Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: TheWayWeAre

Will Democrats Nominate the GOP Candidate Too?

155 Comments
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:21 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

Back to the Future

Like you said, even if Obama wins, we'll be fine. For some reason, I think Obama will have sort of an Eisenhower-like administration. Nothing much will happen domestically. The press will pretend everything is pleasant and upbeat. He'll stiff-arm the terrorists (someone around him will take care of the details). I may be off base but I don't think he'll do much harm. The Dem/libs "control" Congress right now and hapless Harry and nitwit Nancy can't get anything done.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:22 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

btw

I like your analysis of the election campaigns so far. I don't think Huck is crazy, though. I just hope he's not really too much like Carter/Clinton.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:30 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Scarlet

That's exactly the way I see it. There are only three decent human beings running among the major candidates and Obama is one of them. I don't sense that he has a odious hidden agenda. At least we won't get caught off guard as a McCain or Giuliani or Huckabee picked up right where Bush left off with open borders and the one-world agenda. We would be working on 2010 and 2012 the day after Obama's day of victory.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:32 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

ScarletP

I really want to like Huck but can't. It's just so hard to take a bass-playing weasel from Arkansas seriously. I'm hoping the evangelicals are smarter than to get tricked into voting for any charlatan who waves a bible and says Jesus a lot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:43 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

haha PPhil

Tell us how you really feel about Huck:)

I don't particularly like him either. He's just playing it smart right now. Romney just can't connect with conservatives. We don't trust Rudy or McCain and Hunter does not have a chance unfortunately. So Huck is by default.

I still think we're all insane. Look at our candidates! How did we get here?

Rudy - corrupt and liberal. Just like Hillary but less faithful to the spouse.

Mitt - George H. W. Bush's more likeable and deft illegitimate son. A NE Repub! Are you kidding me?

McCain - Mr. Personality. There is no "McCain" in "T.E.A.M."

Huck - Jimmy Carter's more sincere illegitimate son.

Fred. Um. Yeah. Fred.

Poor ol' Duncan. No money. No friends.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 06, 2008 8:53 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

ScarletP

Romney is actually in decent shape, better than anyone else. If he wins in NH, he will have two wins and a strong second in Iowa where he would have won in a normal year without an evangelical candidate. I haven't given up on Hunter yet either. His conservative bonafides and the fact that he is young enough to be the presidential candidate after Romney make him a logical choice for Romney's VP. That ticket has a real chance and even if it loses, it puts Hunter on the national political map. He will get a serious look-see as the VP candidate and many will wonder why he is not leading the ticket.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 8:14 AM anti-socialist writes:

What's new?

To many RINOs & not enough Republicans - a problem for years. The Democrat party eliminated all their "western European" type socialists, relying completely on social-fascists whereas the "Republican" party has far more RINOs ("western European" type socialists) vs. pure Republicans. If the tables aren't changed, we will fall to social-fascism (perhaps a blend of communism, nazism, & Islamo-fascism).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 10:30 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

antisocialist

I'm not sure things are that extreme but this race is not shaping up the way the "establishment types" were buying into. Drudge is now reporting that the Clinton team is discussing dropping out of the race already. The RNC was committed to "Anyone but Hillary" and pushing Rudy but now it may be that the GOP has no one to run against Obama. There is no way Giuliani, McCain or Huckleberry can beat Obama but a good conservative could had he gotten the support from the RNC a year ago.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 10:34 AM ScarletPimpernel writes:

It's still early

Maybe the RNC will wise up and start pushing Thompson and Hunter
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 10:56 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

ScarletP

Agreed. The Dems did their part by rejecting Hillary, now the GOP has to do theirs and going with a candidate conservatives will turn out for. It'll be interesting to see how Thompson does in SC, it could be his turning point. I'd like to see how a Thompson/Hunter ticket polls in CA too. It would be such a shock that it might get some excitement going. Let's talk it up and see where it goes!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 11:08 AM BrianR writes:

Welcome back, Phil

Great essay. A couple of thoughts.

Saturday, Romney won Wyoming, and for all you could tell from the MSM, Wyoming may as well have been on Mars. No news coverage, no analysis or think pices or talking heads even mention it. Yet it happened! It's like after Iowa, it's all over but the coronation.

As to the shrinking GOP numbers, you hit on it in discussing an independant run, and you and I have discussed this a lot elsewhere. It's the fact that the GOP's natural supporters aren't getting fired up about a bunch of RINOs, the Baldies, McCains, Hucksters, et al. Voters who like those guys are naturally gonna be Dem voters, and they'll just vote for The Real Thing. So that's what we're seeing: strong and growing support for the Dems while the GOP withers on the vine.

When is The Stupid Party going to wake up and get that very simple, plain to see message?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 11:33 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I don't know if you read Powerline, but I've been hammering the shrinking party argument for months there and it must be sinking in. The RINOs (I don't often use that term but Medved has inspired me to use it) have been stuck in the "Only Rudy or McCain can beat Hillary" idiocy for so long that now that Hillary looks doomed, we are looking very old and cranky. At least Mitt is optimistic and youthful and running Hunter as VP would at least set us up for 2012. We need to lose strong with "young, conservative and optimistic" if we must lose. We are currently heading for "old, liberal and cranky" and we will get crushed. The youth vote is likely to matter in 2008 and only Ron Paul has tapped into it. How did the GOP get so screwed up?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 11:39 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I went right past my main point. Powerline is increasingly working in the shrinking party theme in their analyses lately, particularly John Hinderaker. I think the panic is slowly sinking in as the strategists recognize the colossal blunder of chasing us conservatives out of the party. The GOP is trying to be what the Dems were in the '90s while the Dems have moved on and so are not interested. The BEYOND Stupid Party.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 12:30 PM philosophocon writes:

Negative campaigning may be a good

tactic on occasion but is not a good overall strategy. After all, as you point out it was difficult trying to gin up much enthusiasm running on essentially just an anti-Hillary campaign when she was the presumed nominee, and if she isn't the nominee it gets even tougher. Can anyone remind what people were touting about Rudy other than he can beat Hil?

When it came to Dems and BDS, Rush always used to say let them waste their time and energy campaigning against him since Bush isn't running for anything anyway. Well, it seems the Dems, Obama at least, have figured this out and are doing better for it, and the Reps continue to be the aptly-named stuck on stupid party.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 12:46 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, I hope so

I call Medved "Deadhead". He's a RINO neo-con of the first water, and I stopped listening to him in disgust a couple of years or so ago. I really can't stand the guy.

I bought his book, took it to the range, and shot the hell out of it.

Nothing worse than an old hippie trying to live down his shame of being an anti-war activist in the Vietnam Era; they're mostly a bunch of sanctimonious poseurs and RINOs.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 1:08 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

LOL. I hope you got it out of the bargain bin. I really hate to spend $$$ on targets.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 2:22 PM BrianR writes:

No! That's the thing!

I bought it when it just came out, First Edition hardback!

I had it sitting around for a few months, because frankly I bought it just when my disgust with him really started piling up.

Then after about a year, I decided to at least get some use out of it.

Very nice confetti!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 3:37 PM davecatbone writes:

Phil

Good piece....I don't know which bothers me more, the MSM salivating as they try and annoint Huckabee or McCain, or the way they're suppressing Romney.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 5:28 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I'm going to have to go through my library and see if I have some good targets. I have one of Bill O'Reilly's books, that's a start.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 5:30 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I'm going to have to go through my library and see if I have some good targets. I have one of Bill O'Reilly's books, that's a start.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 5:52 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Dave

I think the MSM is totally preoccuppied with Osama these days. The Republicans are doing it to themselves. Give the MSM something to talk about.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 6:21 PM davecatbone writes:

Well...

Romney having to stand up for himself can easily be reframed as the GOP infighting. But, the GOP is still sticking it to it's base. Just get past the amnesty thing? Give me a break McCain. I also notice how they dismiss the Fair Tax on all fronts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 07, 2008 7:41 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Dave

By "doing it to themselves", I'm referring to the RNC and the general strategy of the party to grease the way for a Clinton-like liberal. Even the Dems don't want that anymore. Were the Republicans to suddenly find an exciting and credible conservative messenger, that would be newsworthy but even Fox seems to have it in for Romney and are doing all they can do to further their favorite, Rudy. It just doesn't matter. Obama is an Elvis phenomenon and without a gripping message, even Mitt comes off as the Pat Boone alternative for those who are offended by the hip action. The Republicans need a serious jolt.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 1:17 AM Georgetwin writes:

Phil

A Labor of Love Available at My Blog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 2:20 PM Sarah writes:

Great analysis! I am one of

those republicans who is beginning to loose touch with my party as I watch them pick an establishment candidate and then tear the other candidates down. The republican party is for sale to the highest bidder - and this is putting me off and multiple independents as well. I always thought republicans would protect the culture of life and foreign policy. If this was true then we would forgive McCaine for his immigration nonsense (and hope to keep him in check) and nominate a leading pro-life candidate to be the front runner with McCaine. Unfortunately, republicans want Mitt (a waffler on abortion and an embroynic stem research supporter) or Rudy (a pro-choice candidate) and they have destroyed Huck, McCaine, Thompson who are strongly pro-life. I think the republican party no longer represents my interests and I am thinking about becoming an independent ensuring the republicans never take office again. FYI- Liberman prooved this theory that principle politics always tramps party politics.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 2:27 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sarah

Thanks for dropping by. If this is your first visit to my blog, you should know that I re-registered to unaffiliated independent over a year ago over amnesty after being Republican since 1980. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the GOP is dead already as a party. We are seeing again in NH that the party is incapable of nominating its own candidate. Unlike you, McCain is unacceptable to me but I would vote for Romney if he won. At this point, Obama is changing everything. I am going to be posting an essay soon on Michael Bloomberg's upcoming drive to force every candidate to sign the "bipartisan pledge". Things just get worse and worse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 3:15 PM davecatbone writes:

The Elvis phenomenon

It's a long campaign, and the Clintons will keep digging.....but there is the big Momentum going for Obama now. Will the masses listen to facts about their hero? Probably not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 3:29 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Dave

You got it. Voters are just charged up to be part of something big and are projecting their hopes onto Obama. Voters of all persuasions are really fed up with the status quo. Disaster for the GOP in 2008, and beyond if they insiste on losing ugly. This could be 1980 for the GOP. You'd think the experts on the senior circuit would notice but they are stuck in a very small and shrinking pond.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 7:33 PM SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes:

Yeah, It's Looking That Way...

