For years (since losing to George Bush in 2000), Democrats (i.e. Reid, Pelosi, Michael Moore, Move-On, etc) and have been behaving very badly and very selfishly. The Republicans have come to be seen as sexually repressed perverts interesting only in war, earmarks and cheap Chicano labor.
So, Iowa represents a comeuppance to the parties. Hillary Rodham Clinton in her best day would never have won Miss Congeniality and yet there she is, the Democrat Establishment Standard Bearer. What is surprising is that since there are more Media watchers and political pundits than caucasites in Iowa and you would think more of them would have remembered Hillary's unfavorables. This is the woman who many said is "unelectable." Granted, in the run-up, some talking heads reminded us that people are uncomfortable with the Clinton and Bush dynasties. "No more right now, thank you."
This morning it certainly looks like Iowa at least is ready for some change. One striking Democrat factoid is that 57% of the under 30 caucasing crowd went for the fresh Prince with the hopeful but vague message. 57% is a landslide, at least in the one demographic and it translated to a narrow victory. It was also interesting that the older people went for Hillary. Once again, a generational divide shows us that human nature is unchanging. The young are idealistic; the old pragmatic. Of course, the conventional wisdom says that getting those young people to actually vote is easier said than done. It appears to have been done in Iowa and by a smooth-talking stranger, a man of mystery who came out of nowhere. This guy has gone from being an Illinois "state something-or-other" to US Senator and front runner for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. So far, Barack Hussein Obama has been able to get away with "glittering generalities" and hopeful platitudes. He's been a stealth candidate and we still don't know exactly what hit us.
Admittedly, this is Monday morning Quaterbacking but Republicans are disgusted with their own party and Huckabee is the only Republican in the race who could be considered an outsider. Why wouldn't he be the winner? There has been a harmonic convergence and the stars are in alignment. People are disgusted with the parties and the message was delivered in Iowa.
bobal said...
ReplyDeleteRomney
Huck
Thompson
Obama
Hellary
slick hair
-----------------------------------
Sam said...
Iowa prediction:
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
1. Obama
2. Clinton
-----------------------------------
trish said...
Obama, Edwards, Clinton
McCain, Romney, Huckabee
-----------------------------------
desert rat said...
Pissin' in the wind
bettin' on a losin' friend
makin' the same mistakes we said we'd never make again
South Carolina, historicly & Florida, this cycle, is where the rubber meets the road
Iowa - Huckabee/Romney
New Hampshire - McCain/Romney
South Carolina - Thompson/Huckebee
Florida - Rudy
Super Tuesday - Thompson surge
California - Rudy
Arizona - McCain
Brokered Convention
Iowa - Clinton/Obama
New Hampshire - Clinton
South Carolina - Obama/Clinton
Florida - Clinton w/o campaigning, delegates eventually seated at Convention.
Super Tuesday - Clinton sweep
-----------------------------------
Ash said...
Reading the tea leaves and predicting the what the 'people' will decide is a mugs game but I'll give it a shot:
Obama is going all the way to the top.
In Iowa...
Statistical dead heat for the top 3 democratic candidates with Obama or Clinton slightly on top. For the repubs Huck will be the man on top (by a tiny bit) in Iowa but he will fade away as the race goes on, huckster that he is. As for the eventually winner for that party...I dunno, probably Romney 'cause he's so slick, or McCain 'cause the surge solved all the problems in Iraq and just a few more of those and the world will be a peaceful happy place.
(I was just too busy)
ReplyDeleteI think it's cause Republican Iowans are Morons, religious bigot supporting Morons.
ReplyDelete---
The Dems had no decent choices.
Hunter for President!
(and people said there were no Reagan Conservatives!)
And I was sick of it before it ever happened.
ReplyDeleteSimpler answer came from Rufus:
ReplyDeleteThe Stupid Party.
Huck:
ReplyDeleteNot Funny, Not "Nice," IGNORANT!
Nice post. I think people are sick and tired of the sixties generation. I came to that conclusion on July 4, 1967. I finished my four year tour, got out, thought the country had gone to hell, and ten days later was back in. The people have spoken and have rejected everyone of the sixties generation, Good.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is sweet to see the stink bombs set off in the Republican House of Cardinals. Limbaugh, Hewitt, Hannity all of the gold ringed, polished pinky fingers stepped on.
ReplyDeleteThe Two Earthquakes
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 4, 2008
Ottumwa, Iowa
"I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I’ve never been through an election night that brought two.
Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this. An African-American man wins a closely fought campaign in a pivotal state. He beats two strong opponents, including the mighty Clinton machine. He does it in a system that favors rural voters. He does it by getting young voters to come out to the caucuses.
This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.
Iowa won’t settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.
And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?
Obama has achieved something remarkable. At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift — filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.
He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation.
Yet over the course of his speeches and over the course of this campaign, he has persuaded many Iowans that there is substance here as well. He built a great organization and produced a tangible victory.
He’s made Hillary Clinton, with her wonkish, pragmatic approach to politics, seem uninspired. He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.
Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.
On the Republican side, my message is: Be not afraid. Some people are going to tell you that Mike Huckabee’s victory last night in Iowa represents a triumph for the creationist crusaders. Wrong.
Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize. First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.
Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.
Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.
In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition.
A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.
Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation."
Good read here:
ReplyDeletePEGGY NOONAN
Out With the Old, In With the New
Obama and Huckabee rise; Mrs. Clinton falls.
Friday, January 4, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST
And so it begins.
We wanted exciting, we got exciting.
As this is written, late on the night of the caucuses, the outlines of the decisions seem clear: Barack Obama won.
Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.
It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the Ur reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.
She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.
As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.
He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together.
He had a harder row to hoe than Mrs. Clinton did. He was lesser known, too young, lacked an establishment. He had to knock her down while building himself up. (She only had to build herself up until the end, when she went after his grade-school essays.) His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings. I think we were there when it happened, in the debate in which he was questioned on why so many of Bill Clinton's aides were advising him. She laughed, and he said he was looking forward to her advising him, too. He took mama to school.
