us?

I can't wait until we have a man in the White House who knows how the world really works. A man who, when the red phone rings at 3am, already has Rev. Wright on speed dial.

UPDATE: Then again, what do you expect from a candidate whose webpage, right now, features the endorsement of the New Black Panther Party?

Graham Vs. Braude--The Cage Match!

OK, maybe not a cage match, but we did have an interesting discussion on Braude's NECN TV show about Mrs. Bill Clinton's decision to throw down on Barack Obama's church.

You can use this link to watch the video, and then let Jim Braude know what a hunk you think he is.

Deval Patrick Throws Himself Under The Obama Bus

Is there anyone supporting Sen. Barack Obama who doesn't end up under the Hate Talk Express? As I mentioned at the time, Sen. Obama's speech about race threw more people under the than a 90-year-old driver plowing through a farmer's market. Sen. Obama let us know what everyone else had done wrong--white people, black people, talk show hosts, his own grandmother, etc.--without ever admitting he was wrong to attend a racist, anti-Semitic church for 20 years.

But our own Governor, Deval Patrick, has taken this storyline to a new level. In today's NYTimes, he throws HIMSELF under the bus.

The Times story is about the clear and obvious parallels between Deval "Together We Can" Patrick and his partner in plagiarism, Barack "Yes We Can" Obama. Two unaccomplished candidates running for offices they are clearly unqualified for; two candidates who, if they were white, wouldn't have a prayer of winning their party's nomination; two candidates running on vague, vacuous platitudes about hope and change.

And, as the Times points out, Gov. Patrick's administration has been a dud. Is there a lesson here about a potential Obama administration?

"Mr. Patrick dismissed the comparison, saying Mr. Obama had far more political experience than he, and he defended his own record." [emphasis added]

NOW he tells us! So Deval Patrick, trying to defend the most inexperienced presidential candidate in 150 years, finally admits what I spent all of 2006 pointing out--he was never qualified to be governor himself.

"You think Obama's clueless," Patrick is essentially saying, "you oughtta look at MY record! I make him look like Adlai Stevenson!"

Thanks, Deval. Thanks alot.

Check My Math...PLEASE!

My Boston Herald column today is about the whining over MCAS from unmotivated teachers and students, and the abysmally low standards of the Massachusetts school system.

Having said that, math has never been my best subject, so I'd like for those of you who are gifted in this area to please take a look over my shoulder at some calculations I've been making re: the Boston government-run school system.

According to this article from the Boston Globe-Democrat, the taxpayers of Boston are chipping in an additional $10 million to this year's school budget. That brings the Boston Public Schools budget to $827.5 million.

According to the Massachusetts DOE, total enrollment in the Boston school system has been dropping steadily and is now down to 56,190. But even that number is high, because average daily enrollment--the number of kids actually sitting in classes and using school services--is around 91% of enrollment.

So in fact we are spending $827.5 million on the operating budget (no capital costs or the like) to teach about 51, 200 kids. OK?

Which means, by my calculations, we're spending around $16, 100 per student for 180 instructional days in the Boston government schools each year. That's about $90 a day, or $1800 a month.

Am I right? And if my math is correct, isn't the only reaction to this...HOLY CRAP!

I don't care how you spin it, $16,000 is a lot of money. I could get my kids an amazing education for that kind of dough. I'd have enough for a private school, with cash left over for summer camp and some private tutoring.

Am I missing something? Please help. As a public school student myself, my math is suspect. Please let me know if my numbers--and my "Holy Crap!" reaction--check out with you.

Thanks.

MichaelGraham@969wtkk.com

Has Hillary Joined The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

When lunatic femi-Nazi Barbara Ehrenreich wrote an article for The Nation alleging that Hillary had joined a secret, right-wing religious cult in Washington, I ignored it. The Nation + Ehrenreich = "Painful lack of credibility."

But now, I'm not so sure.

We now know that Mrs. Bill Clinton was a closet supporter of NAFTA and is today, like Sen. Obama, lying about her support.

Then there's the photo above, featuring Mrs. Clinton and infamous VRWConspirator Richard Mellon Scaife. (And is that Agent Scully peering over her corner in the very back?)

But the strongest evidence that Mrs. Clinton has abandoned the Left is her willingness to criticize Sen. Obama regarding his relationship with Rev. Wright.

Hillary Clinton has touched the real third rail of American "progressive" politics: race. Her attacks on Sen. Obama amount to a rejection of the rules of the Left, namely that people in various racial and other identity groups are never to be criticized on issues related to that group. Rev. Wright is a racist, black-power preacher. Sen. Obama is a black parishioner at his church.

Therefore, the good liberal thing to do is say "well, black people have a different perspective, blah, blah, blah" and ignore the irrational, racist rantings coming from the church.

Mrs. Bill Clinton has broken the deal. She's treating Sen. Obama like an adult who should be held responsible for his own actions, rather than making condescending race-based excuses for his shameful behavior. This is UNHEARD OF for a liberal politician, particularly one who's trying to win a Democratic primary.

Hillary Clinton, lying about Bosnia. That's dog bites man.

But Hillary Clinton, telling the truth about the racism of a black pastor during a Democratic primary? That's man bites, kills and eats, dog.

Is This Sen. Obama's White Grandpa?

Of the many surprising things that have been said by and about Rev. Wright, the most amazing to me is this comment from Sen. Barack Obama:

"This is not a crackpot church."

You can listen to the entire interview here.

I wonder how many people you would have to poll before you found another American who agreed with Sen. Obama that there's nothing "crackpot" about the bizarre, racist theology or conspiracy theory paranoia of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Apparently Barack Obama holds the "Grandpa Simpson" standard of crackpottery. My question is, if Rev. Wright and his church doesn't qualify as "crackpot," who does? The John Birch Society? Scientologists? Bigfoot enthusiasts?

If Rev. Wright is mainstream, then so it Tom Cruise. How frightening is that?

Feelin' The Love

Another fine Massachusetts liberal puts his principles into action, and shares the experience via email:

I suffer the unfortunate burden of never being able to escape your coulter-esque horses**t after leaving charleston, sc, where your useless articles were published in the Charleston City Paper (i proactively ripped your column out of every paper i could find, forget free speech in your case) i moved to boston only to have the occasional accidental five second stay on 96.9 during your awful show when flipping throught he channels. for the good of all people, or at least your poor kids who must be the most hated young republican geeks at school, get out of the media, of the air, and into a hole. i loathe the thought of you polluting the air in my beloved home state of MA.

My favorite part of that email is the "forget free speech" comment. Ever notice how quickly Lefties rise above their own principles?