Obama is backed by Oprah and young women think he's cute. There's no big scandal surrounding him and he looks like a spider monkey. I do like spider monkeys, actually.

He's less annoying to watch and listen to than Hillary, but he's big on big government. He seems like he'd wanna hug you.

I would not be surprised if he came out winner. We know less about him, so there's more room for people to hope that he's something great.

Anyway, I'm not optimistic about 2008.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 08, 2008 9:01 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Squiddy

Latest numbers show Hillary leading 40% to 34% over Obama. Shows how bad the state of "professional" polling has become. I can't accept that voter sentiment is that volatile. The pollsters are just incompetent. Hillary winning NH puts Rudy back into the picture. And that reopens the prospects of a robust third-party picture. I'm just thoroughly disgusted by the whole thing. People say they want one thing and then vote the opposite.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 09, 2008 12:59 PM BrianR writes:

Sam, Sarah, Phil et al

that we're seeing the end of the traditional GOP, no matter how you slice it.

If it survives as a viable party, it will simply be Dem-Lite, an adjunct wing of the Dem party. It's certainly no longer the party that represents traditional conservatism or even mainstream Joe Sixpack thought in this country. And if it were, it means that the USofA as it's traditionally existed for lo these many years is finally dead. RIP. It will be the California State GOP writ large.

The only hope for the GOP is that they take such a beating in the general election that they finally hear the message, and we see a ticket like Jindahl/Palin or something similar in 2012. That, incidentally, would be an unbeatable ticket IMO, and since it's comprised of a minority and a woman, it would make the libs' heads explode.

Worth the price of admission right there!

Otherwise, we'll have to see either the rise of a truly viable new "conservative" party, or the Fat Lady will have sung for the USofA.

Hey, we have no God-given guarantee of survival!




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 09, 2008 1:05 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR, Squiddy, Sam, Sarah

Here's a comment I posted earlier today at one of the senior sites:

"You can analyze this all you want and form any conclusion that suits you. The fact of the matter is that Democrat registrations are going up while Republican registrations continue to shrivel. All of the excitement is on the Democratic side. No one running in the GOP shows any ability at energizing the shrinking base. If wishes were horses.... The sad reality is that this election is destroying the GOP and no one seems to care. Come November, the GOP will no longer be the party of ideas but the party of excuses and recriminations. Meanwhile, us conservatives will still have great influence in Congress. You RINOs will be coming back to us hat in hand because you need us. Now why should we be interested in voting for liberals on the Democratic B team?"

Now there's talk of McCain picking Lindsey Graham (first woman VP) for VP. Let's get it over with.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 10, 2008 7:09 AM davecatbone writes:

Phil

This really is a fascinating election. You're so right about the GOP and it's shunning of the conservatives. I've never in my life seen the creation of a new viable political party, and the idea is exciting. But is it really possible? What would it take? Conservatism is a winning philosophy as long as people want to be free, that's the rub.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 10, 2008 10:45 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

dave

I get the feeling that it IS possible because of the disdain and vitriol I get from even suggesting it. I've hear Sam Donaldson discuss it twice recently arguing that not only is it possible, it should have happened in 1992 when Ross Perot could have done it have he not gone nutty with his claims that the CIA sabotaged his "world class" daughter's wedding, then quit the race and come back in. That nut still got 19% of the vote and we were nowhere near as angry as we are now. Our opportunity might just be when Michael Bloomberg starts badgering candidates to take the "bipartisan" pledge. These guys are so afraid of the democratic process that they have to collude against us by declaring "bipartisanship" is best for the country. We know what will happen when everything is off the table for public discussion. It will be the new political correctness. We can't discuss anything because it is too divisive. We are already there. Read the insane comments on the various threads. "Joe" accuses me of "going Tancredo" when I criticize McCain. Think about that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 10, 2008 12:49 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, Perot's party

then fell into Buchanan's hands, and that was it. The Fat Lady had sung.

It can happen, particularly if a strong (and sane) conservative simply goes independant, a la Lieberman in Connecticut.

May not win first time out of the gate, but that's the nucleus around which the new party would form.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 10, 2008 1:10 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I really believe a third party can win this year and we may have a clear path after Feb 5. The elites of both parties are desperate to overcome the voters and Bloomberg, assuming Giuliani is not the nominee, will opt to foist his "bipartisan" agenda onto both parties. Signing onto this pledge will be just what conservatives to finally blow our tops and leave in droves. When 58% of voters (30-33% conservative, 25-28% moderate leaning conservative) have no representation, how can we not even try? This is an even bigger opportunity than Lincoln had when he abandoned the Whigs. Surely, someone wants to be president without fearing voters. This would be popularism in a good way. Most Americans don't buy into the nanny state yet that is all we get from the UEP. Now Giuliani is promising to cut taxes yet no word on cutting spending. The dollar is already weak enough. Borrow and spend is even worse than tax and spend.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 10, 2008 6:15 PM Joe writes:

Victor Davis Hanson on McCain

First, in a campaign year of crass political reinventions, McCain does not flip-flop. Instead, he seems to enjoy telling people what they don’t want to hear. Apparently, at his age, and after what he went through in Vietnam, there is no reason to begin trimming the truth now.

To those more liberal, McCain insists that the surge is working and we will secure Iraq — only to explain to conservatives why we can’t, either practically or morally, deport all 11 million illegal aliens. He seems more opposed to pork barrel and deficit spending than doctrinaire conservatives.

Second, McCain has the most diverse experience of any of the candidates in either party. Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), may bicker over whether being first lady or growing up in Indonesia constitutes the better foreign-policy background. But no one would question McCain’s far greater breadth of service: carrier aviator, combat pilot, wounded veteran, tortured while a prisoner of war for five and a half years, U.S. congressman and senator for a combined quarter-century, 2000 presidential candidate. And the list only goes on...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1ODRkZTdkYjZjMzU4Mj MxNGJmMzRmM2EyMGZlNzA=
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 10, 2008 6:16 PM Joe writes:

VDH on McCain (continued)

Third, we are still in a war on several fronts — as we were reminded recently by the assassination, likely by al-Qaeda, of pro-American Pakistani Benazir Bhutto. Many of the other inexperienced candidates fumbled in their initial reactions to Bhutto’s murder.

Obama ludicrously associated her death with the Iraq war. Huckabee, in Jimmy Carter fashion, apologized to Pakistan for the assassination — although he did not explain why. Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson demanded that Gen. Musharraf step down — as if we can snap our fingers and choose nuclear Pakistan’s leaders.

McCain in contrast kept his cool. He candidly admitted that the tragic loss of Bhutto was a setback to American democratic objectives, while reminding us that a nuclear Islamist Pakistan is unstable and doesn’t present America with any good choices. In this war, having a veteran fighter and savvy old statesman as commander-in-chief makes a lot of sense.

I don’t know whether plain-speaking John McCain will win the presidency. But so far he’s proved the most experienced of the candidates, and he’s run the most principled and honest of the campaigns. Other candidates may be younger, better financed, and more charismatic; none has more earned America’s trust.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1ODRkZTdkYjZjMzU4Mj MxNGJmMzRmM2EyMGZlNzA
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 10:55 AM Joe writes:

Mitt Romney's lamest answer ever. . .

I cannot believe Mitt said this last night:

At the post interview with Mitt Romney, Alan Colmes asked him about distancing himself from Reagan/Bush in 1994 and his response was “I went to the funeral and learned about Reagan’s optimism and saw the light? EXCUSE ME, YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT REAGAN AND WHAT HE MEANT TO THE GOP TILL HIS FUNERAL? THAT HAS TO BE THE LAMEST answer and one of the biggest flip flops EVER. NO SERIOUS candidate who wants to carry the Reagan Mantel can honestly say they didn’t believe in Reagan till he died!

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/be78cdab-3657-472c-ab7a-4cb5 e92f261c

You can't even parody Mitt Romney anymore.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 11:00 AM BrianR writes:

I think you over-estimate Bloomberg

He gets national attention because New York's a big city, and much of the MSM is headquartered there, but I don't see him as a real player on the national arena. He's a gadfly. Much more of a legend in his own mind than a real player. He's suffering from Giuliani Syndrome, the idea that being Mayor of NYC is something anyone outside of NYC gives a flying f**k about.

If I were a candidate, I'd tell him to shove his pledge where the Sun never shines, and I'd do it as publicly as possible.