And so something new begins on the Democratic side.
Something new begins on the Republican side, too.
Everyone said Mike Huckabee was a big dope to leave Iowa Wednesday to fly to L.A. to be on Jay Leno, but did you see him on that thing? He got off a perfect line on why he's doing well against Romney: "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off." The studio audience loved him. And you know, in Iowa they watch "The Tonight Show" too.
Mr. Huckabee likes to head-fake people into thinking he's Gomer Pyle, but he's more like the barefoot boy of the green room. He's more James Carville than Jim Nabors.
What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.
They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.
They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.
But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I'm sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it. Clever fellow. To me, the tipoff was "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
My sense is that Mr. Huckabee's good supporters deserve a better leader.
His next problem may be not so much New Hampshire as Ed Rollins, the Reagan White House political aide who came in a week ago to manage his campaign. Mr. Rollins began his tenure announcing to respectful young reporters that he--"the grizzled veteran," the "old battler"--would like to sink to his knees and "shoot Romney in the groin" and "punch his teeth out." Such class is of course always welcome on the trail, but one senses the verbal ante will constantly be upped, and I'm not sure that will work well for Mr. Huckabee. Self inflated dirigibles, especially unmoored ones, can cast shadows on parades."
Hewitt, just like the rest of the MSM, never gave Hunter an equal chance from the begining.
ReplyDeleteHunter not being an authentic example of the 60's and all it represented.
Dumb and Dumber
ReplyDeleteOne of the sources of discontent within the country is the present government's spending on a number of expensive military programs like the JF-17 fighter that is being designed in cooperation with Chengdu Aerospace in China, and which are seen as happening at the expense of more urgent domestic problems. A June 2007 profile of the opposition to Musharraf in the New Yorker by William Dalrymple lists the country's ills: "the published literacy rate is forty-nine per cent, and in some areas the rate is estimated to be as low as fourteen per cent. Instead of investing adequately in education, Musharraf's government is spending money on a fleet of American [Lockheed Martin] F-16s
for the Air Force.
Health care and other social services for the poor have also been neglected, in contrast to the public services that benefit the wealthy, such as highways and airports--many of which are world-class."
---------------------
Things are, however, not always as they seem. Reversing the decision to provide Pakistan with 18 (plus an option for 18 more) F-16s would be a blow to Lockheed Martin, but it might also make it easier for the U.S. to make a sale of the aircraft to India, which has finally put out a long-awaited tender for a much larger purchase: 126 medium weight fighters plus options for 63 more. This sale is of such a size and would be such a boost to the U.S. defense industry (if the US can capture the contract over Russian and European competitors) that reversing on the Pakistan deal might in the long run be the proverbial "throwing back a small fish in hopes of catching a bigger one."
---
Good Luck, with a corrupt, moron, "boner" President.
("" for Trish)
"Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful.
ReplyDeleteThe past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate.
His foreign policy knowledge is minimal.
His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign."
"Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation."
ReplyDelete---
If they swing to McCain, as NYTimes "conservative" Brooks predicts, it will be further devolution, not Reformation!
AspergersGentleman said...
ReplyDeleteHilary Doesn't Want an ELECTION VICTORY WHEN SERGE BRIN AND GOOGLE CAN GIVE HER DIGITAL IMMORTALITY!
Every website you goto, Hil-gorithms will observe, orient, decide and act to send your data to China in exchange for Buddhist treasure.
Every Amazon purchase, you make, your rationality will be compared to that of Hilary, whose decision will have been based on the wisdom of the most people who are also smarter than most everyone else whose ever lived.
Every illicit paragraph will require a Microsoft Word Paperclip-esque intervention, with Hilary appearing to warn you of your dilletantish indiscretions!
Any suggestive fandango you purchase on the Internet will be compiled in a Hilta-base, where it will be sold to Nigerian Buddhists to extort you, the better to free themselves from earthly pain via your money.
The s0-called Conservative annointers have been enabling a second rate big spending law ignoring bumbling tongue tied second rater for seven years. This morning they are faced with McCain or Huckabee.
ReplyDeleteThere are more than a few Republicans who are looking at the gap between Republican promises and their actual delivery performance. They want change from the debacle delivered by GWB.
Alderman Williams said...
ReplyDeleteO' for the days of a chicken in every pot!
With Obama, every American shall get to quarter an illegal and a bureaucrat to monitor the quartering.
Every American flag shall be shat in and buried in barren inner-city parks to fertilize organic garden renewal projects.
Obama will apologize for Nick Berg, the neocon and forge a coalition of the willing to dig up Theo Van Gogh and create a Hajj festivity with his coffin. Obama's closeness to technology entrepreneurs will ensure the audio/video production on the game will be top-notch for hard-to-please Muslim audiences.
Obama can offer a subsidy to Americans by buying some of their Carbon debt if they lend their documents to illegals or flaggelate themselves on youtube during the Shiite holy day of Muslim Mosh Pit.
Clitorus-free vaginas will become the in-thing, as women feverishly apply foundation and blush and all manner of plaster to try and disguise their immodest genitals.
Obama will erect a Memorial to the undocumented Thoreaus whose larger-than-life ambition clashed with our puritanical insistence on harmful "Drug War" enforcement.
Yeah, W and Fatso really brought us a permanent GOP Majority, now, didn't they?
ReplyDelete...that was used to excuse much of his incompetent non-leadership in the early days.
You Just Wait.
Mad Fiddler said...
ReplyDeleteFrom the "If Only" Department...
What if a certain philandering drunken senator from Massachussetts had on a fateful night focused the full glare of his charm on the ambitious wife of the governor of a third-world southern state...
Actually, there is the horrifying possibility that the female of the pair turned out to be the only survivor of the submersion.