Then there's this note from a Global Warming kook, in response to my report that global temperatures have been flat since 1998:

PLEASE stop talking about things you don't understand. YOUR perception of a trend since 1998 doesnt mean anything. Climate isnt about 5 or 10 year trends and global warming doesn't mean that every year must be warmer than the last. Global Warming (climate change) wasnt invented by Al Gore or the environmental movement and the science behind global warming is the result of thousands of man hours of peer reviewed research. It is sad that someone as ignorant as you has a microphone in front of him...please go back to stand-up....The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

What I love about this email is the combination of arrogance and cluelessness. It's one thing to have virtually no facts about the current state of global temperatures, but to be so wrong and then send out obnoxious emails about it is, well, priceless.

As I've already shared with you on this blog, NASA has updated its figures on global temperatures, correcting previous errors. The warmest year on record is 1934. Five of the 10 warmest years were before 1954. And temperatures have been flat since 1998, despite ever-increasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere. In fact, the biggest 12-month drop in temperatures ever recorded is happening right now.

You'd think that someone who lacked these basic facts will be a bit more modest. But the angry Left doesn't do modesty. They do outrage.

It Must Be Global Warming Because It Feels So Cold

The verdict on catastrophic manmade climate change is still out, but the one thing we know for sure: Global warming kooks have no interest in facts.

Point out the fact that the earth hasn't warmed at all since 1998--they don't care.

Point out the fact that all four international temperature monitoring sources tracked a record DROP in temperatures last year--they don't care.

Point out that there are record amounts of ice in the Antarctic and record numbers of happy, health polar bears--they don't care.

And on and on.

The facts, by the way, aren't hard to find. This news story, for example, is easy to read and understand and contains almost no speculation of any kind. Just the facts about the latest trends in our actual weather:

"No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Be sure to read the part about the information we're now gathering from a new NASA satellite tracking water temperatures. It's all "wrong," if you're Al Gore. Then again, Al Gore has no use for such information. He's too busy predicting with certainty what our weather will be like 200 years from now to pay any attention to the fact that he's wrong about the climate right now.

How bad is it for the Global Warming Panic Bridages? Check out this actual headline from a pro-warming, anti-capitalism news source, NPR:

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

The global warming has to be there, dammit! Our politically motivated theory must be right, which means the facts must be wrong! Somebody find some warming before people start noticing that it's not getting any warmer! Otherwise our plan to force Americans to pay $1 trillion to fight global warming will make no sense!

Jon Stewart May Have Stunk Up The Oscars...

...but this report on the Marines in Berkeley, CA is fan-stinkin'-tastic!

You gotta watch it, and send it to every military member and vet you know.

And STILL They Defend Barack Obama

The emails just keep on comin', folks! People who are so desperate to defend their far-Left politics that they are willing to embrace racism, irrationality and heapin' helpings of hatred of their own country.

The top of that list is uber-buffoon Keith Olbermann, who's only purpose in media life at this point is self-parody. The folks at Olbermann Watch ("we watch, so that 99.9% of Americans can continue NOT to") have a wonderful montage mixing Kooky Keith's foaming-mouthed attack against Hillary Clinton re: the Geraldine Ferraro "fiasco" and his defense of Sen. Obama's ongoing support for Rev. Wright.

But we've got plenty of own own defenders of Sen. Obama right here in Massachusetts:

Name:Barry from Newton
Subject: Your grotesque misrepresentation
Comments:
Your purposefully grotesque mischaracterization of what Barak Obama has said, has written and has done with his life is so nauseating and to beyond belief. You and your loathsome colleagues and your all-hate-all-the-time would have been the first to chime in with the hate mongers of another generation who called Lincoln the Original Ape. You sorry freaking Nazis-in-waiting have been wrong about everything you have been feeding your brain dead listeners since the war began. The WMD's, the Al Queada connection, Mission Accomplished, the economy is strong, a few dead enders - what a load a crap. And what a disgrace you are to the white race, to Christians, to animate objects in general. Graham Cracker - you make my gorge rise - you fat piece of garbage.

Mike,

Let's face it as bad as Obama might be relative to these slight diatribes or minutiae.Obama is better than Hillary!

The Bush policies under McCain cannot be tolerated. To be honest with you, as a white Anglo catholic, socially conservative from the white
town of Hamilton, I agree with some of what Pastor Jeremiah was preaching. Race matters and that's why Obama will win this fall. The people are tired of the same ol tired ass typical white folk.

Bill
Hamilton, MA

Michael,

At no point in time did the Reverend say that America deserved 9/11. You are trying to interpret his words, which is fine; but you're blatantly off.

If any interpretation is made, it is clear that he was saying that we can't go over to other countries, bomb and kill their innocent civilian people (even for valid nationalistic reasons) and NOT expect foreign nations, or foreign people (even fundamentalists) to come over here and attempt to kill our innocent for what those foreigners and nationalists and fundamentalists consider their own valid reasons. We don't agree with why Al Queda attacked us on 9/11 and I'm sure those who are linked to Hiroshima, Cambodia, Iraq and other nations we've attacked don't agree with why or the level in which we attacked their countries.

Additionally, there's a level of the H-word present here; hypocrisy... When Romney was running, conservative supporters wanted us to give him a fair shake. We were told to dismiss the former teaching of his faith, although there are still fundamentalist Mormons who still hold some of those beliefs. But even more, when he held his SPEECH (also not a press release) to speak about his faith, you all told us… "Well, it's time to shut that up. He addressed his faith... he put it out in the open... we should believe what he says... now let's move on…"

Why is it so hard to let this go now that Senator Obama has made it plain that he categorically rejects the Reverend's sentiment. Senator Obama was with the Reverend for 20 years; Romney's been a Mormon all of his life. If you've read anything the Senator Obama has ever written, none of it points to or connects to anything Wright has stated. You want him to go through every single comment, take a lie detector test, and admit or reject his allegiance through those thoughts. Do the work and research his own words and thoughts over the past 20 years. If you find a connection with any agreement to Reverend Wright's thoughts, then you have a case… otherwise, do what you asked the looney lefts and the wacky rights to do with Romney sans his speech… let it go!

Jonathan in Dorchester.

Mrs Bill Clinton Finds Out That "Teen Talk Barbie" Was Right

Math class IS tough...on any chance for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination.

Despite the collapse of Sen. Obama as a potential winner in November, he will absolutely beat her in the pledged (read "elected") delegate count at the end of the primary season. There was a very slim chance Mrs. Clinton could catch him if Michigan and Florida held a second primary, but now that the re-vote option is dead (as I told you weeks ago), Sen. Obama has a lock on the pledged delegates.