Our system is founded on being adversarial; that's the only way all opinions can be voiced. "Bi-partisanship" only means that the relationship becomes the government against the People. And invariably with liberals in charge, because that's the reality of "bi-partisanship": conservatives caving in to liberals.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 1:16 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Finally, I can get in my own blog

Joe: It is ironic that McCain is the "plain talker" when he can't speak truthfully about illegal immigration. He is right the Americans don't trust their government to secure the borders but he is the poster child for why they don't. He is also full of hot air when it comes to being a fiscal conservative. His claims for this label are worse than Ron Paul. Neither did anything effective. And he is the agent of change? It may very well be that the GOP does not a viable candidate in the hunt and it is clear that Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee are democrats.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 1:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

It is going to be interesting how Kucinich's challenge to the NH results work out. I have a feeling that much of Obama's support was among the young, out-of-state college students who either were not eligible to vote or just didn't show up. Hillary also scored big with women. Yet even David Brooks said that something doesn't square with Hillary swinging 15-18 points from the previous night's polls. We may never find out because Obama didn't challenge the results.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 1:25 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

Bloomberg represents some serious global interests who had their ears pinned back with the amnesty defeat. He is willing to spend a billion dollars on this which will make the campaign even more expensive for the nominees. "Bipartisanship" is one of those issues such as "likability" that makes a difference with voters who would otherwise vote differently. Huckabee is a prime example. He IS the liberal that Thompson labeled him yet people "like" him. And the Dems who are most adamantly for "change" still vote for the liberal establishment's poster child, Hillary. This is a really mushy election and Bloomberg can make a difference. If there are any serious conservative candidates who can find enough money, the opportunity to run third party has never, ever been better. Lincoln did with it even though most of the country was not with him on slavery. We may be witnessing the end of the two-party system.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 2:29 PM BrianR writes:

I still disagree

Bloomberg's a NYC phenomenon... remember John Anderson? Heard all the same stuff back then, and he barley rippled the pond.

People outside of NYC really don't give that much of a damn about that city, and many outright resent it and the pointy-heads it seems to spawn.


Anyway, new essay up at the Island: "Death Penalty".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 5:12 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I think we are talking about two different things. Bloomberg's image only counts if he runs and that will only happen if Giuliani were the GOP candidate. He hates Giuliani THAT much. I am talking about a well-organized and financed issue campaign that is already on the move. You have to remember that he is a Wall Street billionaire, like Corzine and many other Democrats, and is invested in a one-world, open-borders outcome. These guys got smoked trying to steamroll Congress over the amnesty bill and other bills and don't trust the politicians to band together till the end to get that agenda done. By forcing them to swear allegiance to the bipartisan pledge in mid-election in a very public way, (think global warming), they hope to have a hammer to beat them with if they fail. It's not about Bloomberg's image but about his money getting behind an already up and running "let's all get along" message. Voters, who are fed up with government, might easily be lulled into thinking that this is the same thing as a protest vote.

It all depends what happens on Super Tuesday. Let's talk in March. Remember that your initial reaction to the amnesty cram down was similar. I was right then and I am right now. This will be a very big issue and very frustrating with this bunch.

I'll be over to read you new essay assuming that I am allowed to navigate TH. It's been very problematic the past week. Besides, I'm in a "death penalty" frame of mind lately and for shooting at books too.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 9:10 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

In my experience with elections, I have learned that it is very common for votes to not get counted. When there is a landslide, everyone is looking for shortcuts to save time. I'll bet that there are Republican votes that were cast 50 years ago in Boston mayoral election that are still in ballot boxes that were never opened. I campaigned for a friend who ran and when he challenged the actual vote, it turned out that he was assigned more votes than he actually received. Is that fraud? The Obama thing is certainly strange but the youth vote is always iffy. I can easily see college students from nearby MA flooding NH for Obama. That would explain a big chunk of the discrepancy. And it really does look like many women changed their mind at the last minute. I also buy into the explanation that white people in a virtually all-white state tend to lie about supporting a black candidate. Race is a funny thing in liberal all-white states. People aren't blatantly racist, they just tend to be intellectually lazy about it and fear political correctness. You can read about my own transformation regarding race awareness from when I moved from Boston to LA at my essay "Poncho and Lefty" that I posted here a few months ago.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 11, 2008 10:42 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Rules and procedures vary from state to state but believe me, it is NOT an airtight system. Fraud occurs regularly (King County, Washington and crowds of dead people voting in Philadelphia for example).

As to Bernanke, this is a very difficult problem to work out of and Bernanke has few tools but all of the attention. This will require finesse to avoid a serious recession or even worse, stagflation. But once the banks finally disclose their positions and the market does its job dismantling them, I expect their will be Congressional investigations leading, hopefully, a return of the Glass-Steagall Act. I am not denying that the problems are very serious. Moody's warned that US credit is at risk of losing its AAA credit rating in ten years if drastic changes aren't made to government spending. Yet most of the big states are bankrupt, threatening to raise taxes (fees are taxes) and "going after" corporations. Bailing out the defaulting mortgagees is a huge mistake but the politicians just keep pandering. The situation IS starting to gel (BofA buying Countrywide is HUGE) and it won't be long before the financial markets pummel the banks to disclose important facts. It is not in the interest of any civilized country for America to go into recession because what is bothersome to us is fatal to them. Your candidate would be more credible if he didn't justify every argument with apocalytic consequences if we fail to heed his advice. He isn't a genius surrounded by stupid people and he is scary when he talks about his ridiculously absurd opinions on foreign affairs. He needs to get a map to see where the Straits of Hormuz are so he can figure out why we have a military presence their.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 12:51 PM BrianR writes:

No, Phil, I did understand you

I'm simply not as sold on their (Bloomberg/Soros) efficacy as you are.

Soros also spent a ton of his own money trying to get his policies into place, and trying to beat Bush TWICE, and got his head handed to him. Now he's taken his marbles and gone home, trying to manipulate Europe instead.

In some respects, the American electorate does pay attention, and these guys thinking they can buy a policy are making a big mistake. It pegs the public BS Meter.

Further, the idea of "bi-" or "post-partisanship" plays in states like Leftifornia and liberal urban areas, but in East Overshoe, Montana where everyone has a lever-action in a rack in their rear truck window, they don't want to hear that stuff. That's "US out of the UN" country, not "let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya" turf.

Nah, I think Bloomberg's a legend in his own mind, and held pretty much in contempt everyplace west of Staten Island.



I'm not sure what you're referring to in the "amnesty cram-down". Refresh my memory.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 12:52 PM BrianR writes:

LOL, Phil

I just got an email that you just posted something at my place. I guess I'll go check it out!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:26 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

Amnesty cram-down. Go back to last April or May when I first alerted you to the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that was about to be introduced the next day and we need to jump on it immediately. Your initial reaction was to pooh-pooh it saying that it may pass the Senate but would never pass the House. Check out your blog comments for that time. You were getting testy but eventually got came around once you "got it". Same here. I will be writing an essay about this, it may be early, but you are letting your assessment of Bloomberg get in the way of the true threat. This is going to be big, relentless and the best way to defeat it is to kill the baby in the crib by talking about it now. Believe me, people are tired of "divisiveness" and will go along with it until they awaken to what it means to not be able to discuss anything because it is "devisive". There is a growing cadre of establishment big names who are already on board.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:33 PM BrianR writes:

Oh, yeah, right!

And I was right; the House killed it. There was no way it was getting out of the House. It was DOA, and Pelosi didn't want to touch it.

My only surprise was how hard the Senate kept trying to resurrect the stupid thing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:37 PM BrianR writes:

On "divisiveness"

I guess this is one we'll have to see how it plays out. I don't agree with you on the people's attention to the issue. It's a non-starter.

I could be wrong. It's happened in the past. Don't know when, but I'm sure it has. Maybe kindergarten. LOL

The only reason WE'RE even paying attention to it is that we're political junkies, and know all kinds of stuff that never even hits Joe Sixpack's radar. When I mention Bloomberg to people, the usual reaction is "Who?"

Same with Soros. These guys aren't the national players they think they are. And we are always in danger of losing site of the forest because we know all the trees by name.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:38 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

You were wrong, it was killed in the Senate three times! It never got to the House where Pelosi might have entertained it had the uproar against the Senate not materialized. The point is that you greatly underestimated my alert then and you are doing the same thing now. Did anyone ever point out to you that you can be rock-headed sometimes?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:41 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

"Divisiveness" will annoy everyone

It will be the new bipartisan PC. The party leaders of both parties will be calling for Americans to follow their lead to "join together" to "face the bigger challenges" facing America. The Unified Establishment Party will be a de facto reality. We need to debunk it now to prevent those tempted to take the pledge early to think twice.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:47 PM BrianR writes:

No, Phil

Review the posts from the time if you like, but I always maintained my assertion that it would go nowhere in the House. I always had utmost confidence in that.

What ticked me off, and I constantly railed about, was that Jorge was teaming with other RINOs in the Senate (Martinez, McCain et al) to keep trying to jam that idiocy through. I was outraged at their desertion of principle, and the fact that it was a total renege on the promise made when the 1986 amnesty bill was signed into law.

THAT was the entire thrust of everything I wrote at the time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:49 PM BrianR writes:

As to "divisiveness"

Well, as Leftifornia residents, you and I get an upfront, close, and personal view of the result of "post-partisanship", and it makes the Picture of Dorian Gray look like the Mona Lisa by comparison.

How's THAT for a literate metaphor?

Hahahahaha.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 1:53 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

We are on the same side and solid with that. I'll write that essay and let's see what you think. It is very organized, well-financed and could become a major movement with the help of the always relizbe MSM. I would be that the RINO candidates have already agreed to take the pledge after Super Tuesday. We don't have a voice on this yet but we better find one soon.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 12, 2008 2:02 PM BrianR writes:

Interesting

If the RINO candidates sign the pledge, it would make it more of an issue, that's for sure.