Mad Fiddler said...
ReplyDeleteoops.
"...the horrifying possibility that the female of the pair would have turned out to be the only survivor of the submersion."
Wretchard said...
ReplyDeleteBut maybe a modern politician would end the poem with a different couplet.
Polls are the master of my fate:
PACs hold the mortgage on my soul.
Barack Obama's victory speech.
"They said this day would never come. ... I'll be a President who finally ends this war in Iraq and brings our troops home.
Who restores our moral standing.
Who understands 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes."
So there is an "Ottumwa, Iowa"...
ReplyDeleteThere is also a "Tumwater Oregon"
Sadly, there is no longer an "Olympia Beer"
Towering Barbarian said...
ReplyDeleteLoath though I am to acknowledge anything that a puppet like Hillary might say to be correct, the fact remains that she is correct to be undiscouraged by the events in Iowa.
The caucus system there is sufficiently screwy that I would count it as a clown show rather than as a real primary and am amazed that so many people take it seriously.
Hence the reason I doubt that the way the GOP end of it finished will mean much in the future.
That said, the real primaries now begin and I think Mrs. Clinton will find herself in more trouble than she realized. Won't be long before she starts reaching for the atomic hand grenade.
Partly because losing candidates use any weapon they can to stay viable for the day (No point in worrying about the long term until you are first assured of surviving in the short term!) and partly because it's not unknown for losing candidates to have a
"If I die let it all die with me!" attitude towards their rivals and the party that turned their back on them.
After all, what does she have to look forward to if she loses?
Years and years of hanging around in the Senate like a futile ghost from yesterday the way Ted Kennedy does?
It's not like Obama who ran for a lark and can just essentially say "Oh well! What's for lunch?"
if he fails to get the Presidency. Both she and John Edwards have little to go back to if they lose and I suspect that will make a difference in the way they campaign.
LifeoftheMind said...
ReplyDelete...
All that being said Obama as President would be worse.
Hillary's cynicism is her strongest feature. Like her spouse she is capable of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Her jealousy and arrogance would mitigate a tendency to defer to the worst elements in Old Europe and the UN.
Obama would simply cave in.
Listen to him, on the most critical issues of our age he is aligned with the Soros crowd.
Do him the courtesy of believing his rhetoric.
Obama would withdraw from the war.
That would be my argument w/you, Deuce:
ReplyDeleteJust because the 60's gen was the pits doesn't mean that there aren't mind numbed morons from later generations that are even worse!
...PC indoctrination has taken an increasing toll w/every passing year.
Doug, you are right. But who created the environment for the dumbing down, multi-culturalism? Seems to me it was the smartest counter-culture generation who distrusted everyone over thirty.
ReplyDeleteThe Front Page of the NY Times has a Video which shows the "logic" of the caucus.
ReplyDeleteVery fair, very much like Iowa, says the Hillary gal.
(if so, for a tiny minority of political junkies)
That is exactly correct!
ReplyDeleteAll the biggest losers from the
60's became "teachers" "professors" and "leaders!"
The politics of the ghetto of Islla Vista, CA (UCSB's bedroom) was identical to today's Dem Party, all the way down to Environmental Jet-Set Preachers.
ReplyDelete...also the birthplace of "La Raza."
How far we've come!
Can't you see some guy or gal with a family, that works 60hrs/wk, taking the time to go play politics at the Caucus?
ReplyDeleteDesperately seeking Neither Of The Above [Mark Steyn]
ReplyDeleteThis is as bad as it could be for Mitt. It wasn't a close finish, and it's hard to see how his numbers in New Hampshire go anywhere but south. As for McCain, granted that he couldn't lose, he had a great night. Fred decided to court Iowa assiduously whereas Mister Maverick refused to drink the ethanol, and the difference between Fred's courtship and McCain's disdain is currently one point. Most of the Thompson-Giuliani vote in NH and some of the Romney support, too, will migrate to Maverick over the next few days.
Where I disagree with Ramesh is in the idea that this provides an opening for Rudy. Assuming Huck manages a strong third in NH, we'll be locked into a Huck/McCain fight and anybody looking for a neither-of-the-above is unlikely to settle on Rudy, who'd be at least as polarizing as those two.
I'd also disagree with Ramesh's idea that this was a good night for Christians reaching across the aisle. It would be truer to say that for a proportion of Huck's followers there is no aisle: he's their kind of Christian, and all the rest - foreign policy, health care, mass transit, whatever - is details. This is identity politics of a type you don't often see on the Republican side.
I'd also disagree with Ramesh's idea that this was a good night for Christians reaching across the aisle.
ReplyDeleteIt would be truer to say that for a proportion of Huck's followers there is no aisle:
he's their kind of Christian, and all the rest - foreign policy, health care, mass transit, whatever - is details.
This is identity politics of a type you don't often see on the Republican side.
...except when we all succumbed to identify with the fraud "conservative"
ReplyDelete(but compassionate, ...like daddy).
IOW Boners of a feather, Trish!
A June 2007 profile of the opposition to Musharraf in the New Yorker by William Dalrymple lists the country's ills: "the published literacy rate is forty-nine per cent, and in some areas the rate is estimated to be as low as fourteen per cent. Instead of investing adequately in education, Musharraf's government is spending money on a fleet of American [Lockheed Martin] F-16s
ReplyDeletefor the Air Force.
Health care and other social services for the poor have also been neglected, in contrast to the public services that benefit the wealthy, such as highways and airports--many of which are world-class."
- Weekly Standard
Well isn't that special. Make them shift funding away from physical infrastructure to programs for the poor and (as O'Rourke would say) have them eat the rich.
How much more soft-headed, social welfare, "root causes" bullshit do I have to read from ostensibly conservative foreign affairs analysts who would reject the same premises applied almost anywhere else on the globe?