So now Hillary supporters are putting all their eggs in the "popular vote" basket. The theory is that, if Democrats realize just how damaged and polarizing Sen. Obama has become, they will seize on the popular vote issue as a way to escape the all-but-certain defeat an Obama nomination would bring.

But they have forgotten Graham's First Rule Of Politics: You can't beat the math. Politico.com provides the numbers:

A high, rough estimate of all the remaining [Democratic primary] states then would leave between 5 million and 6 million popular votes on the table.

For Clinton to pick up her lead in the popular vote with 6 million ballots cast, she’d need a 12 percent margin across the states — that’s a 56 percent to 44 percent average win. With 5 million ballots, she would need a 14 percent margin — that’s a 57 percent to 43 percent overall victory, including expected defeats in states counting for well over 1 million votes.

Removing North Carolina and Oregon from the list [where Obama is expected to win], Clinton’s wins would likely have to tally well over 60 percent of the vote.

So far, however, Clinton has broken 56 percent in just four states, including her home state of New York.

It ain't gonna happen. Sen. Obama has won the Democratic primary. The only way he's not on the top of the ticket in November is for the superdelegates to take it away from him.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Name This Racist Nut!

Who said this:

"Well, I'm black and I'm prejudiced, very prejudiced. I'll be always prejudiced as the white man. The white man hated me all my life, and I hate him. That's no secret. I'm not even an American, it just so happens that I was born in America."

a) Rev. Jeremiah Wright, at Sen. Obama's home church?
b) Clinton supporter Rev. James David Manning?
c) Al Sharpton, in a speech at the Democratic National Convention?
d) Professor Jim Cone, a founder of Black Liberation Theology as taught at Trinity UCC?

You'll hear the answer on my radio show this morning, but the REAL answer is "The fact that you don't know says everything you need to know about the state of the American Left today."

Iraq, Five Years Later

Everything I want to say about the Iraq war this week has already been said by the brilliant Army veteran and NYPost reporter Ralph Peters. Please read the entire article (the men serving in Iraq deserve that five minutes of your time), but here's one part that absolutely qualifies as a Natural Truth:

"I cannot help repeating the heartbreaking truth that it didn't have to be this hard, this bloody, or this expensive. This is what happens when war is made by amateurs. Has anyone in Washington learned that lesson?

It's a lesson that the left, as well as the right, needs to take to heart. While the Bush administration deserves every lash it gets, domestic opponents of the war have been hypocritical, dishonest and destructive...

Had President Bill Clinton sent our troops to depose Saddam Hussein, Democrats would have celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln." [emphasis
added]

There's so much more, so please read the entire column. When you do, one thing should become obvious. The pledge by Sens. Clinton and Obama to immediately abandon the mission in Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground--to undo all the progress we've made by bringing democracy to the heart of the Middle East, progress at the cost of American blood and treasure--is reason enough to keep either of them out of the Oval Office.

"I'm An Obama Supporter, But..."

This email from Mary Anne reflects how every serious-minded person should react to what we now know about Sen. Barack Obama:

I am an Obama supporter and have been one for quite sometime. But I am VERY disturbed by his judgement (or lack of judgement) regarding his choice of church. What's going on these days with people who should know better (e.g. Spitzer, etc). What are they thinking -- not much I guess.

I know you will think me stupid and misguided, but I am not ready to give up on Obama quite yet. Please believe me that I am not a kook and am actually quite reasonable. I also like John McCain very much but my problem with him is that I think his time has come and gone and do you really want a 72 year old, "Q-tip" for president? I detest Mitt Romney but almost wish he were still in the race. I just want someone dynamic and intelligent who won't get us into any more wars but will take care of this country, and someone that we can proud of in representing us to the rest of the world.

I guess my question for you about Obama is, if he hates America so much why is he running for President? Why would someone want to put themselves through the torture that one goes through in this country in order to be president. I don't think many people could stand up to the scrutiny. And what are people so afraid of with Obama -- that he will install the Black Panthers in the Cabinet? Now that would be interesting (do they even still exist -- I'm showing my age. I digress, but when I was in high school in the early 70s we had a black panther come and speak at our school -- can you imagine -- and I was so impressed that I went home and told my mother how great the guy was. Keep in mind that I am white from an Italian American family. My mother almost hit the roof but let me stay in the school).

Anyway, you make me angry a lot of the time but this reasonable moderate Democrat will continue to listen.

Anyone who knows how Sen. Obama spent the past 20 years worth of Sundays and isn't re-considering their support for him should be ashamed of himself. Even if you conclude that he's still the best candidate in the bunch (and that ain't sayin' much), this new information has to be taken seriously. Anyone who doesn't has consumed far more Kool-Aid than the Recommended Democrat Allowance.

It is frightening, however, to watch as supposedly intelligent people in the media try to portray any concern about Sen. Obama's support for a racist church as a sign of racism in the concerned. How can any thoughtful voter NOT be worried about electing a president who brings this theology to the White House?

I'm not asking anyone to abandon Sen. Obama. I'm simply asking you to take his serious failings...well, seriously.

What Did Barack Obama Not Know, And When Did He Not Know It?

That's the way the "Nixon" question should be posed to the extremely junior senator from Illinois.

ABC News (that notoriously right-wing media outlet) has actually paid attention to Sen. Obama's claims of cluelessness. Here's a quick recap:

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." -- Sen. Obama, March 2008.

"I never heard comments like these." -- Sen. Obama, also in March 2008

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." -- Sen. Obama, ALSO in March 2008.

Is it really a sign of personal integrity that a politician is BAD at lying?

And I say "lying" in the plural form of the word. Remember, this is the same Sen. Obama whose campaign denied it ever had any meeting of any kind with Canadian officials, and certainly not to discuss NAFTA. When they were caught lying, Sen. Obama admitted a meeting, but denied they discussed NAFTA. When the memo of the meeting came out ("We discussed NAFTA"), the campaign simply stopped answering questions.

This is the same Sen. Obama who denied an inappropriate fiscal relationship with Tony Rezco, only to later admit that the notorious and allegedly criminal Chicago hack had directly intervened to help Sen. Obama buy a multi-million house.

Oh, and then there's this:

The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were
additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama's [new] $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of "thousands of donors."

Sen. Obama is the candidate of change all right. Catch him in a lie, and he just changes his story.

This is part of the reason his campaign is in so much trouble. Democrats who want to elect a lying, ambitious political hack with no scruples or integrity don't need him. They already have Hillary.