And, frankly, more problematic for the RINOs vis-a-vis the base. Bad move on their part!

They already look stupid enough for agreeing to debate on the Spanish language station, and the YouTube nonsense. How wimpy do they want to look?

I'm looking forward to your essay.


BTW, are the Dems signing into this thing? If not, the question then is: why not? And where's the pressure on them?

I really haven't paid much attention to this, because I consider Bloomberg very irrelevant.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 12:45 PM Peppermint2 writes:

PPhil

Great analysis.

McCain Shame, old geezer would not have much of a chance against BO.

Young people, IMHO, are sick and tired of all the in fighting and dirty crapola from both parties and see BO as fresh and inspirational. If the youth vote keeps turning out, BO will be POTUS.

BO seems to me to kind of represent a sort of John F Kennedy back in the day he inspired youth. We could do worse than BO. At least he can speak properly, thrill the crowds, be a rock star, even if he is an empty suit.

He did answer one question right during one of the debates. He said he would go into Pakistan and get Osama if he had good intel. I did like that. I don't like his stance on abortion of course and his other liberal leanings. But, basically he seems to be a decent kind of guy unlike the sleaze of Hill and Bill.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 2:30 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Pep

Thanks Pep. It doesn't look good for the GOP right now but if we are going to kick the Dems out in 2012, we better lose with a strong conservative campaign in 2008. George Will has a great column today on that subject.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 2:39 PM BrianR writes:

Pepp, it's meaningless

First of all, what would make you think Obamarama would live up to any of his campaign statements? That strikes me as pretty naive.


But what's really meaningless is "He said he would go into Pakistan and get Osama if he had good intel."

What does that mean? Are we now NOT going after bin Laden? We don't have good intel? He'd go after bin Laden ONLY if he thought the intel was super-good? What? He'd invade yet ANOTHER country, after being against the wars in Iaq and Afghanistan? How is THAT consistent? How does that signify anything meaningful, or even a change from our current policy?

The guy was just making noise; a lot of sound and fury meaning nothing, a tempest in a tea cup (to quote Shakespeare).

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 2:47 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR, Pep

I saw Rudy on Fox News Sunday today and he was advocating amnesty again. Like McCain, he doesn't think legalizing them by giving them an official ID on their way to citizenship is amnesty. Chris Wallace challenged him on it too. I hope that's it for him. He didn't sound all that optimistic for Florida but admitted he must win to have a chance. And he's very low on funds.



BTW, Obama's terrorism solution is no different than McCain's. He'll follow Bin Laden to the "gates of hell" and won't quit until he gets him. And then they'll co-sponsor a terrorists' rights bill I'll bet with Ted Kennedy
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 4:43 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, it's a crock

Both Baldy and the Kid.

The Kid's "gates of Hell" stuff is absurd. These turkeys want to sound tough, but you get bin Laden and then what? Declare peace? All the Islamo-fascists are going to just play nice? If that isn;t the height of naivete I don't know what is.

He's ONE GUY, but the Left persists in trying to make him out as the only bad guy of substance, get him and we can all holds hands and sing Kumbaya. These people ahve their heads firmly implanted up their recti.

Anyone notice how killing Saddam Hussein didn't turn Iraq into a botanical garden?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 4:45 PM BrianR writes:

PS, Phil

Baldy's big hope is Florida because there are so many ex-New Yawkas there.

It's like we were discussing earlier: only New Yawkas give much of a damn about NYC politicians.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 5:37 PM Keys to the Right writes:

Hi Phil

Very observant blog, keep up the good work! I'm just as disturbed as you are about this whole thing. Young people are flocking to Obama because he promises them the liberal utopia that their college professors always yap about and some people will vote for him simply because he's black. (Though they don't know that Slick Willie was the first African-American Pres, lol.)
Keep up the good work and if you ever get the chance stop over by my blog for a dose of conservative humor in the form of editorial cartoons! ^.^
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 5:43 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

It may be that Rudy is already done. FL looks like a toss-up and he is nearly broke. Even Huckleberry is raising money. If surges in money raising are any indication, money seems to be settling on Mitt as the lead horse. He and Ron Paul are the only ones who are committed to staying in to the bitter end and Mitt can self-finance and so is the only one who doesn't have to sell out to the money. And he has a shot at having coattails. Coattails used to be the hope for Fred until he met with the GOP Congressional caucus last summer and underwhelmed them. It really is Mitt or nothing at this point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 13, 2008 5:50 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Keys

Thanks for dropping by and for the supportive comments. You know, if we must lose in November, it might as well be Obama. He is one of only three viable candidates (plus Romney and Thompson) who at least seem to live virtuous lives. So long as we lose strong, we'll have something to build on for 2010 and 2012. If we can survive Carter, I don't see Obama as being that bad. And it would be a relief to get the black/white thing behind us. I'll be over to check out your blog (assuming it is one of the blogs TH allows me to go to - it's been very buggy lately). I could sure use some yukking up.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 14, 2008 12:31 PM BrianR writes:

Well, as we've discussed

I think I could live with Mitt.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 14, 2008 1:14 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

I've reconsidered about Obama

For a "unity" candidate, it sure didn't take him long to play the race card. That was one of the most gratuitous charges ever. Apparently, he has nothing and sees his only chance as being the victim candidate. He may sweep the black vote but I suspect he may have thrown his chances to win out the window. I never thought I would be defending Hillary on anything but it is hard to see her comments as racist and Obama basically made her case for her.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 14, 2008 10:35 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

I heard Ted? Lipman interviewed tonite on Nightly News with Jim Lehrer and he was suggesting that the Saudi Arabians are on edge because they believe a deal has already been cut between the US and Iran, possible as a side preparation to a ME "peace" agreement. That would go a long way to explain why Bush referred to "occupied" territories last week. I think this was more of a business trip than a political trip. You could make a pretty good argument that the war on terror is a front for something else. I'm not inclined to believe it but I need more and more assurance as the days go by.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 15, 2008 12:10 PM BrianR writes:

Good catch, Sam!

Yet ANOTHER failure of Jorge Bush to stand for anything truly conservative. In this case, he proves no better than Kerry, which makes me really question my last presidential vote now even more seriously.

Great link, Sam. (The gun one)

For Bush's admin to file that amicus curiae brief is beyond the pale, frankly, and I'm outraged. All the more reason why I won't vote for ANY RINO this time around.

Check it out: the Brady Bunch is lauding Bush for this. That tells you all you need to know.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 15, 2008 12:17 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR, Sam

It ironic that Schwartzenegger and Bush don't like each other when they have been mirror images of what would happen if Jimmy Carter were Republican. If you like these guys, vote for Giuliani, McCain or Huckleberry. Or go for the REAL Democratic party.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 15, 2008 1:51 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, no sh*t.

.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 16, 2008 3:41 PM ShiningCity writes:

I like it, Phil

Frankly, I've been out of the loop, having too much fun enjoying my life lately. I completely missed the entire reporting on NH. And truth, I'm not sure my life has suffered.

The GOP reminds me of a group of mentally dysfunctional on a ride to the ice cream parlor. They're just wandering around looking lost, clueless. Gazing off.... They're gonna get creamed and deserve it.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 16, 2008 5:44 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam, Shining City

Sam: Agree completely. Most of the talkers around LA are backing either Rudy or McCain.

Shining City: Join the club. I've been too busy to spend too much time here myself and priority-wise, life is not about blogging. Glad to hear from you though.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 16, 2008 6:36 PM Buck writes:

They STILL Don't Get It

They were told last summer; they were told in November '06 and they STILL don't get it.

All a conservative would have to do to garner votes would be to promise to:

Close the border;
Eliminate an open job market for illegals;
Support the 2nd Amendment;
Evict the UN from the US;
Remove the US from the UN;
Reevaluate ALL foreign aid;
Push for drilling in ANWAR;
Prosecute leakers of classified information;
Re-establish the Gold Standard;
Put Silver back into our coinage;
Eliminate Government Grants for Trivial Information Research;
Put Term Limits on Welfare;
Take politicians out of micromanaging the Military's war;
Establish Reciprocal Tarriffs on automobile/motorcycle imports.

This platform alone could solve the Social Security crisis if not a bunch of others.

BTW...are you the lawyer, "Pasadena Phil" that comes up on Google???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 16, 2008 7:29 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Buck

Nice list. I doubt I'm that Pasadena Phil, I'm not a lawyer. But I do come up in that search I'm sure. There's also an actor who comes up who is some kind of biker/photographer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 16, 2008 8:12 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Buck

Nice list. I doubt I'm that Pasadena Phil, I'm not a lawyer. But I do come up in that search I'm sure. There's also an actor who comes up who is some kind of biker/photographer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 17, 2008 12:06 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Interesting thing about Michigan. Democrat turnout was almost as big as the Republican turnout even though Hillary was the only one on the ballot. Tells you how weak the GOP is these days. That's the problem with a small, shrinking party. The RINOs who are left will likely pick a candidate that Democrats and liberal independents like enough to vote for in a primary, but not enough to vote against their own candidate in November. The RINOs need to nominate a conservative candidate but won't and when they lose, they will blame us for not being loyal Republicans. I didn't join the GOP to vote for Democrats so I'm gone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 17, 2008 10:10 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Problem is that most, if not all, of their new cars are fuel hogs and he was unapologetic about it too in a Bloomberg News interview yesterday.