The last thing we need is to look at Pakistan as some giant Hull House slum project for the clueless (and wildly arbitrary) conceits of the Foreign Appropriations crowd.
"Pakistan is an Army that has a country."
So's Turkey. What's yer point?
Byron York:
ReplyDeleteInside Huckabee’s Victory
How the impoverished governor from nowhere beat the mighty Romney machine.
By Byron York
Des Moines, Iowa — On the night before the Iowa caucuses, I dropped by Mike Huckabee’s campaign headquarters on Sixth Avenue in downtown Des Moines. Upstairs, in the phone-bank room, the scene was part political operation and part day care center; supporters who volunteered to make calls for Huckabee had brought their children, who were playing games while their parents worked the phone lists. In a cluttered side room, I sat down with Chip Saltsman, Huckabee’s campaign manager, and Robert Wickers, his media adviser, while four year-old James Yoest, the son of another Huckabee adviser, Charmaine Yoest, slept on a blanket spread across the floor.
Something was up. Saltsman and Wickers gave off a certain sense of serenity; they seemed to know that their man was doing very well. I would have suspected that they had some secret research showing that Huckabee would win the next day, but I knew the campaign didn’t have the money for such luxuries. So I listened as Saltsman gave what was essentially a play-by-play analysis of the Huckabee victory to come.
The campaign’s strategy was shaped by two things, Saltsman said. First was Huckabee’s talent as a communicator, and second was the fact that the campaign was always nearly broke. Put those two together, and you had a campaign constantly searching for free media exposure. “We’ve been criticized sometimes for — after a big event, we went straight to Washington to do media, or we went straight to New York to do media,” Saltsman said. “That was because a lot of those shows wouldn’t have us on unless we did that.”
“We didn’t have any money,” Wickers added.
“Exactly,” Saltsman said. “But we knew that was a big part of the process for us.”
---
Just like a small business w/no access to big bucks.
Pakistan is not Turkey!
ReplyDeleteDo you argue we should sell them F-16's, Trish?
ReplyDeleteRather than try to sell the Indians?
"On the day of the caucuses, I checked Romney’s schedule and noticed that he was set to appear at a Kum & Go — a popular convenience store — in West Des Moines. The convenience store backdrop seemed a bit Huckabee-esque, until I arrived to discover that the event was being held not at a Kum & Go, but at the corporate headquarters of Kum & Go, a company called Krause-Gentle, which also owns a variety of other businesses. The CEO of Krause-Gentle is a Romney fan and invited him to speak there."
ReplyDelete---
I'm not a big Byron York Fan, but that's a great piece.
"Do you argue we should sell them F-16's, Trish?
ReplyDeleteRather than try to sell the Indians?"
Sell them to both. It's not either/or. It hasn't been for quite some time.
"Pakistan's not Turkey!"
Oh, that's right. I forgot. Because AQ's poised to take over Islamabad with the in-pocket PakMil and ISI.
Even better reason to cut off Rawalpindi. And the Indians can secure the nukes.
Sell them to both sides, doug, that's the way forward!
ReplyDeleteAcross the Mussulman Arc, support the Islamic Armys, within US sponsored, Islamic Republics.
The Indians are as beholden to the Chinese as the Pakistani, and as a non-signitory country to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty just as dangerous, more so than Pakistan. Radical Nationalistic Hindus, not really part of the Peace & Love movement.
Sell neither side advanced weaponry, that is the best policy, for US.
But not for the Boners.
Not for the bankers nor the New World Order. They support both sides of every conflict.
They have been pursuing that course since before we were born.
Idiots Out Wandering Around went for Pat Buchanan, and, almost, Pat Robertson.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the internals of the CBS Entrance Poll. The Young, the Poor, and Especially the FEMALES went for the Huckabilly.
Iowa - The Home of the Stupidest of the Stupid.
Oh, by the way, we've never gone up five points in the unemployment rate without going into recession (as of this morning we've gone from 4.4% to 5.0%.)
ReplyDeleteJes Sayin
Oh, on those Internals? Romney trounced Muckabee in most experiance, most able to affect needed change, most electable, Best for the Economy (everything except Has MY Values.)
ReplyDeleteThat's "Middle America" for you, rufus.
ReplyDeleteSpreading the franchise, to youth, women, church goers and blacks.
Oh the horror of it!
Though almost no blacks live in Iowa.
Just wait until South Carolina, then you can bemoan their stupidity, too.
Marching to Florida, where last I heard, the Huckster was surging. And that was before he became a winner.
See how many folks out there in Middle America do not care about stray dogs, or how they die. That is especially true in Florida, the mecca of the dog racing industry.
The GOP has courted the "Religious Right" for a coon's age. Look who's up the tree, now. The hounds are barking and baying at the moon.
Mitt is toast, McCain'll clean his clock in New hampshire, based upon past perfromance, then the race swings south to Bob Jones country, where Huck will win, again.
Then on to Florida, the first Establishment/Rudy firewall. If the GOP Establishment does not rally to Rudy, there in the Sunshine State, Huckabee will get the nomination.
Or the GOP will fragment in a brokered convention, losing the Base it has spent so much time building, in "Middle America".
"They have been pursuing that course since before we were born."
ReplyDelete---
They have been pursuing that course since before THEY were born, also!
...but Trish doesn't get that, being a bonerdenier.
My Values carries the day.
ReplyDeleteValues voters, folk that will never vote Republican Values when that means Vote 4 Foley.
Despite what is best for K Street.
Cannot be on bothsides of the abortion issue, depending upon the election you're running in.
Not when Values count.
Those stupid people, those church goers, with nonreconcilable core values.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrish evidently believes high-tech aid to Rawalpindi will be a detriment to Al Q!
ReplyDeleteSlam Dunk!
Ain't that the truth, doug.
ReplyDeleteIt's a long and winding road
in 1901 he returned to Columbus to be General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings Company, which manufactured railway parts. The company was run by Frank Rockefeller, the brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and among its clients were the railroads controlled by E. H. Harriman.