The Natural Truth About The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

No, the US government did not infect black Americans with syphilis. The behavior of the government is nothing to be proud of, but no--no secret government injections.

Barack Obama's "Under The Bus" Speech

Thanks to a speech that some nitwit actually compared to the oratory of Abraham Lincoln (!), we now know the truth. Sen. Barack Obama did attend a church where hate, ignorance and bigotry were preached...and it's all your fault.

I explain why in my Boston Herald column today. I also urge you to take a moment to read Sen. Obama's speech for yourself. Consider his ideas and his arguments.

But as you do, keep reminding yourself of the question that Sen. Obama was supposedly answering for the voters: "What were you doing for 20 years, sitting in that pew and listening to that nonsense?"

As I mentioned in the column, his answer in the speech was "everybody else is racist, too." But going back and re-reading Sen. Obama's comments for the third time, there is a word that is glaring in its absence:

Wrong.

Oh, Sen. Obama used it quite a bit. The Rev. Wright was wrong on one or two details about American life. Wright's critics are wrong to overlook all the good things that the racist minister did when he wasn't spouting Black Liberation idiocy. The American people, black and white, have handled race relations all wrong.

The one person in all of America, apparently, who hasn't gotten anything wrong? Barack Obama.

Like Dick Cheney seeking the ideal vice presidential candidate for George W. Bush, Sen. Barack Obama has searched the land for a single, righteous man on the issue of race--and found himself alone.

The man who has given tens of thousands of dollars to support the radical, racial extremism of Jeremiah Wright; the man who personally signed onto the "Black Values System" of Trinity, a system whose founders happily admit is based on racial division and the idiocy of "Black Liberation Theology"; the man who attended this racist church and brought his children there for 20 years; the man who is a member of that church to this day, and who continues to embrace Rev. Wright publicly.

This is the one righteous man on race in America?

Please. Surely we can do better than this, can't we?

With all due respect to Sen. Obama, he is utterly insulting and wrong to accuse everyone else in the country of sharing his tolerance for bigotry and ignorance. Not only is he wrong to say that everyone in America hears and, at some level, shares in this racism, I don't know a SINGLE PERSON who would have sat through the stupidity that Trinity UCC offered up as the gospel for 20 minutes, much less 20 years.

Sen. Obama is uniquely unqualified to confront the issue of race, because he has shown a unique level of poor judgment and lack of character.

If you truly care about race relations in America, then you cannot vote for Barack Obama.

UPDATE: Michael Gerson of the Washington Post notices the same key problem I did.

I'll Take "Simple And Suspect," Thank You

Victor Davis Hanson is always worth reading, and he has a great column on the Rev. Wright/Obama issue today.

However, in a posting at National Review Online, he makes a more telling point in two paragraphs than the moronic Chris Matthews could make last night in an entire hour:

Two corollaries always follow the Obama victimology: moral equivalence and the
subtle suggestion that any who question his thesis of despair are themselves suspect.

So we hear of poor Barack’s grandmother’s private fears in the same breath as Wright’s public hatred. Geraldine Ferraro is understood in the same context as Reverend Wright. The Reagan Coalition and talk radio are identical to Reverend Wright — albeit without similar contexts for their own purported racism. Your own pastor, priest, or rabbi are analogous to Rev. Wright.And then, of course, your own motives are suspect if you question any of this sophistry.

For Michelle it is always “they” who raised new obstacles against this deprived Ivy League couple and their quest for the Presidency; for Barack it is those who play “snippets”, or the system of “corporate culture” that has made Wright the object of anger to similarly victimized poor white pawns. The message? Wright’s motives for espousing hatred are complex and misunderstood; your motives for worrying about Obama and his Pastor are simple and suspect.

I am often accused by MoveOn.org callers of being "simple," of lacking "nuance" and reducing every issue a (pardon the analogy in this case) "black and white." I plead guilty. Most questions in life can be reduced to simple issues of reason, principle and balance.

Most people who claim "nuance" are really saying "I know what I've done is wrong, so I'm going to complicate the question so that my answer looks right."

Yesterday's speech by Sen. Obama was a classic example of that Natural Truth."

Everything You Need To Know About Barack Obama's Theology

When confronted about his bizarre, racist theology on FOX News more than a year ago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright insisted that you couldn't understand the "Black Values System" of Trinity United Church of Christ without understanding black liberation theology. He specifically (and repeatedly) mentioned Professor James Cone, who Rev. Wright credits with systematizing the principles of the theology being used by the church.

Who is Jim Cone? Well, he's a distinguished professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He's also the brilliant theologian who offered this observation:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

Sound crazy to you? Me, too, But hey--who are we to judge, right? As Sen. Obama said yesterday, beliefs like this are completely reasonable if you're a black person of a certain age.

I personally believe that stupid is stupid, no matter what your age or skin color, but that's why I'm not a MoveOn.Org member.

From That Right-Wing, War-Mongering Media Outlet, ABC News

“today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent....

"As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside...."

Fortunately for Mrs. Bill Clinton, no Democratic primary voters have no idea what the heck is actually going on in Iraq.

Sen. Obama Doesn't Really BELIEVE That "Black Power" Stuff, Does He?

Gee, I dunno. Why don't you read the "Black Power System" theology of Trinity United Church of Christ that Sen. Obama had to personally affirm in order to be a member.

What the heck is Sen. Obama's call to "disavow middle classness?" According to Vallmer Jordan, a church member who helped draft the Black Values System, they were designed to empower the black community and counter a value system imposed by whites.

"Any black person who identifies himself as middle-class psychologically withdraws from the [black] group and becomes a proponent of strengthening and sustaining the [white] system."

All over America, we evil, middle-class white people can only hope Sen. Obama will heal our souls. And who knows--with his economic policies, Sen. Obama might even wipe out the middle class altogether!

We can only hope.

Do You Have To Be Crazy To Support Barack Obama?

Maybe not, but as the callers in this audio from today's show reveal, it doesn't hurt.

You have to hear them to believe it.

These callers also confirm the opinion of some black commentators that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not a fringe character in the black community, but speaks for a significant number of people.

I don't know about that, but I know for sure that Rev. Wright has 20 years of vocal support and financial assistance from Sen. Barack Obama.

UPDATE: One of the callers above claims that proof for Rev. Wright's "HIV was invented by the US government to kill black people" theory can be found in the Congressional Record. Cecil Adams at The Straight Dope and the folks at Snopes.com have the Natural Truth.

Barack's Escape Attempt

The Jeremiah Wright is getting uglier and uglier as more of theology Barack Obama has been listening to for twenty years reaches the rest of America. The rest of America would have gotten up and walked out years ago.