Also, I am hearing more and more oil analysts and experts openly referring to peak oil as if everyone understands. BTW, it'll be interesting to see what comes from Bush's embarassing begging for more oil. Looks like a deal has been struck with Iran and others. I also noticed that gasoline inventories were surprisingly higher than expected. I always suspect gasoline inventories because we import so much from Europe. We will soon be past $100, possibly $120 by summer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 18, 2008 2:19 AM BrianR writes:

Phil

New -- and I hope funny -- essay up at the Island.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 18, 2008 2:17 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Peak Oil

Bush should have just kept his mouth shut. What he proposed was vague and will not survive the gauntlet in Congress. The Dems want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts while increasing spending. Bush wants to increase spending in a way that will grow the budget deficit. The dollar will continue to tank and it does nothing to restore confidence in government and the banks. All he has done is threaten to transform a mild recession into prolonged stagflation. Mission accomplished for Team Bush, we have full circle from where Reagan stepped in.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 6:43 AM illit writes:

Pasadena Phil

"Tells you how weak the GOP is these days. "
The Dem and Lib sites are ripping each other apart over who has the greater claim to chief victimhood (blacks or women)........ the two things agreed upon are dissatisfaction with the current regime (including the Dem. congress) and the fact that BOTH parties as well as the MSM are all funded/owned by the same monster corporations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

I liked what Matt Taibbi (RollingStone/SmirkingChimp) wrote:
"On both tickets, the abject failure of media-anointed front-runners to hold their ground was due at least in part to voters having grown weary of being told by the press who was "electable" and who wasn't. Both the Huckabee and Ron Paul candidacies represent angry grass-roots challenges to the entrenched Republican party apparatus, while the Edwards candidacy is a frank and open attack on his own party's too-cozy relationship with corporate America. These developments signaled a meaningful political phenomenon -- widespread voter disgust, not only with the two ruling parties, but with a national political press that smugly enforced the party insiders' stranglehold on the process with its incessant bullying of dissident candidates."

Really liked your essay.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 10:00 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

Thanks for dropping by and I appreciate your comments. The process is truly frustrating because not only are we told who is "electable", we also allow ourselves to be trapped into adopting specific lexicons for discussing the problems. Liberals use one lexicon and conservatives use another. Americans are not as divided as we appear. We just express ourselves differently trying to wedge our frustrations into one language or the other. Just try to follow the logic of the commentary at Hugh's blog for instance. You can't discuss anything logically or factually. The best discussions occur on the junior circuit and I hope you explore this level. There is plenty of good stuff among the garbage.

As to the corporate influence, I don't know what the answer is and kicking them out of the process is definitely not it. We need to be able to discuss the truth. We ARE in the ME because of oil and it is a perfectly legitimate reason and we should not be ashamed to say so. We ARE in a recession, possibly on our way to stagflationary period, but our leaders tell us all is fine but we have to have a drastic money giveaway to stem the "economic slowdown". We are treated like children because we allow it. It is up to us to do something and I believe step one is to depopulate all political parties by re-registering to unaffiliated independent.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 12:50 PM illit writes:

hi Mr.Pasadena,

"As to the corporate influence, I don't know what the answer is and kicking them out of the process is definitely not it. "

Why do you say this?
Just looking a GE alone, their assets run from communications to finance to healthcare to industrial ------- when they own parts of politicians a bad outcome is guaranteed.
Enron used to contribute to both parties, ensuring their protection.
Do you honestly think that, as an example, GE/NBC/MSNBC is (or can be) nonpartisan in their reporting?
Foreign money is pouring into large US corporations - do you not think that this will ultimately corrupt our politicians/government further?

"We ARE in the ME because of oil and it is a perfectly legitimate reason and we should not be ashamed to say so."
In hindsight wouldn't spending the trillion(?) on ANWAR/nuclear/even'green' have been a better investment in both $$$ and lives? Better or not, $100 a barrel and Bush begging for more is shaming.

finally: "We are treated like children because we allow it." YES YES YES

and we are still told to shop/buy/spend instead of save save save.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 1:48 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

The oil thing is very complicated and I tried to address it my "The BIGNESS of Big Oil" essay. Oil is still cheap at $100/bbl.

On corporations, they represent the basic unit that enables free enterprise and that provides big opportunities for people to get rich. You can't kick them out of the process. What we need is for government to create a well-regulated environment, one that fosters efficiency and transparency. What we have is a government that deregulates but steps in and tries to manipulate the markets. A smaller, more transparent government would suffice. The corruption we are witnessing is due mostly to our penchant for electing and re-electing corrupt politicians. Like GHW Bush pocketing $10 million by being paid in Global Crossing IPO stock for a speech in Japan or Zapata, a former oil company turned pork rind company owned by the Bushes, that went IPO as a dot.com company creating millions of ill-gotten wealth. Corporations are not people. It is just like guns don't kill people. We need to go after people who kill people and corrupt people wherever they are. Good luck with that. We look more like Mexico every day and it is no accident.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 3:49 PM illit writes:

Phil,

maybe a lexicon problem on my part.

I should say that I agree with "On corporations, they represent the basic unit that enables free enterprise and that provides big opportunities for people to get rich." -- tho I'm not nearly as 'rich' today as I was a month ago.

But,"You can't kick them out of the process. "
what do you mean? I don't want them near a politician (or that process). A corporation's agenda is not likely to be in anyone's interest other than that of their CEO and Board - as an eg. I don't buy/pay for health/car/home insurance for the dividends they pay or as an investment, I buy it in case I need it. I don't want any politician to 'owe' any insurance company. I don't want any politician to think that they work for anyone other than ME (ok, you too).

"The corruption we are witnessing is due mostly to our penchant for electing and re-electing corrupt politicians."
Painfully true, but what else is on the ballot? It seems its no longer possible to 'write in' anyone.

I am not a Ron Paul fan, but maybe if he got in - we'd have a smaller government, a restored Constitution/Republic and Congress would stop any other extremes.
I think the last 4 years of Clinton weren't tooooo bad thanks to Gingrich and Congress - sometimes checks and balances work.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 5:10 PM Georgetwin writes:

PPhil

New Posting at My Blog!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 5:15 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit "checks and balances work"

Bingo. Now that the GOP has abandoned any pretense of fighting for any ideas other than getting elected, we have little alternative than to split the ticket. It would also help for voters of both parties to express their resentment at being ignored by simply re-registering as unaffiliated independents. I keep repeating this because even those who agree with my views simply cannot get themselves to take this one symbolic yet powerful step. If both parties who claim to be the "major" parties were to become depopulated, the option of a third party would not seem so pointless. Abe Lincoln created the Republican Party in a much less favorable climate and over an issue, slavery, that was much less popular. If we can't find a third (second, actually) alternative, we shouldn't complain. One step at a time. Whining will not accomplish anything.

On corporations, we share the same sentiments and corrupting influence of corporations is undeniable. But if we were to kick them out of the process entirely, we would be making the same mistake as those who exclude any religious talk out of government affairs. I just believe that the solution is to make a legal distinction between freedom of speech for people versus that of non-person legal entities. Corporations are good things and they create good jobs. We don't want to surrender the public square to socialists who are systematically stifling voices who disagree with them. The "government" does NOT speak for Americans.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 7:09 PM illit writes:

Texas doesn't register us as any party

well, I think that's how it works - as long as I stay away from the primaries I am a non-Dem non-Rep by default. Prior to moving here I'd always registered Independent.

It looks like Romney and theClintons won in Nevada.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 19, 2008 8:06 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

I understand Missouri doesn't keep track of party affiliation either. That is what makes it so hard to figure out how many people are registered to what party. CA only releases reports every other year.

Yeah, I noticed that Rudy is sixth EVERYWHERE, always behind Ron Paul who even beat McCain in NV. Just shows how wrong the party establishment has been telling us who is "electable". I believe it is doubtful any Republican can be elected in 2008 but Romney is the only one with a chance. At least he'll lose strong if he doesn't win. Let's see who Fred endorses. If he picks McCain, good riddens. We just dodged another phony.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 21, 2008 11:22 AM BrianR writes:

Hey, Phil

I read in the LA Times -- AKA Pravda West -- that per a rule change last year, Independants can vote in the Dem primary, but not the GOP primary.

So, what's your plan for Feb 5?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 21, 2008 12:13 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

I never re-registered back to Republican but both Hunter and Thompson are out (and I really don't trust Thompson at this point). I'm going to vote because of all of the toxic propositions on the ballot but I really don't know if I can get myself to vote for a Dem at this point. Maybe I'll vote for Ms Edwards just to be a stinker. Any suggestions?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 21, 2008 5:43 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

I just heard Tom Delay interviewed on Hannity and he says the same thing, there is no Republican party at the moment and the only GOP candidate he will absolutely not support is McCain. The turnout has been dreadful (McCain won SC with fewer votes than he got in 2000 for example). I'm ok with Romney but it might take a Ron Paul independent run to keep him on the straight and narrow. I'm inclined to trust Romney but you can't be too careful. The only way I would vote for Paul is if the GOP nominates McCain, Giuliani or Huckleberry.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 21, 2008 7:34 PM illit writes:

most important factor in deciding

and core issues:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most _important
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 21, 2008 8:29 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Illicit, Sam

Hillarious link. I love The Onion. They never miss a trick. (By the way Sam, I hope you The Onion specializes in satire and lampooning). There are days when the you can't tell the difference between The Onion and the MSM.