Please note the simularities in the
symbols
that both fraternities used
to represent their core values.
Then the core value of making money, survives through the generations.
Exemplified by the Directors of the Union Banking Corporation.
On October 20, 1942, pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, the United States seized all of the shares of the Union Banking Corporation.
Stupid people, they're everywhere.
F...... Conspiracy Theories!
ReplyDelete"On October 20, 1942, pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, the United States seized all of the shares of the Union Banking Corporation.
ReplyDeletePrescott Bush was, as of 1941, a director of the UBC with one share. Since Prescott Bush is the father and grandfather of two U.S. presidents, his involvement in the firm has drawn considerable interest from the media. Some have raised accusations that Prescott Bush directly or indirectly profited his involvement in UBC, and that his continued involvement in the firm helped the Nazi party's rise to power."
Can I become a Director of Toyota with 1 share, please?
ReplyDeleteJust the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteSome of the "conspiracy" stuff is tad outlandish. But the core truth of it, hiding in plain sight.
Not even trying to hide this part of the New World Order reality.
Quite proud of it, they are.
Nine minutes worth of prideful truths. None of the participents conspiracy theorists.
Notice that Mr Rockefeller did not donate the land, but the money to buy the land.
ReplyDeleteBetcha there is a back story to that detail.
"Trish evidently believes high-tech aid to Rawalpindi will be a detriment to Al Q!
ReplyDeleteSlam Dunk!"
..
I can see it now.
David Kahane
ReplyDeleteA Hollywood Win
Did all the Iowa democrooks vote for the jimme stoolwart peeresident?
ReplyDeleteTotal Iowa Republican votes 93,045 (78% reporting, per AP)
Total Iowa Democrat votes 2,403 (96% reporting, per AP)
What's going on here?
As I said, yesterday, mat, you do not understand US politics
ReplyDeleteThe GOP had individual ballots, which were reported.
The Dems are reporting the apportioned delegates.
When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and
each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media
AP should be reporting more clearly.
ReplyDelete~100,000 Republican votes equals how many delegates?
~ 2,500 Democrat delegates equals how many votes?
Your Byzantine system is not made any easier to understand by this kind of shoddy reporting.
Also, explain why is it that
New York: 101 Total Delegates
Iowa: 40 Total Delegates
Is Iowa that heavily populated to account for almost half as many delegates as New York?
Doug,
ReplyDeleteA sincere thank you for the "No Country for Old Men" link. Great movie! Great site! (well, something illegal about it but if you like your stuff for free...)
Obama really nailed it in his victory speech - so much so that the Fox News folks even seemed to be gushing. The die hard partisans at Fox seemed to grok the idea that the current field of 'pubs aren't too good and maybe Bloomberg could ride in as an indy to save the day.
I saw the Huckster on Leno and my impression is his politics are sufficiently radical and his mouth is big enough to contain his foot (well, both feet and legs) that he can't last long.
mat, I don't think it is the numbers (other then who beat whom) or that Iowa is not at all representative of the US as a whole its that it gives the Candidates, the winners in particular, a national soapbox. Obama stood upon it and told the nation what it wanted to hear. Did you listen to the speech? If not, you can find it a Real Clear Politics. He's cookin', cookin' with gas, and if he can avoid the assassins bullet he's golden.
ReplyDeleteoh ya, on Hillary's speech, I thought it was a "Pick me, Pick me, for VP" speech. Fat chance - I hope!
ReplyDeleteI did listen, Ash. Yesterday. Live.
ReplyDeleteAnd I wasn't terribly impressed. It was a generic copy of a speech that you could hear in any black baptist church given by any black baptist preacher on any given sunday.
The delegate counts are not representitive of the number of people in the States, but the number of Congressional Districts, then the numbers of GOP elected officials, in the State, the more there are, the greater the State's representation at the Convention. Per the link from last night, that bob quoted.
ReplyDeleteThat New York has few GOP officials, limits their representation at the GOP Convention, pretty simple stuff.
The US has never been a one man, one vote representation country. Not from the founding, not through to today. The Senate is the prime example, the Electoral College another. If the US were one citizen, one vote, Al Gore would have won the White House, in 2000.
The operations of AP and it's reporting are beyond my control. If one is ignorant, do not depend upon the MSM to enlighten.
Got to self educate in the USA, if you want to know or understand the background truths.
Never been to one of those churches, myself, mat.
ReplyDeleteSurprised you are such an expert on black Christian ministers and their delivery styles.
Been to a lot of Baptist services, in the US?
Or are you making assumptions based upon racial and religious stereotypes?
When you state you believe they all sound alike, everywhere, on any given Sunday.
"The delegate counts are not representitive of the number of people in the States,.."
ReplyDeleteAnd that pretty much sums it all.
Like all Jews are cheap, lying sectarians, that would not know the truth if it bit 'em on the ass?
ReplyDeleteI just do not believe it, in either case.
Obama had the JFKennedy look goin' for him, not a Black Ministers' style.
Not a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton feel, not at all.
from Dick Morris----------------
ReplyDeleteThe amazing victories by Obama and Huckabee in Iowa are truly historic. They demonstrate the impact and viability of a message of change in both parties. In the Democratic Party, Obama, winning in a totally white state, shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics. On the Republican side, Huckabee’s win shows how a truly compassionate conservative can win by harvesting voters who want the message of concern for the poor and for values to prevail.
But what of Hillary? She’s down but she’s not out. Hillary Clinton, in the first really contested election of her own political career, lost dismally-- outclassed, outdrawn, and outpolled by Barack Obama.
Her campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs – not sufficiently centrist to win independents or liberal enough to attract Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee brought a new phenomenon into politics. A New Testament Christian politician, he takes the Biblical message to the center-left, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. His refusal to indulge in negative advertising sent a message to Iowa voters showing his strength under fire.