The latest is Rev. Wright's claim that the US government invented AIDS as a way to kill black people. Gee, I wonder what Sen. Obama thought when he heard that?

And yet, Sen. Obama continues his support of Rev. Wright, and he remains a member of the Barack Obama campaign committee. How does he defend his 20-year relationship with this racist, anti-Semitic loony?

He refuses to answer the question. Here's the official statement:

“Senator Obama has said before that he profoundly disagrees with some of the statements and positions of Reverend Wright, who has preached his last sermon as pastor at the church. Senator Obama deplores divisive statements whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponent, talk radio, or anywhere else.”

Huh? What's that got to do with Rev. Wright's longstanding career as a preacher of racist division and as Sen. Obama's personal pastor? And how the heck did they drag those of us in talk radio into this mess?

Saying "I didn't agree with Hitler's specific comment on Thursday" is not the answer to the question "What were you doing at all those weekly Nazi Party meetings for the past 20 years?"

No, Rev. Wright isn't a Nazi. He's just a hate-spewing racist. No, not every sermon railed against the evils of whiteness, the "Zionists" of the "terror state" of Israel or the government's secret plot to infect black men with HIV. But some Klan rallies used to focus on marriage and family values, too. Does that mean that a member of the KKK could be the Democratic nominee for president, as long as he pointed out that he sometimes disagreed with the Grand Dragon?

If the media let Sen. Obama get away with this, it will be a new low for an industry whose credibility is already on life support. All they have to do is ask Sen. Obama why he spent so much time and money supporting a pastor and church that openly promoted racism and bigotry.

Easy question. Unfortunately, it's too hard for CBS or the New York Times to ask.

Obama Defenders Speak Out!

Name:Darwin Phillips
Subject: Black Churches
Comments:
I can barely believe your ignorance and arrogance w/ respect to Black People & our Churches, if you are not a complete coward or fool, you would do well to go to a Black Church of your choice for at least a few months, the sign of an ignorant man or a Racist is that he or she spouts off about issues that they have absolutely no clue about, and will never listen to anothers point of view, proven by the way you all become angered and frustrated by people who are not of your opinion and shut the call down, then you spew disdain on them nonstop when they cannot rebut, but understand no matter what you are able to learn in a Black Church you will never be able to relate to being Black, Hispanic or Native American, you should really stop referring to all Black Churches as Anti-American they are not, we may appear to be anti-caucaision regarding many of you and for some of you that is just good judgement, you and your cohorts should walk a mile in the Moccasins of others befor you run your ignorant and arrogant mouths, It is understood that people such as yourselves are terribly afraid of Barack.

From: Linda
Subject: It's not a racist church
Comments:
Michael you are wrong. This man is speaking from the Bible. The Romans WERE evil. Everyone who knows history KNOWS the Romans were BARBARIC! He is speaking of his EXPERIENCE! Something you have NONE of! You have never been a black man in the United States of America. Hillary will never know that, you will never know that. You will never know what it feels like to be called a "n*****", to be pulled over because you are black. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I am a BLACK woman. And I do know what it means to live in AmeriKKKa and be called a "n*****". This is that man's experience, something he has lived, that he has felt - something you will NEVER experience and you will NEVER understand. I understand his speak, I understand his pain when he speaks. Because I HAVE EXPERIENCED it.


Name: Mike
Subject: Black Power!

Comments: Dear Mike, I think you're purposely spinning the story to foster tension among the Democrats, and excessively dragging this out longer than the norm.. We eagerly excused Mitt Romney's Judge Kathe M. Tuttman, for making bad decisions, that lead to people dieing, but here you are crucifying Oboma, for a preacher that speaks his mind.. How are you being fair or logical?


Michael,

Maybe you need to visit some fundamental churches. EVERY homosexual is a deviant...Don't you think that's racist? Women CANNOT do things.only men, does that sound racist to you? Does to me. & what about the Catholics? People sit in their churches for year s& years.while their kids are abused by the priests & the church covers it up...sorry you lost me on this one..Do you think Obama's church is the only one promoting some kind of "racism". Last I checked I haven't seen any human lately who can walk on water...which means we're all capable of incredible stupidity, dishonesty, & plain evil.

--PJ

Name: Mark
Subject: Your Show Today
Comments:
Pathetic!!! Comparing Barak Obama to Farakan. You call his minister a racist. I won't get into the racist definition, but you are definitely fanning racial hatred. Why do you have to go after character assasination instead of issues. Yopu are convicting Obama based on some exerpts from the minister of his church. Pathetic. That doesn't pass any credibility test. You need to think about the impact of what you are doing.

Michael,

The relationship between Obama and Wright is no different than you and your evangelical upbringing. Although I don't know definitively how long you attended an evangelical sect, but you did allude to your college years at a rate of 5 times a week. It was the same evangelical crazies that blamed Katrina on Ellen Degeneres. Do you support these views? Are you a bigot, a misogynist, a racist? Can we now judge you by your spiritual affiliation?

You do what all right wing radio tools do: You put your listeners in a position of defense when you bring up these subjects. It is actually you that are racist. You are the one that is perpetuating racism by trying to juxtapose a fellow racist preacher to a candidate that you know will win the election. The right wing smear campaigns are on the march! That's what you do best...I would like to hear a show from you that talks about McCain's positive attributes. I don't think you can do this, because you are stuck in your own black and white conservatism, and know you are backed into a corner. Conservatives for the first time are experiencing the "gray area" and complexity that liberals know so well.

Giovanni

Racism: Obama Supporters Know It When They See It

I don't pretend to be as brilliant as the average American liberal. I acknowledge that my confusion regarding Sen. Barack Obama's support for Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist, hate-spewing theology is possibly a failure of intellect on my part.

So I am asking, my Lefty friends, for your help.

Here's the score thus far:

Geraldine Ferraro points out that there is a connection between Sen. Obama's campaign success and his race, and Lefties like foaming-mouthed maniac Keith Olbermann denounce the "David Duke rhetoric" of the Clinton campaign. OK....

Sen. Clinton runs a TV ad about phone calls to the White House at 3am, and liberal academic Orlando Patterson says in the New York Times

"when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s 'Birth of a Nation,' the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat."[emphasis added]

So the "3 a.m." ad is a racist attack for which Sen. Clinton should be held responsible? OK....

And now we know that, for 20 years, Sen. Barack Obama himself has attended and financially supported a pastor who has openly preached racism and anti-semitism. This racist pastor is, right now, a member of Sen. Obama's campaign committee, despite the fact that, just last year, he gave an award to Louis Farrakhan last year.