Right now, I'm sweating out the DOW futures forecasting the market opening tomorrow 400+ points down. It could get much worse if Bush/Bernancke/Paulson pledge another foolish "big government" solution like last Friday. We need to take a recession and start defending the dollar.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 21, 2008 9:57 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

It's too early to judge Bernanke because he does not merit the "power" everyone assigns him. His situation is akin to saving a hostage in the hands of terrorists except in this case, the investment banks (Wall Street) is holding the commercial banks (Main Street) hostage. These banks refuse to lend and to disclose information that would help regulators to address the problem properly. That the Fed and Treasury show no ability to knock heads sends the world the message that the banks are in deep, deep trouble. Think about it. Citi borrowed $3b from Abu Dhabi at 11.375% when they could have got it from the discount window at 5.75% (where they would have had to disclose). The Saudi Prince, Citi's largest shareholder, could have stepped up too but apparently he is not interested in chasing good money after bad. And the Chinese declined Citi's plea too. The way we are going, what may have been a mild recession is quickly turning into what may become an extended period of malaise and stagflation. We need to be defending the dollar right now but our government insists on pushing on the gas and brakes at the same time. Lower interest rates are not only useless but harmful. Baling out the homeowners who are over their heads is just delaying the inevitable to a later date when it will be even more painful to the homeowners while extending the time it will take for the real estate markets to bottom out. Handing out $145 billion in cash is stupid beyond belief. We are in deep, deep trouble with this government and all we hear is that the government has to increase its control. Well markets deal with reality and don't like being controlled for political ends. The only thing left for the financial markets to do is to sink and get highly volatile. The only thing worse would be for them to sink and go flat. That would be signaling that investors have given up are no longer interested. Thank you Team Bush.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 1:32 PM BrianR writes:

LOL, Phil

Nope, no suggestions. If you're stuck with the Dem primary, it's a choice of dumb, dumber or dumberer.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 4:42 PM illit writes:

Phil - I'm confused

I don't understand:
"Lower interest rates are not only useless but harmful. Baling out the homeowners who are over their heads is just delaying the inevitable to a later date when it will be even more painful to the homeowners while extending the time it will take for the real estate markets to bottom out."

Nope I'm not in over my head - but refinancing (especially if they drop the rates another 50 points next week) from my 30yr 5.6? 30yr to a 4.?? 15yr fixed mortgage seems 'good' to me. The lower interest rates are not limited to those who are 'over their heads'.

The $145billion is just a bribe - I guess I'll just invest those Ameroes (just harassing!) into a safe mattress.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 5:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

Interest rates have been too low now for a very long time which is why we keep having these scandals and why oil and gold prices keep climbing while the dollar keeps crashing. We need to be defending the dollar to attract foreign capital and reassure the world that we are not a subprime country. We are currently subsidizing the rest of the world's oil.

As to lower interest rates helping you, they are designed to lower the banks' cost of capital to encourage them to lend again (they aren't). The real estate market is now about 25-30% over-priced because of the subprime bubble and by stopping the market from forcing deserved foreclosures, they are just prolonging the correction process. Who wants to buy an asset knowing that it will slowly depreciate 25-30%? We are in a very stupid place and it is because of too much government in poorly regulated markets and lax accounting standards. The government is just too big. Let the markets do their job. Corrections (and recessions) are good things.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 6:58 PM illit writes:

Corrections (and recessions) are good

things.

YOU sound like my financial guy - re the market.

I understand that your are not running a blog for financial 'tards' - but, I'll keep nagging til you tell me to shut up or I pass finance101.
"Who wants to buy an asset knowing that it will slowly depreciate 25-30%?"
Most of us bought/buy houses to live in - great if they appreciate, but we bought them for the schools, the neighborhood, the shelter from the weather (not only to humor the IRS) ------- it seems the big losers are the 'flippers', the people who need the bail-out are those trying to make a home.
Even if/when the market depreciates 25-30% - if you live in you house 10-20-30 years you won't 'lose'.
I thought it was the ARMs that were causing the foreclosures - with lower rates to lock into people should be able to make their payments. No?

It's likely that I am looking at the housing crisis too subjectively - I love my house, like living here, and a lower assessment just lowers my property taxes (well maybe).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 10:20 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

I'm probably with you on gold/silver and I see nothing that will stop the fall of the dollar but I really don't see a crashing stock market. I believe the Dow bottomed today and will be followed by months of volatility in the 12,000 - 12,600 range. It just can't be a coincidence that the market went straight to technical support at the open without a real fundamental reason and bounced to recover 75% of the loss. Today was a technical selloff. That the financials and retail led the gainers was probably due to believe that we are headed for a mild and brief recession and see these stocks as cheap. I don't. This is going to be a rough year if the government does its job and cuts spending and borrowing. Today's rebound had nothing to do with the joint stimulus plan. Nothing happened after Bush's press conference. They are just going to continue printing money and everyone knows it. The only question is whether we are going to have heightened inflation or prolonged stagflation. Extreme volatility in this case is a good thing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 22, 2008 11:01 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Read John Hinderaker's latest entry at Powerline concerning the status of the Reagan coalition. He believes that conservatives may now be willing to accept big government.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019610.php

I don't think we are heading to a depression but I do think we are heading for stagflation and soon. We also have the beginnings of what may be a major exporting economy in 5-10 years if we can stop the growth of government manipulation of the economy. An impeachment for any reason would help at this point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 23, 2008 4:04 PM Joe writes:

Duncan Hunter just endorsed Huckabee?

Okay, even I am shocked by this one. Maybe Pasadena Phil is right.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE3MjIzNGViMTE1OT BkNjU2OTdlZWM2ZDVlYTkzYjE=

Someone please check on Virginia Patriot. I am worried he might have passed out and I do not want him to choke on his tongue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 23, 2008 7:29 PM SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes:

I don't get it.

So Hunter is endorsing Huckster and Thompson is endorsing McLame. What gives?? It would seem they are supporting candidates with whom they have little in common.

So what are we down to at this point -- Rudy, McLame or Romney. I'd NEVER bother voting for McLame since he's Teddy K's lover and all. Rudy... I dunno. Romney is my only hope at this point. Maybe if he goes on a popular talk show and plays an instrument or dances, some of the mindless swing voters will vote for him because they'll think he's cool. Maybe news clips of him windsurfing? Worked for Kerry... oh wait.

Anyone here have hope of GOP possible victory???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 23, 2008 8:42 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Joe, Squiddy

I have stopped believing in parties. I realize you can't say things like this but it sure looks to me like there is some kind of a big deal that everyone has signed onto and I am afraid that we may be selling out to a world government no matter what voters want. I understand Hunter is very religious and maybe that was what made him endorse Huck (if he in fact did, I don't believe it yet).

I really have a hard time seeing any Republican winning and if it's McCain or Rudy, that is even worse than a Democrat. My only hope is that Mitt is true to his word and will go back to getting government under control, living within its means and defending our rights and sovereignty. This is going to be a really rough year economically and the way we are going with that bipartisan economic stimulus bill, we are heading for many years of stagflation. We may know tomorrow. If the Dow can't hold at 11,600, we are in very deep trouble.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 24, 2008 5:24 AM illit writes:

Giuliani on 'freedom' and 'doublethink'

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

* WAR IS PEACE
* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


I wish Ron Paul wasn't so wrong about so many things.
Romney might win if he sticks to business.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 24, 2008 10:38 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

I remember when Rudy said that. It is one of the many reasons I am so adamantly against him. I'm not a Ron Paul as you may have figured out but I really believe that he brings up important points that need to be discussed nationally so I hope he runs a strong third party campaign later. This election is about voters rebelling against the political machine that has seized the government and is close to consolidating its power. As unsettling as it might be, we probably need four years of fragmented turbulence in our government. We simply must shake off the leaches that have bought our political parties and the best way is to keep confounding the "experts" who keep corrupting the language so we can't even discuss issues properly. McCain is NOT a conservative and David Brooks/Michael Medved are NOT conservative pundits. Now Bush is going to give away billions to "poor people" to stimulate the economy. When did Chavez take over the White House?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 24, 2008 12:52 PM BrianR writes:

Yeah, check this out

Bush has again shown his liberal stripes with his proposed "tax rebate and bailout" proposal.

So, according to the news today, an agreement has been reached. The agreement? $300 - $1200 per household....

BUT

No one who makes over $75K as a single filer or $138K for joint filings gets a dime. Further, even people who made so little that they didn't pay ANY taxes get the rebate.

So, bottom line, what we really have is an income redistribution scheme. The people who earn enough to be in the demographic that actually pays about 90% of the taxes get absolutely zip. The people who didn't pay a dime get the money. And where will that money come from, you ask?

Why.... from those that are now gonna have to pay even MORE taxes in the future to finance this boondoggle.

Yet another reason -- as if one was needed -- to stop voting for RINOs.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 24, 2008 1:31 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Way ahead of you Brian

This is a desperate move by politicians to delay the fallout from the banking crisis until after the elections. The RINOs get their corporate tax reductions (a move that does not conform to the "immediate impact and temporary" rule they agreed to) and Dems get their income redistribution (a move that doesn't impact the economy until June). We need to vote all of these socialists out of office. Luckily, the bond market is rejecting this deal today, a little late but look out in the stock market tomorrow. Deep and prolonged recession with stagflation, here we come! Thank you Team Bush!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, January, 25, 2008 12:03 PM BrianR writes:

Of course, Sam

which is still a de facto tax.

It's simply indirect.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, January, 26, 2008 10:48 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

Haven't been able to get into the junior circuit blogs for weeks. What up with that?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 9:28 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

Join the club. I had a couple of stretches where I couldn't even get into my own blog. At least we can still kick a$$ on the senior circuit. The McCainiacs have lost their minds. I think it's the same trolls who reappear as paulbots, gooeys or whoever the dope-du-jour happens to be.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 11:31 AM BrianR writes:

Yeah, ya know, it's interesting

that the Rudybots seem to have evaporated.