The Obama victory in Iowa probably presages a victory in New Hampshire and follow up victories in Nevada and South Carolina. (Hillary will win Michigan be cause she is alone on the ballot). Suddenly, Hillary’s argument that she should be the candidate because she has a record of defeating the “Republican attack machine” will backfire. Sold as a winner, she will be exposed as a loser. The overhang of Iowa will dog her for all of the early primaries.
Particularly important for Obama is the poor finish of John Edwards, who has campaigned in Iowa for six years. Now Obama can count on being the nearly unanimous choice of the anti-Hillary voters. No longer will the vote be divided.
Hillary faces a serious problem: Voters rejected her and rejected Bill on a very personal basis. Iowa was a referendum on Hillary and she lost 30-70. Her argument of experience only reinforced her phoniness and her issues positioning showed how contrived her ideology is. This is a stinging personal defeat for Hillary.
But what will happen next? With the limelight comes the spotlight. Obama will suddenly become the putative candidate of the Democratic Party and will be subject to the scrutiny that comes with the title . Can he weather the examination?
Perhaps not. Democrats may turn on Obama, worried that he may not win in November. The doubts about Obama, up to now hidden behind concerns about Hillary’s candidacy, will be on center stage. I wonder if he can stand the scrutiny.
Much the same process will evolve on the Republican side. Ignored in the Iowa result, Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary with his fifth place finish. But the same process that will unfold for the Republican Party may take place on the Democratic side. Voters may wonder if all that stands between the White House and the Democratic Party is a Mormon, a Christian evangelical, and a 70-year old. Rudy, like Hillary, may look better once the rest of the field unfolds.
But don’t write off Obama or Huckabee. Their appeals are truly unique and obviously resonate with voters. Their approaches are now and the outcome shows how relevant their message is.
xxxxxxxxx
Hillary will win Michigan because she is alone on the ballot.
:)
Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary
?
The only 'non-white' church I ever have attended was a holy roller in Hawaii--got to say, those people knew how to praise the Lord! But, if I get back east again, I'm going to a black baptist church or two. Out here in whiteland there just aren't any.
"Been to a lot of Baptist services, in the US?"
ReplyDeleteNope. Not a single one. Ever.
The people of the States are not equally represented in the Federal Government, either.
ReplyDeleteThe US is a Republic, not a democracy.
Which does say it all.
Modeled on the Freemason Organization of the 1700's
It how our Kingmaking puppetmasters are chosen.
Your country's future dependent upon US and our system.
To bad for you guys. That you all are not independent of US. Having sold your soverignty for handful of sheckels. Fulfilling the stereotype, oh so well.
Wouldn't believe it, if I didn't see it.
So how do now, that they are all the same? In style and delivery?
ReplyDeleteI had a Dream.
ReplyDeleteAlways good to keep things in Perspective
ReplyDelete"Fulfilling the stereotype, oh so well."
ReplyDeleteWe shall overcome.
mat,
ReplyDeleteSometimes one gets a clearer picture of America from afar...sometimes not.
How dare you compare Obama to the "king" The King shook his hips and sang. In Obama's case - words do have meaning ... and don't you dare invoke luther ;)
Ash,
ReplyDeleteI give credit were credit is due.
(And so should you, btw ;)
"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." - MLK
dRat,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't trust the democratic process, why bother with a vote?
I trust it.
ReplyDeleteWhat would make you think I didn't trust it? I took an oath to defend it. Not an empty oath, at all.
The Constitutional process is fully explainable and concise, if one takes the time required to learn about it. Understand the history & people involved.
The US Constitutional process has historical roots, it has provide the citizens of the Republic the highest standard of living for the most number of people in the known history of the world.
That the history of the Republic, as I percieve it, is not exactly the one taught in the public schools or promoted by the MSM does not invalidate the historical truths.
That there are two different visions for the Republic, one promoted by Jefferson & Jackson and another advocated by Washington, the Roosevelts and Taft, part of the history of the Republic and the Constitution.
My own position is closer to Jeffersonian model, but that does not invalidate the fact the other vision is ascendent and still Constitutional.
All those that do not see things from my pespective, I do not label as treasonous traitors, but manipulators of the System. A Constitutional System that was designed to be manipulated.
Circles & Cycles, scenes that we've all seen before.
No, you don't trust it. You wouldn't swagger about the fact that you live in a George Orwell animal farm, if you did.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that understanding the process means you do not trust the process. I do trust it, just do not often like the results.
ReplyDeleteNot the same thing at all.
Just want others to see the alternate perspective, then they get to decide, for themselves. If enough see it, the System will adjust, if they don't, my side loses. But the world won't end, I'll be at the beach, or dead.
Your perception is one of a person that does not understand the US, but from the MSM's perspective. Not a personal study of US history, of the genocides and exploitation of minority groups, that make the Jewish experience in Europe pale by comparison.
But the US indigs do not have media mouth pieces to keep their story alive. Or the Chinese indebtured labor never had their case made a moral issue.
The Spanish taking a different tact than the British, the results are evident in the outcomes. Compare North America to South and Central. The iniigs in the South were not killed off, but enslaved.
Totally different model.
Totally different outcome.
We won. We still do.
But not always in a manner that'd I approve of. There are Indians I know that will not use $20 dollar Bills, because of what they think of Andrew Jackson and his disloyalty to their people.
He screwed 'em, good.
For the betterment of his Country.
As he saw it.
Which brings US back to your Country and the desire of the Crown that established it.
They'll achieve their desired Goal. Folk just have to figure what it is and why. The US and England, joined at more than the hip.
internationalist rat
ReplyDelete"I don't think that understanding the process means you do not trust the process."
ReplyDeleteWhat process are you talking about? The democratic process is not the same as your republican process! Your Republicanism is not a Democracy. So I ask you again, why do you not trust the democratic process?