But that DOESN'T mean that Sen. Obama is either a racist or supports racism, because...

And that's where you lose me.

If you're denouncing Geraldine Ferraro racism because of a comment she made about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago, then what about the fact that, every week during that same 20 years, Barack Obama has been listening to sermons on the evil of "whiteness" and the "terrorist state" of Israel?

If Geraldine Ferraro is bad, how can Barack Obama be good?

If you can make that add up, you're obviously a lot smarter than I. Either that, or you're a hypocritical moron.

So I am extending an open invitation to every Barack Obama supporter at BMG, Daily Kos, etc. to simply explain--in small words that an intellectually challenged person like myself can understand--how your current position makes sense.

I will happily post the answers on this very webpage.

And please--show your work.

Barack Obama's Pastor, Unplugged.

And "unhinged," "unglued" and unrelentingly racist.

ABC News has posted a story with video links about the man Sen. Barack Obama claims keeps him spiritually centered, the Senator's personal pastor and the man who led him to Christ, Jeremiah Wright.

FOX News has also a story and clips, too. Be sure to check out the link to Sen. Obama's church, too.

For me, the most astonishing statement isn't Rev. Wright's claim that America deserved 9/11 (five days after the towers fell), or calling America the "US of KKK," or calling Israel a terrorist nation, or preaching that "whiteness" is a moral or spiritual failing, etc. No, the jaw-dropping statement is that Sen. Barack Obama doesn't find the church's teaching particularly controversial.

Really? So what WOULD be controversial, Sen. Obama--preaching on behalf of concentration camps and the moral validity of Al Qaeda?

For 20 years, Sen. Obama has attended this church, led by this pastor. For 20 years, one of Sen. Obama's most valuable political and spiritual mentors has been Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For 20 years, Sen. Obama heard this hatred and ignorance. And every week for 20 years, Sen. Obama chose to come back for more.

If a Republican candidate attended just one service at a church preaching the gospel of the KKK 20 years ago, that candidate couldn't win the nomination of the GOP. He couldn't get picked as a running mate.

Sen. Obama is still a member of Rev. Wright's church. He has yet to reject his support or denounce his theology.

But can he? How can Sen. Obama say with any credibility "After 20 years, it finally dawned on me that my pastor is a racist moron." Wouldn't you have noticed during his FIRST sermon denouncing white people, 19 years and 51 weeks ago?

If Sen. Obama had attended this church for awhile, and then left, I would say "big deal." Instead, according to the New Yorker, in 2006 the Obamas gave $22,000 to the Rev. Wright to continue spewing his hatred.

Any person who listens to this nonsense and continues to attend that church for 20 years is not fit to be president. Any voter who casts a ballot to send a member of this church to the White House should be ashamed.

UPDATE: Rev. Jeremiah "US of KKK" Wright has a formal position on Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a member of his African American Religious Leadership Committee.

The Last Word On Elliot Spitzer

My celebration of Spitzenfreude is in today's Boston Herald, reminding us all that "too err is human, but to really screw up big time...is New York."

Why Mrs. Bill Can't Win

Remember Mrs. Bill Clinton's big win in Texas? Along with her victory in Ohio, it turned the race around? Here's the latest analysis of the actual outcome in the Lone Star State from CNN:

Clinton, of New York, defeated Obama in the primary by a 51-47 percent margin. But results of the caucuses were up in the air on election night and for several days afterward, due to state party rules that did not require local caucus officials to report their results to a centralized location....

And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 — or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

Hillary won Texas, but lost the elected delegate contest by six. She is never going to catch Sen. Obama in the pledged delegate race. She cannot win. Her only hope is that Sen. Obama self-destructs and is somehow forced out of the race.

Hillary can be the survivor, the last candidate standing, but she cannot win the nomination.

UPDATE: It also doesn't help her to make idiotic statements like this:

"We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama."

Maybe YOU can be proud of a race-baiting, thug-defending hate-spewing demagogue like Jesse Jackson, lady. But only if you haven't been paying attention.

"The Most Insufferably Self-Righteous Egomaniac In The World."

I had the pleasure, and I mean that sincerely, of being named one of Keith Olbermann's "Worst People In The World." I wore it as a badge of honor coming from a guy who is, and I also mean this sincerely, mentally unstable.

I know several people who have worked at MSNBC, and he is widely regarded as a ranting lunatic by his co-workers. That theory is more than confirmed by just watching his show.

But even by Olbermann standards, last night's Official Olbermann Declaration To Sen. Clinton was a startling excursion into egomaniacal lunacy. (Watch it yourself using the link.)

He compares the rhetoric of the Clinton campaign to "David Duke." Hillary has fallen into the "filth," he pleads with her to save herself from the forces of evil. If Hollywood were still making bad melodramas ala the 1930s, Olbermann's script would get cut for being too overwrought.

Here is my question: What is more bizarre, his foaming-mouthed tirade about Geraldine Ferraro's dopey-but-hardly-extreme comments, or the fact that he thinks so much of himself that he's lecturing a US Senator on national TV?

I can't call it arrogance, anymore than I can call it "rudeness" when the street-roaming lunatic who keeps interrupting my cell phone call by screaming "The Thetans are coming!" at me. Insane people aren't responsible for their actions. Keith Olbermann's self-love has reached the point of psychosis.

Olbermann doesn't need to be mocked. He needs to be medicated.

Obama Hearts Geraldine

She's the Obama campaign's new heartthrob--or at least she should be.

Token Female V.P. Candidate Geraldine Ferraro has given Sen. Obama a gift that is certain to keep on giving by raising the issue of race. It has inflamed passions, inspired outrage and will likely help increase turnout among black voters in the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

That's because Token Female Ferraro has committed the ultimate sin in the world of Democratic Party identity politics: She told the truth.

Token Female Ferraro's original comment was, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position [as frontrunner]. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

From a political standpoint, was this an incredibly stupid thing to say? Absolutely. The only thing dumber would be for her to follow up by claiming she's a victim for being a woman and being white.

Ooops.

But just because you shouldn't say something doesn't mean it isn't true. And Ferraro's point, while inarticulately made, is also undeniably true. Sen. Obama could not be the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination if not for his race. Is there anyone who disagrees?

You do? OK, then try this thought experiment:

Bill O'Bannion is white Democrat from Chicago. He has no business experience and, as an attorney, he's never tried or won a major case. In fact, he has no private sector accomplishments of any kind.

