Michele McGinty: January 2008 Archives

So much for not going negative and shouldn't this guy go after the presumptive nominee? Why waste your time with the second place guy? But we know what's going on here, he's softening up the competition for McCain, it's very obvious he's going for the #2 position.

(via)

We're going into a recession, how much slower do you want it? Does this guy really help his wife saying things like this? Maybe on the left but there are people out there who actually don't want to be laid off or pay more for gas than they're doing right now.

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

[...]

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan.

One thing that helps him is that McCain is pushing the same message as well. Maybe that's why Clinton thinks he can get away with being honest about it. Both candidates don't mind tanking the economy over something we aren't even sure is happening.

(via)

Update: OOPS! This is teach me not to trust the MSM to get a quote right! I should have checked the fuller speech. My apologies to you and Bill Clinton :-)

And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.

(via)

It looks like reality is hitting some Huckabloggers in the face:

It's time for us Huckaboosters to admit that this is not our man's year. I regret that things have turned out this way for him, but he waged a hell of a campaign, and got as far as he did almost wholly on the power of his own ideas and skill at campaigning. It was Huck who first mortally wounded Romney by whipping him thoroughly in Iowa, in a David vs. Goliath victory. Huck won't be the GOP nominee, but I anticipate that he will be a player in Republican and conservative politics, and hope that he spends the next few years playing an active role in rebuilding the conservative movement.

Um...I think Rod Dreher is rewriting history here. Huckabee won Iowa for one reason only: he ran as a Christian, reached out to Christians and got together a grass roots effort to get his Christian supporters to the caucus sites. But beyond Iowa he couldn't get a majority of evangelicals to vote for him and he wasn't able to broaden his base. He never got majority of conservatives and he wasn't considered a conservative candidate and never sounded like one. That's not much of a campaign. As to him "rebuilding the conservative movement" I don't see that happening unless it's just the social wing of the conservative base.

But that's yesterdays news, what does a "Hukabooster" do now? Do they support the candidate even though he's doesn't have a shot at winning and is only in the race to be McCain's running mate or hope for a brokered convention? Do they vote for Huckabee even though that means that McCain will win. Do they really want a McCain presidency? Well, Rod Dreher doesn't so he's thinking about voting for Romney.

If you're an anyone but McCain voter like me, you'll have to think long and hard before you vote for someone that doesn't have a shot and support someone who does.

BTW, if McCain is elected it looks like we'll be getting embryonic stem cell research since he probably won't support Bush's veto. The pro-life Huckabee supporters might want to keep that in mind when they vote for Huckabee.

He says that "liberals allow personality, emotions and feelings to take precedence over issues, substance and policy." And that's what the talk show hosts are doing doing here.

Ugh! I don't listen to this guy but if I did, this would cause me to stop! This type of thing really ticks me off because it's really insulting and it belittles your opponent's position (poisoning the well).

Tell me how these are conservative positions:
He opposed tax cuts because the favored the wealthy.
He limited political speech 30 days before an election.
He supported amnesty for illegal aliens (yeah, it was amnesty).
He refuses to drill in ANWR even though are oil money goes to states that bred terrorists.
He supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
He proposed to limit the greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors which would have increased the cost of these services significantly.

BTW, if a huge chunk of the conservative media is calling McCain a liberal, you might want to start asking yourself why. If you are the only conservative supporting him, maybe you don't understand conservatism.

(via)

Update: More for Joe Scarborough. (via)

Want the opinion of complete strangers concerning the Bible? Then this is your site.

(via)