The Last of the Mohicans
ReplyDeleteNot just the title of a story, but the truth of the Mohican tribes' lack of further existence, after contact with the Anglo-Saxons.
That stroy told and retold, across North America. A historical fact.
The British Crown not worried about spilling blood, to achieve their Goals, not then, not now.
Especially if it's not their folks's blood. But that has never stopped them, either.
The Levant is all about religion, obelisks and pyramids and the Temple Mount.
Or that's the perception of many folks. Knights Templar, forever!
Their fortune in gold never found, so some of them most have survived that Friday the 13th of 1307.
Off to Scotland, some say.
Not a matter trust, matter of my oath. I never swore to defend democracy, or spread it.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to trust to democracy, have at it. One man, one vote, across the Levant. If that's what you trust. A tryany of the majority, that is what was feared.
Exactly as that Israeli, Mr Olmert fears for Israel, in the Levant, as well he should.
Manipulated by the US and Europe, the Israeli out on a limb.
I trust in the US Constitution, even when I dislike the outcomes. Your little country a stepping stone to achieve an outcome.
I'll warn you and yours. But a warning ignored does not nick my karma
"A tryany of the majority, that is what was feared."
ReplyDeleteOnly in empire. Israel is not an empire.
Empires dissolve. So will America.
ReplyDeleteDoes Israel have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights or some sort of 'contract'?
ReplyDeleteKind of. It has set of what are called Basic Laws:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Basic+Laws
Sure is, as it occupies foreign lands. No matter the definition of foreign.
ReplyDeleteBut that is unimportant, in the scheme of things, what Israel is or is not. It is not even about Israel, but as an instrument of British, now New World Order, policy.
Israel's future not in Israeli hands. Not enough umph to be anything but a pawn in a greater game.
Not larger than Arizona, a North American backwater, in geographic size, economy or population.
A cooked goose, set out as bait.
There is no "America" to dissolve, mat. You speak of a political entity that does not exist, never has.
ReplyDeleteThere is the United States, there is North America, there is the Americas.
No where on a map is there "America". In no legal document of the Republic does it exist, it's a post Civil War marketing construction of the Federals.
Again your ignorance shines on through. An MSM construct, your knowledge base. so easily manipulated, just another of the sheeple.
So you fight a War of Independence from the British swine, to end up exactly like them. Sad, is what it is.
ReplyDeletedRat.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is an idea, just like America. In the battle of ideas, Israel, as an idea, comes on top. The model of empire, even your model empire, once clearly exposed, has been proven to be extremely corrosive to the soul of peoples, and the spirit of the state. Without the spirit, the body dies.
Tribal sectarianship is not a superior idea, amigo. Just a tool to be used in the hands of the master manipulators.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the monkey sex thread, Mr Olmert has been busy, knockin' the stuffing out of your idea.
Better to be a swine of a puppetmaster, than a Barbie Doll puppet.
"Tribal sectarianship is not a superior idea, amigo."
ReplyDeleteTime will tell.
"Better to be a swine of a puppetmaster, than a Barbie Doll puppet."
ReplyDeleteThat's a lot of bad karma you're taking on.
As I said,
When the spirit dies, so does the body. The same is not true in the reverse. Israel defeated death, and on more than one or two occasions, because Israel's spirit lived. Israel's spirit will continue to live, long after you're dead and gone.
Mat, you guys got to get rid of this Olmert---
ReplyDeletefrom Israel Matzav
Those of you who are versed in the Greek classics have probably figured out what Aliza Olmert is up to. Her husband, Ehud K. Olmert, is now so desperate to remain in office at any price, that he has now joined Haaretz editor David Landau in asking President Bush and Secretary of State Rice to rape Israel. Caroline Glick has the proof:
The pro-rape crowd's influence, which rose after Israel's defeat in the war with Hizbullah in 2006, became decisive over the past few months as the date of the publication of the Winograd Commission of inquiry's final report on the war approaches. The report, set to be issued later this month, is expected to find Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responsible for Israel's failure to defeat Iran's foreign legion in Lebanon.
To offset the public's demand for his resignation which the report will likely cause, Olmert has worked overtime to woo the Landau crowd. To this end, he courts Syria, advocates Israel's withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, refuses to take action against either Iran, or the burgeoning Iranian-trained Hamas army in Gaza.
Then too, a week before US President George W. Bush's first presidential visit to Israel, Olmert gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post where he went out of his way to prove that Landau is right. His government does wish to be "raped" by the US.
Sounding more like a Palestinian spokesman than the leader of Israel, Olmert attacked his own country claiming that it isn't abiding by its obligations to the terror-supporting Palestinians. In his words, "There is a certain contradiction… between what we're actually seeing and what we ourselves promised. We always complain about the [breached] promises of the other side. Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves."
...
The immediate danger Israel faces stems not from demography but from the ideology of jihad that has convinced the Arab and Islamic world to seek Israel's destruction rather than accept it. Shrinking into indefensible borders will only exacerbate that problem by telling the jihadists that Israel can be destroyed through violence and terror.
Olmert also argued that Israel must give up its sovereignty over Jerusalem because Israel's supporters want it to. In his words, "the world that is friendly to Israel...that really supports Israel, when it speaks of the future, it speaks of Israel in terms of the '67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem."
So in an English interview, the week before Bush's arrival in the country, Olmert essentially asked Israel's friend in the White House to pressure Israel to concede its vital national rights and interests.
In the same interview with the Post Olmert acknowledged that his putative peace partner — Fatah leader and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas — does not recognize Israel's right to exist and demands the so-called "right of return" for millions of foreign descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948. But, he soothed, this is not a cause for worry.
Olmert's not worried, because Olmert can see into Abbas's soul. As he put it, "If you ask [Abbas] to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does."
...
On the heels of Larijani's visit, Mubarak broke on his pledge to Defense Minister Ehud Barak from a week ago not to allow the thousands of Hamas terrorists seeking to return to Gaza after traveling to Saudi Arabia to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing where Israel has no security presence. Wednesday the terrorists marched across the border unopposed. Some were reportedly carrying over $100 million in cash which they received from Iran and Saudi Arabia. Others were returning after receiving military training in Iran.
The Olmert government had nothing to say about Egypt's open collusion with Israel's enemies. And how could it? Admitting that Egypt is an enemy state would harm the pro-national rape gang's peace narrative. For them, Egypt is the head of the "moderate camp."
Rather than acknowledge this reality, Olmert showers Mubarak with praise. In his interview with the Post, he said, "When I even think of how things would be if we were dealing with people other than Mubarak, well, I pray every day for his well-being and good health."
The truth is that so far, Olmert's gambit has been successful. All the public's attempts to force him to resign - over Lebanon, over Gaza and over allegations of Olmert's massive corruption — have been scuttled. Guarding their man, the pro-national rape camp has given little to no media backing to popular calls for his removal from office. Landau and his friends are fully willing to lose wars and be led by morally impaired, incompetent leaders if doing so facilitates the international rape of their country.
Take Landau's Ha'aretz employee, columnist Yoel Marcus for example. In his December 14 column, Marcus called for Olmert to be forced from office. Just one week later, emphasizing the importance of the peace process, Marcus said that Olmert must stay in power after the Winograd report is published.
There are officials in Washington who claim that Bush is angry at Olmert. They say that Bush expected Olmert to stand up to Rice when she became overtly hostile to Israel in the lead up to the Annapolis conference. These officials argue that if Olmert were just to stand up to Rice, the president would finally have the opportunity to push her aside and marginalize her.
It is hard to know what to make of this claim. Unfortunately, we won't see it tested any time soon. Controlled by the rape Israel crowd, Olmert needs Rice's pressure. And so he told the Post that Bush, (and by extension Rice), is "not doing a single thing that I don't agree to. He doesn't support anything that I oppose."
Read it all. (The full Olmert interview is not online yet. Hat Tip to Storemanager for finding the Glick article, which the Post has not yet put online either).
Unfortunately, Glick is right. Olmert is really asking for the US to 'force' us to go back to the Auschwitz borders. Is there a solution? Short of a massive terror attack - God forbid - while Bush is in Israel, I have my doubts anything can be done to stop Olmert from giving away our safety, security and perhaps the very existence of the Jewish state. But at least someone is trying. I got the following during the night last night from One Jerusalem:
On the day before President Bush begins his visit to Israel, One Jerusalem will be sponsoring a human chain around the Old City connected by Gold Ribbons.
The Human Chain is an expression of support for a united Jerusalem.
The Human Chain is grassroots opposition to Prime Minister Olmert's declaration that Jerusalem should be divided.
The Human Chain is the Jewish people rejecting the defeatism of the Olmert government.
The Human Chain will form on Tuesday January 8 at the Jaffa Gate at 2:30 PM. At 4 PM the assembled will pledge their allegiance to protect Jerusalem.
In Israel people interested in joining should call 1-800-20-20 or visit www.1jr.co.il.
Bli neder (without promising - we Orthodox Jews try not to promise anything), I am going to try to make it. I hope you will too
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhat would you guess is the salary of an Israeli Prime Minister?
Actually, there's no reason to guess. I can tell you it's not much. Best to give Lady Liberty the credit she's due.
ReplyDeleteI've never thought to wonder about that, Mat, I wouldn't have any idea. The President doesn't get much, compared to corporate work here. What ever it is, Olmert is way overpaid, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteOf non-Evangelicals, only SIXTEEN PERCENT voted for the Huckster!
ReplyDeleteThe salary for POTUS may be minimal, but the expenses have gone up logarithmically since Trumans time.
ReplyDeleteJust Imagine W, and many former Presidents, driving themselves home as Truman did he and Bess in their Plymouth Coupe!
No, it HAS to be a 747, and all presidents now HAVE to have libraries fit for a Monarch.
...and all the rest.
The better to cut off all contact and ability to identify with the lives of commonfolk.
" However Hillary is a ruthless politician. She'll say anything and do anything to achieve political power. "
ReplyDelete---
Obama checkmates most of the Clinton's options, simply because he is a "person of color."
Similarly, in running against Huckabee, the MSM will have little trouble finding something at least as monumental and fatal as "maccaca" in Huck's past.
If Huck were to counter-attack and point out that Obama's minister is patently racist and anti-Semitic, not only would this true charge fall on deaf ears, but Huckabee would garner additional criticism!
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhat would you have Olmert do? Remind Bush of the promises he made to move the US embassy to Jerusalem?
It's tough bein' a Barbie Doll puppet, without the cajones to cut the strings.
ReplyDeleteWhole country's government, full of Barbie Dolls.
Israel admits its' guilt, fallin' back to 1967 borders and the Oslo Accords.
Foldin' Bibi's tent and headed out on the Peace train!
Mr Bush would have ...
if only ...
What a crock of horse turd that idea is. Ms Rice is his righthand man. Doin' just what he wants. Not waiting for or wanting a chance to "put her in her place".
Those Paki nukes, they're on the loose. That's the back story, to Israeli pullbacks.
The mussulmen, the Sunni, will do a MAD exchange, Israel for Iran.
But that's just a guess, no facts or links to back it up, just watchin' the show.
Mr Olmert, he's not willing to make that trade. Ms Glick still livin' in the superior firepower past. No peace for Israel on that path.
Israeli compression until critical mass is reached. That's the Plan for buildin' that new Temple. No Jews or Mussulmen left around to say nay.
Been a long time comin',
be a long time gone.
It's about oil, not Paki nukes. The Pakis sold their nuke tech to the Iranians, not the Saudis.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we'll just have to wait and see what happens when oil is at $200.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd have Olmert bow out.
ReplyDelete