He gets elected to the state senate as an ally of the Daley machine. His political reputation is so underwhelming that he loses his one primary bid for Congress by a 2-1 margin. After two terms as a state legislator, he runs virtually unopposed for the US Senate. Two years later, having not a single significant accomplishment to his name (other than earning the most liberal voting record in the Senate) Bill O'Bannion announces "I want to be President of the United States!"

Where would that white, uberliberal, untested, unknown US Senator rank on the list of nominees on the "realistic shot at being president" chart--above or below Mike Gravel?

The one necessary condition to turn O'Bannion's story into Obama's is race. Without race, there is no Obama campaign. Nobody would have even heard of a freshman senator from Illinois. Don't believe me? Quick--name the SENIOR Senator from the land of Lincoln!

Don't be embarrassed. 80% of Democratic primary voters don't know who Dick Durban is, either.

Oh, but "Bill O'Bannion" would be a shoo-in, right?

What Barack Obama and (as I know from personal experience) Deval Patrick object to is the idea that their accomplishments are a result of their race alone. That would be a stupid thing to say. If being black in and of itself were enough to make one a president or governor, 12% of the US population would be serving as cheif executive of something right now.

Sen. Obama has earned his success through talent, hard work and smart campaigning. Deval Patrick had to beat two experienced, better qualified Democrats to win the nomination in 2006. Those are accomplishments of which these two politicians should be proud.

But those are also accomplishments that they never would have had the opportunity to achieve if they were Bill O'Bannion and Danny Patrick, white guys.

One final comment: This entire debate is irrelevant and, to a degree, silly. The fact is, Sen. Obama IS the front runner, he's beating Mrs. Bill Clinton like a gong and that's not likely to change. Token Female Ferraro's whining is like listening to the head of the Harvard Debate team claim that the black guy who just wiped up the floor with her during the last competition "never would have gotten into Harvard without affirmative action."

Maybe so. And if he is an affirmative action recipient, it's certainly not racist to note that fact. But hey, Geraldine--what difference does it make how he got in, if he's still kicking your butt?

"Bush Lied, Mrs. Spitzer Cried!"

Yep, the Obamaniacs at DailyKos know who's REALLY responsible for the Spitzer Scandal:

"But I have a very discerning internal alarm. and that alarm tells me that this story only hit the news because the NSA, or the FBI...was snooping on this guy because he is so on the record as a trust buster and corporate cop.

Mark my words...this has the Bush Administration's fingerprints all over it...and if the MSM digs a little deeper, they will find what Congress is afraid to look for...evidence that Bush's wiretap program has less to do with terrorists than it has to do with political foes."

In fact, it's probably the same hooker who distracted the guards at the World Trade Center while the Mossad agents planted the explosives!

What Is She SUPPOSED To Say?

The AP headline says it all: Clinton Declines Comment on Spitzer.

Does she have a choice? What can Mrs. Bill Clinton possibly say? "I can't support men who hire hookers. I only support men who have sex with their 21-year-old interns?"

Or how about "Public service means control your personal urges...unless you're married to me?"

The mainstream media are trying desperately to avoid the Clinton connection in this story, but it is a disaster for her campaign. Nobody who lived through the Monica mess could watch Spitzer humiliating his wife on national TV yesterday without thinking of Bill Clinton. Across America, disgusted voters glanced at their televisions and asked themselves "Do I really want to do THAT again?"

And you know that if Bill Clinton returns to the White House, it will happen again.

It is widely known in New York that President Clinton already has a regular squeeze on the side. Given his utter lack of self-control while president, does anyone really expect his behavior to improve while he's the First Sidekick?

But don't blame Hill's problems all on Bill. She's the one who humilated herself by trying to blame her husband's perjury and pants problems on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. She's the one who has never held her husband responsible for his insulting and demeaning behavior towards herself and so many other women. She's the woman who chose, out of crass political ambition, to remain married to the only sitting president about whom serious allegations of rape have ever been brought.

If she had made different choices, if she had shown personal integrity in the past, the Spitzer story could have helped Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Instead, it's a blow right across the kneecaps.

What is Hillary Clinton supposed to say about the behavior of her booster and pledged superdelegate Elliot Spitzer? The only thing she CAN say:

"Hookers in a hotel room? Coulda been worse."

Why Elliot Had To Pay For Love

Because he did so much to get so many people to hate him.

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal lists a few key examples:

On a personal level, the AG has also struggled to explain away his penchant to threaten people in private. Former Goldman Sachs Chairman John Whitehead wrote on this page in December that after he'd published an op-ed criticizing Mr. Spitzer, the AG had called him to say: "Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done."

Mr. Spitzer denied any threat, although he noted (without admitting guilt) that he simply had a lot of "passion..."

This is hardly an isolated incident. Consider: Former GE chief Jack Welch confirmed last year that Mr. Spitzer told him to deliver a message to Ken Langone -- whom the AG is suing along with Mr. Grasso. Mr. Welch couldn't remember the precise words, but broadly confirmed a Newsweek account that the AG had threatened to "put a spike through Langone's heart."

Then there was Spitzer's now-infamous confrontation with a state rep, telling him "I am a f---ing steamroller and I'll roll over you or anybody else."

Can you feel the love?

Spitzer's problem isn't that he's done something incredibly stupid and venal. His real problem is that he's a notoriously self-righteous jerk. Even his "apology" yesterday was off-putting, delivered with an attitude of one merely going through the motions. Is Elliot Spitzer sorry he did something so pathetic, or does he merely regret getting caught?

Given that he built his entire career catching others (whether they did anything actually illegal or not), the irony is too delicious.

NY Congressman Peter King speaks for many in New York: "I'm not one who likes to pile on someone for personal failures or personal tragedy, but in Eliot Spitzer's case, I never met anyone who was more self-righteous or more unforgiving of others than Eliot spider. That's why you're going to see, I don't think, anyone coming to his defense in this case."

"Graham, What's That Music You're Using?"

Since the move to the 9am-noon slot, and the new show open music, I'm getting that question quite a bit.

The answer is right here, for your listening pleasure(?).

Also, if you're wondering where "The Natural Truth" comes from, the answer is available here.

Your--And Sen. Obama's--Must-Read Of The Day

This photo tells more truth about the Palestinians and Israel than any you'll ever get from Barack Obama.

The folks in this picture are celebrating the murder of eight students at a religious school in Jerusalem--one of them an American citizen. Don't you love the dad in this picture, who rushed into the streets with his kid in one hand and a gun in the other? "Celebrate, my son. More dead Jews!"

It takes a village to raise a new generation of terrorists...

Michael Goodwin in the New York Daily News absolutely nails this story, and points out just how irrational and foolish the Barack Obama "all we need in the Middle East is a hug" approach truly is:

We have gotten so numbed to the endless violence in the Mideast that we often close our minds as well as our eyes. If we have any response at all, it is something like, "Why can't those people just get along?"