Coincidence? I don't think so.....




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 11:53 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

BrianR

Just wondering as polls keep missing big and endorsements keep coming. I get the feeling that the establishment is in panic mode across the board. While our "big government" is desperately tells us to calm down as they panic over their inability to manage the "soft landing" in the "goldilocks economy" they've been rigging, the same interests seem unable to influence voters with the organized placement of revealing endorsements. If we focus on the right message here (third party, rage against the machine) this whole one-party may come crashing down soon. We may not have a valid conservative candidate here but I am convinced we are in deep trouble economically. Winning in 2008 may be bad for the "winner". There is already a movement among the Republican House Caucus to swear off of earmarks. Let's see if they force the issue when the bipartisan "free money" bill is introduced on the floor. That could become a big issue once runaway government spending starts taking everything down after the election. I'm thinking 2010 may be a good year for conservatives.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 1:49 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil and BrianR

I think some of the Gooeys changed names, there are quite a few new ones, McTex being the most obnoxious one.

They are pulling out all the stops to ensure an amnesty vs amnesty election so we have no choice about giving up our country. I hope if McCain does get the nod, that he loses. I know I won't vote for him. It would set the stage for a replay of '94 in 2010. Hillary or Obama overreach with amnesty and socialized medicine and conservatives take back the House at least.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 5:00 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat and BrianR

Hey! I can get back into my own blog again! Woohoo! I suspect that Joe, McTex, brianakira and others are Democratic political operatives trolling TH just to annoy readers. Joe once claimed to be a former press secretary to a Republican congressman but all of his talking points are straight from the Democratic play book. I'm hoping that the thousands of readers who don't comment are hardcore conservatives like us. Amnesty is a loser for all candidates but I really believe that the establishment of both parties don't care and intend to win by any means. If they win this year, they need to win ugly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 5:47 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat and BrianR

Hey! I can get back into my own blog again! Woohoo! I suspect that Joe, McTex, brianakira and others are Democratic political operatives trolling TH just to annoy readers. Joe once claimed to be a former press secretary to a Republican congressman but all of his talking points are straight from the Democratic play book. I'm hoping that the thousands of readers who don't comment are hardcore conservatives like us. Amnesty is a loser for all candidates but I really believe that the establishment of both parties don't care and intend to win by any means. If they win this year, they need to win ugly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 7:10 PM Tazzmax writes:

This a test Phil,

to see if I can comment on your blog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 7:10 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat and BrianR

Hey! I can get back into my own blog again! Woohoo! I suspect that Joe, McTex, brianakira and others are Democratic political operatives trolling TH just to annoy readers. Joe once claimed to be a former press secretary to a Republican congressman but all of his talking points are straight from the Democratic play book. I'm hoping that the thousands of readers who don't comment are hardcore conservatives like us. Amnesty is a loser for all candidates but I really believe that the establishment of both parties don't care and intend to win by any means. If they win this year, they need to win ugly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 7:19 PM Tazzmax writes:

Horray,

I'm with you guys, Phil, V.P., and all you other "real conservatives".

I like your blog and I'm gonna B.M. it!

It amazes me how many "trolls" claiming to be conservatives, have infested T.H., you can't talk any sense to them and when you try to face them with facts, they resort to name calling and accusations of racism!...Outrageous.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 7:35 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

How are you liking your Browning?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 8:31 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat and BrianR

Hey! I can get back into my own blog again! Woohoo! I suspect that Joe, McTex, brianakira and others are Democratic political operatives trolling TH just to annoy readers. Joe once claimed to be a former press secretary to a Republican congressman but all of his talking points are straight from the Democratic play book. I'm hoping that the thousands of readers who don't comment are hardcore conservatives like us. Amnesty is a loser for all candidates but I really believe that the establishment of both parties don't care and intend to win by any means. If they win this year, they need to win ugly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 8:33 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Tazzman

Thanks for dropping by. Great to hear we have even more friends. It may not feel like it yet, but we are winning.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 8:36 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

My Browning? My favorite gun. I've had several people try it and they are all surprised at how smooth it shoots. I'm even getting used to cleaning it without chasing springs all over the neighborhood. I'm glad you made the suggestion. First time I ever bought a gun on impulse. I have a feeling a few of my friends have bought one or will.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 27, 2008 11:16 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

Glad to hear it. It's my favorite as well, goes to the range every time. I usually shoot 100 or 200 rounds on it first and then 50 of either 9 or 45 after. With all the practice, I'm getting better with all of them. My favorite thing lately is the dueling tree they have at the range. It has steel plates that flip from one side to the other when hit. My son and I like to challenge each other, see who can keep the plates on the other guys side. It's a lot of fun.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 28, 2008 11:08 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

I usually shoot about 250 rounds with the Browning. It has really helped my technique overall having an accurate, small caliber gun. I'm much more accurate with my Glock too. It's much harder to figure out what I'm doing wrong with a .45 with an inferior trigger. The Browning trigger is so smooth that I can get my technique and grip down and then switch to the Glock. I'm just better, not great. With all the rain we've had lately, I'm building up enough carbon credits to blow up Iran by myself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 28, 2008 4:44 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

Practicing with the Browning has helped me with larger calibers also, I knew it would help you as well. Very glad you like it and it has helped your shooting.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, January, 29, 2008 12:10 PM BrianR writes:

Hahahahahaha, Phil!

Can I assume you can get back into your own blog again?


Looking at the multiple posts of the announcement, and the way they show up interspersed with other comments, just cracked me up!



Well, as some of us write more than one measly essay a month, you should know that there's a new post up at the Island about "The Election and the Supreme Court".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 1:05 PM Joe writes:

What the ....????? No, No, No

"Joe once claimed to be a former press secretary to a Republican congressman but all of his talking points are straight from the Democratic play book."

Sorry Pasadena Phil, I never ever said I was a former press secretary. I have never worked in politics professionally or even as an offical volunteer for a campaign. Ever. If some "Joe" said it, it was definitely not me. Nor am I a "liberal" or a Democrat. I have voted for a couple of Democrat congressmen and local officials in the past (mostly unopposed or because there was no good alternative), but I pretty much vote GOP (sometimes there really are no good alternatives). I have voted exclusively GOP for presidents. I am a strong defense, fiscal conservative, social moderate/libertarian (if you have to put labels on me). I am a conservationist, but not an evironmentalist. I am for states rights and federalism. If I had the power to appoint a president from the candidates available I would have picked Fred Thompson first, then John McCain/Duncan Hunter about equally, then Giuliani, then Romney, in that order. I consider the idea of a Hillary or Obama presidency to be a disaster.

I am not paid for saying what I think. I just(like you, NeoConScum, and Virginia Patriot) care about this stuff.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 1:14 PM Joe writes:

And my concerns about McCain

As someone who enjoys a nice sipping whiskey in the late afternoon on the porch of the Roosevelt Lodge at Yellowstone, I get the good parts of the Teddy Roosevelt attraction McCain has. Teddy Roosevelt was an interesting guy. I also recognize the bad parts of Teddy the Reformer. McCain needs to rein that in.

On immigration reform--I do not fear it like you all do. But I agree we have to secure the borders (and ports) first. McCain would be wise to say and do that. I would support a pledge not to do any immigration reform the first term and instead focus on border (and workplace) illegal immigration enforcement.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 1:57 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Joe

I am well-read on Teddy Roosevelt and I assure you, McCain is no Roosevelt. Roosevelt didn't TELL everybody he was a straight talker, he WAS a straight talked. And he was always loyal to his party. McCain is an megalomaniac who is destroying the GOP. Winning primaries, any candidate, with 36% of the vote is not reassuring. Particularly when turnout is lower than for the Democrats with no delegates on the line. Meanwhile, not only is McCain NOT going to unite the party, I predict that the decline in GOP registrations will accelerate. You ARE a democrat (as opposed to Democrat) if you support McCain. If a McCain nomination is what you need to understand that NO Republican nominee can win in November, then the upcoming catastrophe will be deserved. We need to lose CONSTRUCTIVELY by sticking to OUR principles, not DEMOCRATICS principles on the delusion that that makes someone electable. Let's just combine both parties after the conventions and stop pretending that we have two parties and that either one represents voters.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 3:27 PM Joe writes:

I hope you are wrong

I really do not want to see Obama or Hillary screw things up. I hope McCain gets the nomination and wins. If that makes me a "deomcrat" as opposed to a "Democrat" in your eyes--well I will have to live with that. If McCain can do well on defense, not raise taxes and cut spending, and does not go off on a reformer bent--I see that as a win win. McCain may only serve one term (who knows?) so a strong VP choice is critical.

Some say Governor Crist (he certainly may have been the king maker here). Some say Fred. I would actually like to see Tom Coburn.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 5:18 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Joe, on immigration reform

How can you trust a guy who is being advised by that "Mexico First", Aztlan, La Raza Juan Hernandez? You aren't worried about immigration "reform"? That's like handing your wallet to a pickpocket and stating that you aren't worried. Get real. The GOP is in deep, deep trouble with or without McCain. Losing this year with a liberal will leave the GOP with nothing to run on in 2010 and 2012. The GOP needs to prove that it is willing to fight for its principles. "Electability" is not a principle. It's weasel talk.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 7:28 PM Tazzmax writes:

Unbelievable

how many morons are voting for McScamnesty,....it has destroyed the republican party.