The answer lies in the sickening contrast of Thursday's massacre and celebration. They can't get along because too many Palestinians embrace a culture of death. It is a culture stuck in the Dark Ages of ancient hatreds and unspeakable violence.

The evidence lies in missing pictures. Why no photos of Palestinians marching to condemn the massacre? Where are the Palestinian young people sympathizing with
dead and maimed students their own age? Where are the Palestinian parents grieving for the Israeli parents who lost their children?

Unfortunately, those are the easiest questions to answer: There were no pictures of sad Palestinians because there were no marches or wide expressions of sympathy.

OK, Tell Me Again Why You Think Barack Is A "Uniter?"

Legal expert and blogger extraordinaire Ed Whelan makes an observation in the Weekly Standard that I had completely overlooked. Not only did Sen. Barack Obama vote against Sam Alito (appointed by a 58-42 majority), but Sen. "Reach Across Party Lines" voted against Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts was appointed with a 78-22 majority.

Sen. Obama's vote against Justice Roberts is both hypocritical and reprehensible. There is no justification for any vote against Roberts. He was clearly qualified for the job and nearly every serious legal authority in America supported his nomination. The 22 Democrats who voted against him were doing so on purely political grounds: "We know he's competent and qualified, but no judges should be appointed, no matter how brilliant, unless they agree with us."

So much for the Left's obsession with an independent judiciary.

But Obama's vote is worse, because he spends all day attacking partisanship and "business as usual." He's going to unite us, get something done, forget about party labels, blah, blah, blah.

Then, when it's time to actually vote, he sides with the most partisan, most liberal extremists in his party.

A vote for John Roberts was a no-brainer. You had to be looking to pick a partisan fight in order to deny him this job.

So, tell me again how Sen. Obama is going to "heal" my soul? Please, Michelle. Save it for the Oprah dopes on the stump.

UPDATE: According to the NYTimes, Sen. Obama's decision to vote against Justice Roberts wasn't just hyper-partisan. It was also gutless:

Mr. Obama wanted to vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, for example — he thought the president deserved latitude when it came to appointments — but [staffer Pete] Rouse advised against it, pointing out that Mr. Obama would be reminded of the vote every time the court made a conservative ruling that he found objectionable.

Now THAT'S bold leadership for the future!

Can we duck any tough political votes? Yes We Can!

Discovering The Religion Of Peace

This young man is learning firsthand about the validity of President George W. Bush's mantra that "Islam is a religion of peace." Eight innocent students, many of them high schoolers, had a fatal encounter with Islam's version of peace in Jerusalem yesterday.

This excellent post by Tom Gross is a great reminder of the Palestinians' commitment to peace as expressed on 9/11/01. And, as press accounts confirm, citizens in Gaza danced in the streets yesterday over the news of the Jerusalem murders. Seven of the eight victims were teenagers.

No doubt the pro-terror Lefties here in Massachusetts like former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross and infamous Andover High teacher Ron Francis will defend the gunmen who shot down these kids as acting in "self defense." After all, didn't Israel launch attacks into Gaza that resulted in many deaths?

Yes, they did. And every rational person understands why the nation of Israel took this legitimate military action. Since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas terrorists (until President Obama takes them off the terrorist list, anyway) have fired more than 2,000 missiles, rockets, and mortars at hospitals and homes in Israel. They've already attacked Israeli civilians 500 times this year.

Gaza is not "occupied" by Israel. It isn't controlled by Israel. If they wanted, the Palestinians could turn Gaza into a healthy, functioning community.

Instead, Hamas spends its time trying to blow up innocent families in Israel and the people of Gaza cheer them on.

Would the US allow terrorists in Canada or Mexico to fire even TWO missiles into Bangor, ME or El Paso, TX? Would be avoid taking out these missile sites if the terrorists were cowardly enough to place them in neighborhoods--particularly neighborhoods that welcomed and supported this murder?

A nation that uses its military to defend against missile attacks targeting civilians--that's self-defense. Two guys who sneak into a school to gun down Jewish teenagers--that's terrorism.

If you can't tell the difference, you're probably a member of the faculty at Harvard University.

UPDATE: But if you are beginning to doubt Islam's status as the "religion of peace," Harvard University will be hosting a speaker this Sunday to ease your mind. Sheik Jihad will be lecturing at Harvard.

As regular emailer Steve asks: "I wonder if my buddy the Reverend Crusader can get a speaking gig at Harvard, too?"

Barack Obama's One-Delegate Firewall

The Natural Truth facing Mrs. Bill Clinton, as laid out in my Boston Herald column today:

When the primary process is over, if Obama has even just one more pledged (read “elected”) delegate than Clinton, he absolutely will be the Democratic nominee. Because the Democratic Party in 2008 is never going to say to a viable black candidate, “Oh, I’m so sorry. I know you won the primary, but we’re giving the nomination to the white lady.”

Not gonna happen. Period.

I have yet to hear a single, credible argument from any Clinton supporter to overcome this political reality. If you've got one, please send it to Michaelgraham@969wtkk.com

Maybe It's Because Everyone In Florida Is Old

A plague of instant-onset Alzheimer's has apparently afflicted Florida Democrats, the Hillary Clinton campaign and every member of the MSM covering the 2008 election. Suddenly, nobody can remember why Florida Democrats have been stripped of their presidential delegates.

According to both Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean, it's all a plot by evil Governor Charlie Crist and Florida Democrats. And the media happily reports this storyline as true.

Ooops:

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Sept. 23, 2007 — The Florida Democratic Party announced Sunday that it would move ahead with its plan to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 29 despite the national party’s decision to block the state delegation from the 2008 Democratic convention.

State party leaders said that even if none of the state’s delegates were seated at next summer’s Democratic presidential convention, the earlier primary would still help determine the nominee. --TheNew York Times.

Gee, but that's not what Terry McAuliffee said...

The NYTimes also shared this September 2007 memo from Karen L. Thurman, the state party’s chairwoman:

"There will be no other primary. Florida Democrats absolutely must vote on January 29th. We make this election matter. Not the D.N.C., not the delegates, not the candidates, but Florida Democrats like you and me voting together. We make it count.

Don’t let anybody call this vote a 'beauty contest' or a 'straw poll.' On January 29, 2008, there will be a fair and open election in Florida, which will provide for maximum voter participation. The nation will be paying attention, and Florida Democrats will have a major impact in determining who the next President of the United States of America will be.

And this is the REPUBLICANS' fault?