Just wait until we have 20 million more illegal aliens to "love and care for"!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 7:45 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

The buzz on the trading floors at the close today was fear. As soon as Bernanke released the news on rate cuts, the markets rallied to technical resistance, stopped and sold off big in the last 10 minutes. There is nowhere for the markets to go but down. Everyone knows we are in a deepening recession. We could test that triple bottom tomorrow when I expect a big sell off. It is not boring going to work these days.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 7:50 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Tazzman

On McCain, if he gets the nomination, it will be important for conservatives to vote third party. It would send a huge message if it turned out that the main excitement this election involved a surge in voter registrations and turnout to vote third party. Let's talk it up. Let's have a record turnout with both parties suffering declines in registration and the winner barely winning with 38% of the vote or less. Having McCain come in third would be so sweet. It will only happen if people can snap out of their reluctance to vote for anything but a Republican, if they vote.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 8:21 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam - 2% rates

Bear Stearns predicted today that Bernanke will make that cut by March. There is no way citizens CAN wake up to this. We are suffering from crisis and BS overload already. At some point, I believe soon, the panic being experience at the Fed, Treasury, bank board rooms, IMF and elsewhere, will spread into the general economy. Could be tomorrow. I'm not making a prediction but we are teetering on the edge and the markets are really nervous. Truth is a scarce commodity these days so I guess it would be fitting to nominate a treacherous liar like McCain as a "straight talker". George Orwell may have guessed the wrong date but he was right about the result.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, January, 30, 2008 8:34 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam - 2% rates

Bear Stearns predicted today that Bernanke will make that cut by March. There is no way citizens CAN wake up to this. We are suffering from crisis and BS overload already. At some point, I believe soon, the panic being experience at the Fed, Treasury, bank board rooms, IMF and elsewhere, will spread into the general economy. Could be tomorrow. I'm not making a prediction but we are teetering on the edge and the markets are really nervous. Truth is a scarce commodity these days so I guess it would be fitting to nominate a treacherous liar like McCain as a "straight talker". George Orwell may have guessed the wrong date but he was right about the result.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, January, 31, 2008 5:12 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

I saw your comment of the Forbes endorsement blog entry. If you recall, way back when Fred's name was first floated, I expressed the reservation that he was a stalking horse for the establishment to dilute the conservative vote. Howard Baker was one of those involved in getting Fred into the race. The goal of the RNC all along was an amnesty candidate. You are correct, any delegates Fred has or will get will go to "my friend".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 01, 2008 8:32 PM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

You know Phil, we could end up being Paulistinians before this is over. It may be the only third party choice. Bloomberg won't run if it's McCain vs Hillary, they've already promised not to be "divisive". Not much of a problem, really, they agree on so much. I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Ready to join the Ron Paul Revolution?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 01, 2008 10:35 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

VPat

I'm already there with Ron Paul and have posted comments saying so. My fantasy is that Obama wins with 35% of the vote, Ron Paul comes in second with 34% and McCain comes in third with 28%. Would THAT would be sweet!

As to the GOP anti-Romney stampede strategy, you could really make a plausible argument that the reason Rudy and Fred ran such dumb and lazy campaigns was that they just weren't in the race to win. Huck was just lucky and is now playing his hand hoping to gain favor with the GOP establishment. Romney is basically running against the entire US political establishment. I have a feeling this isn't going to work out the way the establishment wants. With Romney and Ron Paul both outraising McCain, how can the GOP come out of the convention with McCain as the nominee? Were CPAC to refuse to accept a visit by McCain, you could run a pretty good new party campaign with Romney and Paul. Lincoln succeeded against more difficult odds.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 02, 2008 1:30 PM illit writes:

? Romney's finances

seems more like Romney is the reason Romney's out-raised McCain.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Romney:
Candidate self-financing $35,413,736 40%


Paul:
Individual contributions $28,028,828 100%


Where are Paul's votes? seems odd that the $$$ aren't equating to votes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 02, 2008 1:51 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

The votes so far are sticking to the various GOP candidates for limited reasons. The anti-establishment vote is going mostly to Romney. I believe Ron Paul's support will take off after Tuesday should McCain win big. We are heading into a brokered convention where it is likely a deal will be cut before it convenes. The fix will be in. It will be important for conservatives to re-register to unaffiliated independent after Tuesday. I predict Ron Paul will out-raise McCain even with matching funds. Corporate America will focus on the Democratic side to determine who will lead the Clinto/Obama ticket having no further interest on the GOP side with the loser McCain in place. Romney is actually the only GOP hope but Ron Paul could win as an independent, especially if Ralph Nader and one or two other big names run independent. This is going to be one for the ages.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 02, 2008 1:55 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Read this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1ec6ce26-d0fe-11dc-953a-0000779fd 2ac.html?nclick_check=1

The money IS rigging the elections. That is why they are afraid of Romney. It is very expensive to rig elections and there are no guarantees. Ron Paul is the follow up threat should Romney fail and not sieze the Lincolnesque opportunity to start a new party and run independent. Should the Dems or McCain win, it is absolutely critical that they win with 38% of the vote or less. The next congress is going to be even more conservative regardless of the national elections. That is the one place where the base still has traction over the election outcomes. We can win this if we can visualize a winning scenario, talk it up and then follow through.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 02, 2008 2:51 PM illit writes:

!! "one for the ages"

I agree - I thought 2000 was crazy enough.
If third party candidates to do not reflect close to a third of the votes PES/Diebold needs to be permanently unplugged.
I think Nader (or someone like him) will run - many many Democrats despise Billary.

" The next congress is going to be even more conservative regardless of the national elections. "
I think its going the other way - too many Republicans retiring and the economy & Iraq are driving voters towards a change.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 02, 2008 3:17 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

illit

The next Congress IS going to be more conservative just like this one is more conservative than the one before. I think you are confusing conservative with Republican. The GOP lost control because they were outmanuevered to the right by the Dems. That is the problem of nominating a liberal on the national ticket. It sends the wrong message locally. There are only so many conservative seats in congress possible but it hardly matters that they are Democrats or Republicans. That is how the Reagan coalition operated and it has not disappeared.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 02, 2008 6:51 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sam

Ann and Rush are voicing their distaste for McCain in the clearest terms they can. They will not be campaigning for Hillary or voting for them. In fact, Rush merely said that he not vote Republican if McCain wins the nomination. Not voting Republican does not automatically mean voting Democratic. Like I've stated many times, I see no difference between the RINO candidates, particularly Rudy and McCain, and Hillary. If Mitt doesn't win, I will follow my conscience and vote for the best independent available. If that's Mitt, great. If that's Ron Paul. Fine. I've had it with Republicans and I know I represent a large and growing segment of not only conservatives but moderates too. We may very well be witnessing the GOP's last hurrah. No one thought the Whigs would get knocked out by the GOP either...until it happened. You just have to be willing to punch a hole at a different part of the ballot. It's not complicated.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 06, 2008 10:47 AM ShiningCity writes:

Some of the best news for 3rd party

Saw this & thought of your discussions here:

"I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative, and in fact has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are," James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, said Tuesday in a statement to a conservative talk show host who read it on the air. He said he would not vote for McCain "as a matter of conscience," and described McCain as someone with a "legendary temper" who "often uses foul and obscene language." Dobson said he would sit out the general election if McCain was the GOP nominee........


Add this to Rush's statements, and it will be interesting to see how this washes out. Time for a viable 3rd party candidate to show up. Hunter could take this thing as an independent.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 06, 2008 11:10 AM Joe writes:

It is time to mend, and build, fences...

Hugh: Put Humpty Dumpty Together Before St. Paul

I know that among my readers, Hugh Hewitt is mocked with regularity for his enthusiasm and optimism regarding Mitt Romney and his chances.

But note his latest posting:

At the same time, Romney and Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain's lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party's eventual nominee. Senator McCain would do well to make a similar statement though his lead is significant and his collapse unlikely. Putting Humpty Dumpty together again cannot wait for St. Paul. Each of the three need to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is.

There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.

Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) It's been fun to giggle at how Hugh can find the silver lining to every dark cloud over the Romney campaign, but we ought to salute him for noting the big picture and saying that he'll vote for the more conservative choice in the general election, no matter how strong his passions in the primary

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDZkZmU1YmYz N2Q1MmI2NTViYmRjMGEzYWU4MTVhMGE=

This was a tough fight, but McCain is better than Hillary or Obama. By far. You may not want to now accept that, but you need to realize this by November.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 06, 2008 12:50 PM BrianR writes:

Phil

I just posted "Forecast for Hell: Chance of Snow Flurries" at the Island. Take a look. I think you, in particular, will like it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 07, 2008 12:57 AM Virginia Patriot writes:

Joe

Stuff it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 07, 2008 1:02 AM Virginia Patriot writes:

Phil

I saw your comment over at Brian's, I'm with you, all guns, all the time. I'll be spending my time at the range instead of TH.
Unless some serious SECOND party groundswell occurs. One can dream, right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 07, 2008 10:02 AM Pasadena Phil writes:

VirginiaP

Happy to hear it. TH is going to be a very annoying place to be now that they are in full RINO mode. I'll still be posting essays from time to time but as far as politics goes, maybe one more and that's it. I may engage in some threads at Powerline and Michelle Malkin's, but this place is just a hangout for GOP operatives and they just don't get it. It's like trying to decide which used car salesman you like the most. I'm interested in people who are committed to a cause. On the other hand, this frees up a lot of time to have fun for a change and part of it will be watching the GOP bus go off the cliff without me in November. I'm sure they'll be singing the vapid GOP fight song right to the bitter end.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, February, 10, 2008 10:00 AM davecatbone writes:

Hey Phil

Time for a new post from you, I've been waiting.....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive