Ooops! They're Lying Again

Even at the supposedly sophisticated Talking Points Memo, McCain-bashing takes precedence over truth. I'll remake the TPM page in question for you here:

John McCain: I am Viral Video!

McCain: Bringing Troops Home from Iraq "Not Too Important" ...

Get a good look. Within a day or so he won't have said it.

Just as with the "100 years war" quote, the Left shamelessly miscasts this clip to pollute the public discourse. In this clip, McCain makes it extremely clear exactly what he means about a long-term presence in Iraq. Right after "not too important" he says:

What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany -- that's all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw ....

If this is virally offensive, we have to ask why. The only credible answer is this: The Democratic party, as represented by TPM -- the primary daily read of many, many mainstream Dems -- is now a party of complete isolationism, the party that would close all our overseas bases and huddle behind our borders, and the party of complete anti-militarism that sees no use whatsoever for military forces, either to win the peace or maintain it.

In other words, they are the party that embraces defeat.

Obama: Utterly Above Reproach

Hillary Clinton seems to be caught up in the myth that the Holy Name of Obama cannot be uttered by others. After all, she was quick to apologize for saying this:

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

That quickly generated this from an Obama sycophant:

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Huh? No place in this campaign? All she said was that Bobby was still running for president in June. Is it now overboard to even mention that the Mighty Mystical Candidate still has someone running against him in May?

It's a far, far stretch for the Obama campaign to create a race card out of the tragic assassination of a Boston Brahman, but somehow they have managed to do it. I would just love to see the Obamatons deal with the kind of unjustified hatred heaped on George W. Bush. Talk about a complete meltdown!

With Support Like This ...

Will there be no "General Betray Us" this time around, as Gen. David Petraeus faces Senate confirmation for his appointment to U.S. Central Command? One might think so, reading this:

WASHINGTON (AP)- A top Democrat has indicated he supports President Bush's decision to promote Gen. David Petraeus to head U.S. Central Command and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno as the next commander of troops in Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said confirmation of the nominations would enable unprecedented continuity of leadership in Iraq by officers whose knowledge of the war effort is unparalleled.

Smooth sailing, then? I think not, and so does CNS:

"I don't think there is any anticipation of trying to block the confirmation of Petraeus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Cybercast News Service at a Capitol press conference.

"But the three of us [Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.] have talked about questions we think ought to be asked Petreaus," said Reid. "I think there are a lot of questions members of that [Armed Services] committee have and that senators who are not in that committee have."

Reid seems to be having some trouble counting ... I get to four on that calculation. Be that as it may, Petraeus should brace himself for some tough questions because the Dems will be using him as a proxy to question Pres. Bush:

"I don't anticipate [an effort to block the nomination]," said Levin. "You have to remember this Iraq strategy is a Bush strategy. I want to hold Bush accountable. He is the guy who is responsible. The buck stops with him. I want to hold the president, who is the civilian leader, accountable for the strategy and not act as if the military people have the final say, because they don't."

So expect the usual Dem "blindsight" -- you know, the inability to see what's in front of them.

As Polls Blow It (Again), O Has Mo

You'd think with 42 races behind them, the pollsters would have the Dem primaries nailed, but again yesterday they proved their utter worthlessness as prognosticators.

Yesterday, as the polls in North Carolina and Indiana opened, the RCP average of the big-time polls showed Obama up by 8 in North Carolina and Clinton up by 5 in Indiana. Oops, again, as Obama doubled that in NC, trouncing Clinton by 16%, and pulled within two points of her in a last-minute surge in Indiana, as the northwestern counties with their big black populations came in.

Obama's performance yesterday is tantalizingly close to a closer -- except that when it comes to calling it "it," the Clintons have a different definition of "it" than most of us. She was looking for Hoosier double digits to balance out what was certain to be a drubbing in NC, but she got just two digits, which isn't the same as double digits by a long shot.

And speaking of long shots, Obama's 200,000+ margin in voters yesterday now puts him back on top of the popular vote, which Clinton previously could lay claim to by counting Michigan and Florida's screwed-up primaries. So the only cloak left for Hillary to wrap her hopes in is that she can win in the big states, especially the ones with a lot of old-line Dems who aren't exactly in the front lines of the tolerance movement. Not much to cling to.

So it looks like the primaries turned out pretty darn well for the GOP. Hillary played her part in bruising the party and playing up Obama's many weaknesses, and we ended up with the one candidate most likely to appeal to Dems who are mature enough to fear an Obama presidency.

But GOP campaign chief Tom Cole says the party is facing a disastrous election in November. Is he just fundraising -- gotta have a big problem to raise big funds! -- or is he right?

Calling It: Super-Delegates Will Go To Obama

Fellow blogger Thomas talked with Hugh Hewitt today and predicted Hillary would sway the superdelegates because they will ultimately prove themselves afraid of a mid-summer Obama meltdown.

I disagree, and it's not a spur of the moment position I'm holding. I've gone back and forth and have certainly found a lot of merit in Thomas' argument. Would that the Dems would nominate Obama and the meltdown would follow.

But in the end, it comes down to this: When you get 92 percent of Indiana black voters voting for Obama, you can bet on 99 percent of black superdelegates going with him, too. That's a healthy block.

And what of the whites? Of course some are tied to Clinton for reasons good, bad and nefarious, and some have genuinely bought into the curious idea that an under-qualified, over-rated junior senator is a good pick for president. Neither faction is enough to lock the election for either candidate.

That leaves what we in public affairs call "the mass in the middle." We know two things about them that are above question: They're white and they're Dems. Now ask yourself, what is the most insulting thing you can call a white Democrat? No, not "conservative." Not even "Bush-lover." It's:

Intolerant!

Fear of being called intolerant will make every other weight on their scales feel like feathers. With their Obama vote, they will forever be able to say they were one of the brave ones who broke the color barrier, they are up there with Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. We all know that a vote for Hillary offers no such tolerance coups, even if she is the first woman candidate. We all like chicks ... but do we all like blacks?

And what the heck, anyone who's still undecided at this point is certainly not a hard-core liberal since the "very liberal" category is going almost two-to-one for Obama. Consequently, it would be worth the risk of losing to a middle of the road Republican like McCain just to get the tolerance cred.

Ultimately, fear of being called intolerant will carry the day for Obama -- and they say America has race problems!

Poll Check

In the final minutes before voters in North Carolina go to the polls, the RCP average has Obama up by 8.0, dominating all the polls RCP scans, from a low of +4.0 to a high of +14.0. (The high, BTW, is Zogby, which is continuing this election season in its quest to prove itself inaccurate and inconsequential.)

In good ol' Indiana, home of most of my relatives and my alma mater, the RCP average shows Clinton up by 5.0 after being behind in the third week of April. The swing is almost as dramatic as in NC, from Obama up by 2.0 to Clinton up by 12.0.

Guess who has Obama up by 2? Zogby, natch.

So there's a swing of 18 points in the NC polls and 14 in the Indiana polls, this after pollsters know pretty much exactly what they'll get from each demographic. So it appears obvious to me that the polling operations that aren't playing fair are cherry-picking their demos (blacks for Zogby, white women for SurveyUSA which has high numbers for Clinton in both polls).

We'll check back this evening to see how the pollsters fared.

Classic Polling Mish-Mash

Here's the lead on a story reporting the lastest USA Today poll:

Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

And here's what a story on an NYT poll has to say:

A majority of American voters say the furor over the relationship between Senator Barack Obama and his former pastor has not affected their opinion of Mr. Obama, but a substantial number say it could influence voters this fall should he be the Democratic presidential nominee.

So who are you going to believe? Once again, we see the only poll that truly counts is the one the voters fill out in the election booth.

hat-tip: memeorandum

The "Progressives" Love Wright

“I’m outraged," said Barack Obama today, "by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. I find these comments appalling. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.”

So he went at least part of the way towards the third option I laid out to him this morning:

Third, he can utterly repudiate Wright, going beyond today's statement, leaving "offend" and "does not speak for me" language behind to say, "I've seen Wright for what he really is and I regret the time I spent in his church, I repudiate him, I so not stand for Liberation Theology, which has served its purpose but is past its time, and I assure the American people that anyone who holds beliefs like his will not be welcome in my administration."

The statement isn't necessary for most Obama supporters, who have already worked out how they'll stay with him despite Wright, but it will likely keep some waverers on Obama's battered ship.

What it won't do is bring back a single soul who has left Obama because of the insights the Wright debacle has given into Obama's character and his ability to pick his mentors. And it certainly won't appease the hard left, who aren't at all happy with how Obama's handled this whole thing ... people like Ruth Conniff of The Progressive, who wrote today, adding more fuel to the fire by praising Wright.

As Obama flails to distance himself from Wright, the left is racing to embrace him and all he believes in:

Much of what Wright said was absolutely true--yet too hot for white America, for the National Press Club, and for a mainstream U.S. Presidential campaign.

What's funny about Conniff's column is that it starts like this ...

Instead, Wright came out swinging, mocking the media for knowing nothing about the black church, for taking soundbites from his sermons out of context, and, basically, for being lazy and ignorant.

... then she proves they were neither lazy nor ignorant by gleefully reveling in all the awful Wright comments that show he was not taken out of context at all.

It was striking to hear the themes of Wright's speech: the criticism of U.S. militarism and imperialism, racial and economic injustice, the references to progressive figures from Cornel West to Jim Wallis, and watch the audience and the press corps react.

Forget the generalizations; let's get into this:

To be sure, Wright's refusal to denounce Louis Farrakhan, his angry-sounding declaration that Farrakhan didn't put him in chains or "make me this color," his assertion that "yes, I believe our country is capable of doing anything" in answer to a question about whether he thinks the United States deliberately infected black people with AIDS will be held against him.

Yeah, but not everyone will hold it against him:

But the audience of his friends and supporters [like Conniff] ate up his strikes back against what has surely been a racist and unfair campaign against him.

Why? Do they think the presidential candidate's long-time pastor is really anti-American ... that all those soundbites really were correct? You bet:

Wright doesn't hesitate to puncture the national myth of America's essential goodness.

Note from Obama camp: Thanks a great big bunch, Conniff.

hat-tip: RCP; art: Ian Davis

What Does Clinton's Vote Lead Mean?

I heard it the other day, checked it out, but only posted it in a comment. Let's make a bit more hay of this and use Mr. Political Almanac, Michael Barone, to carry the message, via Real Clear Politics:

One thing many people haven't noticed about Hillary Clinton's 55 percent to 45 percent victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary is that it put her ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama.

If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes.

With four primaries to go, Obama can count on big numbers in North Carolina. RCP's polling averages have Obama ahead by a tad in Indiana, but I think Hillary might pull out a squeaker, based on Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the downspin Obama's currently in.

I can't find any current Kentucky polling data, but I'm calling it close because the black and redneck populations pretty much balance themselves out and other populations will split between the two. Puerto Rico? Obama has fared poorly with Hispanic voters and who in Puerto Rico isn't Hispanic?

However the ultimate tally tilts, its obvious that the Dems are horrifically split and have no clear front-runner. In the end, Barone thinks it will be Obama who walks away with the nomination. But you have to ask, who would want this stinkin' nomination. As Bob Herbert puts it:

The share of Clinton voters who have been telling exit pollsters that they will not vote for Senator Obama if he wins the nomination is inching toward the red zone. At the same time, there is growing resentment of the Clintons’ tactics among Obama partisans, especially the young and African-Americans.

I've felt since early in the campaign that Hillary would be the easier candidate to beat, but now I'm not so sure. Obama isn't projecting the strength that's needed to be president (and Hillary is showing bulldog tenaciousness, if not strength), and given that Rev. Wright has utterly trashed the cause d'etre of the Obama campaign -- newness, reconciliation -- what possible reason would anyone have to vote for him?

The only thing about the Dem race that isn't too close to call is that whoever emerges when the dust settles will be damaged goods. Thank you, Mike Huckabee, for effectively splitting the GOP vote so we didn't have to suffer a similar fate!

Hillary composit: Danz Family

Pennsylvania Poll Predictions

As Keystone Dems (and "Operation Chaos" GOP voters) cast their votes today, predictions of their actions are all over the board -- from Obama winning by 3 to Hillary winning by 10.

The Real Clear Politics polling average has her as a six-point winner. As the campaign has settled down, the pollsters have improved their performance, and with all eyes on PA, this is a most important test of their capabilities. We'll check back tonight.

For what it's worth, the gamblers are picking Hillary. Intrade Live Quotes have Hillary to win at 92.7% and Obama to win at 10.6%.

Another Endorsement Obama Can Do Without

First, it was Hamas endorsing Obama. Now it's Michael Moore (who, by the way, brings up Hamas in his endorsement!) adding his name to the list of high profile supporters who aren't helping Obama.

And as you'd expect from Moore, it's a rock-solid, both-feet-on-the-ground endorsement:

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

As I recall, Hillary voted wrong in the Dem's eyes on this or that -- oh, the Iraq war for example -- and she's not forgiven for that because she's just some chick, not a massive public movement.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active.

As I read that, a song popped into my head:

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

We all know how well that went. But being a Dem is never having to say you're a fan of history.

High on hamburger, Moore thinks the Obama movement, representing at best one-third of America, will sweep their man into office and on their one-third power alone, the grip of corporate America on DC will disappear in a wisp of sulfurous smoke to be replaced by a Chavez-esque people's paradise.

The only thing that stands in the way, of course, is Obama's inexperience, incompetence and hard-left tilt racism.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Sure, there are some Americans who will never vote for a black man. I don't know any personally, but I've heard they're out there. I do know lots of Americans who won't vote for a man who's ego is bigger than his experience, who is a Socialist in moderate clothing, and who doesn't have the good sense to leave a church where the pulpit is occupied by a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity.

I stole that last phrase from Moore, who applied it to Hillary for even bringing up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Moore's endorsement is as much a condemnation of Hillary for the sin of talking about race as it is a hero-worship of the man who, post-Wright, decided he wanted to open a dialog on race.

So, tomorrow voters in Pennsylvania will go to the polls knowing one of the craziest Dems of all thinks Obama is the right choice and Hillary should be damned to Dem Hell for verbalizing what a lot of people think about the Obama-Wright relationship. Moore's brand of corporation hatred may play well in some blue collar strongholds, but in the process he's managed to remind these same voters of Wright, Farrakahn and Hamas, three names that won't play in PA.

So thanks, Michael. Job well done.

hat-tip: Jim

Caution: White Guy Blogging

So I've been scrutinized, and that's who I am!

I hate blacks and I hate women. I've got all the power. I cannot be relied on. I have a terrible temper, and I'm fine with having it.

Funny, that's not what I feel, act or think like, but Nora Ephron writing at Huffpo sums up white men in so many words, so it must be so.

No one will call Ephron anything derogatory and overused to the point of meaninglessness -- racist, sexist -- for denigrating me and my white male brothers as terribly as she has, but that's OK; we expect it. It just comes with having all the power, you know.

Since the Dems have been running icons this election season, they've ended up where they deserve to end up, even if Ephron isn't crazy about it:

Here's another thing I don't like about this primary: now that there are only two Democratic candidates, it's suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race.

You could say it's an election about the economy and the war, but what fun would that be? Why focus on vital things when it's much more fun to call people names -- or accuse others of calling people names, or accuse their spouses of calling people names?

But when you run a race like the Dems have run, which as a Dem you have to do because identity politics is what you are, you end up with results like this; you end up running a race that means nothing because the only difference between the candidates is sex, race and age.

And for some reason, they've left age out of it. Until after the primaries, when they face that old white guy.

I might just be an insensitive, out of touch white guy, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter if the president is a man, a woman, a black or a white or anything else. What matters is policy and position -- not about race and gender, but about things that actually matter.

You'd think it would be the Dems that are saying that, but it's not. It's me, the GOP white guy, because they're fixated on the genetic matter of two individuals instead of where their policies will take us.

That leaves us white men, and all the intelligent people who join us in this effort, to think not of race or gender, but of the future, and to vote from our brains, not our hearts, skin or our sex organs. It's unfortunate, really, that all the power still resides in my white male brothers in Pennsylvania and Indiana, but that's the card they've been dealt by the Dems.

America's great talk on race never happened. Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. Older white women will vote overwhelmingly for Clinton. What a shame that is. I think what Ephron meant to say was this: White Dem men in Pennsylvania and Indiana will actually be voting about what matters, while most of the blacks and women will be voting about symbols that really don't matter at all.

OK, they matter. But only if you're a sexist or a racist.

Update: For a much more intelligent article on the issue, read this one at the other CSM.

Obama: He's Just Had It Too Easy

Who was that lady in the last debate who asked Obama about why he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin? To hear the howling banshees of the Left tell it, she was some sort of vicious plant, asking irrelevant questions.

But this is not someone who should be easily dismissed. Margaret Talev of McClatchy tracked her down -- her name is Nash McCabe, and it turns out that her reaction to Obama is both nuanced and visceral, even though she would probably not use those words to explain it.

First, her background: 52, from Latrobe PA, out of work after being the sole bread-winner for her family (she and her husband) nearly all her working life, since he was injured in a coal mining accident early on and has been in horrible health ever since. She's anti-war, anti-McCain (too much like Bush), and as Talev puts it, "On paper, her stances make her as likely to support Obama as Clinton."

So why does she dismiss Obama and support Hillary?

[McCabe's life is] no Hawaiian prep school and Ivy League story, unlike Obama's. It's a slice of working-class Pennsylvania, the core of Hillary Clinton's support there.

In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president. In Obama, she sees someone who rose like a rocket, always has a smooth explanation for everything — whether it's about his former preacher or the flag pin — and who makes it all look too easy.

"That's what upsets me about Barack Obama," she says. "He takes everything so nonchalantly."

She may not be likely to vote for McCain now, but her selection criteria puts him a lot closer to her preferred candidate than Obama. It's evident the Dems have to worry that come November, the Nash McCabes of the world are likely to cross party lines or stay home if Obama is the candidate.

Obamaniacs were quick to dismiss the ABC debate as a carnival of trivialities, but that's just more elitism. Intelligent people aren't swayed by flag pins. Intelligent people thing you'd better look at Rev. Wright instead of just dismissing him.

Well, I get the sense that Nash McCabe has more smarts that a Volvo wagon-full of Obama elitists. That's why Obama is a highly divisive force in the Dem party (not Clinton, it turns out!), forcing a split between the snotty-nosed Dems and the salt of the earth Dems, a split that will be difficult to heal before November.

Defending Charlie And George

Memeorandum is a daily read for me, and today is no different ... well, that's not right. It's very different.

I have never seen 25 stories posted on the same topic before today, but there they are: 25 stories, all of them critical of ABC's handling of last night's debate. Here are some representative headlines:

• The Debate: A Shameful Night for US Media
• An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos
• THESE QUESTIONS ARE A DISGRACE
• The ABC News “Freak Show”

Here's the criticism in a nutshell, from E&P:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Well, shoot, what are Charlie and George to do? Here they are employed by a dinosaur media that's trying desperately to survive, getting ready to run a debate between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Ask a question on health care and what do you get? No sparks, no recognizable difference between the two. Ditto for the mortgage meltdown, the war, the economy -- just two Libs with Lib ideas that are separated by fly specks and hairs' breadth.

So Charlie and George went on the Internet, maybe asking for a little help to get them started, and they found where the emotion and the meat is. Hillary making up stories, Obama being an elitist snob. And they ran with it.

As they should have.

The fact that the left is howling in unison this morning is evidence they did the right thing. Americans elect presidents for two reasons: Policy and heart. With Obama and Hillary, though, it's all heart since they're policy clones, so Charlie and George gave voters -- not leftist pundits and campaign czars -- what they needed to decide how to cast their primary vote.

We'll get to the meaty stuff after the conventions, when the two remaining candidates for the job will have very, very different answers to questions about the economy, the war and the state of our nation.

Yeah, Let's Hand Health Care Over To These Guys!

As the great health care debate rages, and Dems continue to demand that we entrust our nation's health care system to some sort of national iteration of the Department of Motor Vehicles, consider this very brief clip:



Yes indeed! The government bureaucrats did in fact fire the seasoned supervisors who couldn't speak Spanish instead of the untrained recruits who couldn't speak English.

Will this bizarre turn of events make Oregonians feel safer when the fires start burning?

Extrapolating, will you feel safer going into surgery, knowing the best surgeons were fired because they didn't speak the Spanish, Romanian, Urdu or Tagalog spoken by the scrub nurse?

hat-tip: Jim

Global Warming As A Tax Scam

Step One: End the debate on global warming.

Step Two: Tax to the max.

We've known all along that liberal, tax-lovin' politicians have been so quick to embrace global warming theory because they see it as the ideal tax vehicle. Case in point, from today's LA Times:

SACRAMENTO -- -- Motorists in Los Angeles County could end up paying an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump, or an additional $90 on their vehicle registration, under proposals aimed at getting them to help fight global warming.

Voters would be able to decide whether to approve a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" under legislation being considered by state lawmakers and endorsed by the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The money would fund improvements to mass transit and programs to relieve traffic congestion at a time when transportation dollars from Washington and Sacramento are hard to come by. ...

[The] bill would allow the MTA board to ask voters either for a fee of up to 3% of the retail price of gas, or for a vehicle registration fee of up to $90 per year. The money would pay for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"Programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" allowed under the bill are limited: The funds can go into pet projects of the LA Metropolitan Transit Authority only: More buses for people not to ride, and more subways for people not to ride.

The only thing in the whole wide world that is potentially more evident than the fact that people do not want to pay more for gasoline is that people are content to stay away from mass transit in droves. Years of history of dumping money into mass transit without justifiable increases in ridership, plus millions of decibels of grumbling at the gas pump, plus the fact that CA's last Dem Gov got thrown out of office for imposing higher auto registration fees haven't changed anything for the drafter of this legislation, Mike Fuhrer Feuer of Los Angeles.

Guess what party ol' Mike belongs to.

Right.

Feuer should be soundly drubbed by the Parents United Against Discrimination (What?! There is no such group?!) for penalizing families because his bill would impose higher registration fees on SUVs than dinky sedans. Try to fit three kids, a dog and soccer equipment into a Prius. Plus, if you've got a gaggle of kids, chances are you've got far less disposable income than the DINK in the Prius.

Feuer also evidenced the Dems' cavalier disregard for the small-d democratic vote of the people. We Californians voted to require a 2/3 vote before new taxes can be imposed -- so Feuer decided to call this a "fee," not a tax. If it dings like a tax and steals like a tax, funds useless programs like a tax, and is supported by Dems like a tax, it must be a tax.

As expected, the Greenies are ecstatic at the prospect of getting LA burdened down with a carbon tax ... but they won't say it in as many words, as evidenced by this quote from Tim Frank of the Sierra Club:

"People will support it if they know it's something that will not only fight global but improve their quality of life."

Maybe I'm a dufus, but I'm not getting this. How does having less disposable income or having to ride a bus improve my quality of life?

And don't tell me improved air quality. Air quality has been improving ever since the Clean Air Act was passed in the 1970s, despite more cars on the road, more vehicle miles traveled, and more hysterical wailing from the Greenies and the Warmies.

Never let mere facts get in the way of your push to create the Fourth Reich perfect high-tax Democratic dream state.

The State Of The Dem Disunion

Not exactly sure what my friend Jim is doing reading Kos, but happily he found something really funny while perusing the hard left:

"I've been thinking."
"Really? What about?"
"I've decided your candidate's better than mine."
"What???"
"Yeah. I've been reading diaries and stuff. Your candidate's better than mine."
"That's weird, because lately I've been leaning toward your candidate."
"Really? How can you say that? Yours is clearly better."
"Not after the stuff I've read. You'd have to be crazy to support that keg of dynamite."
"But yours can beat McCain in November."
"No, yours has a much better chance."
"That's bullcrap. Yours isn't imploding."
"Well, yours isn’t getting hammered by the press."
"What??? Have you been living in a hole in the ground?"
"No, but I'd say you have."
"Look, I don’t want to fight about this. We're both Democrats and we both want to beat the Republicans, right?"
"Right. But if you're supporting the candidate that I'm running away from, we're gonna get clobbered in November."
"You really are f***ed up, you know that?"
"I'm not the one flushing our chances down the crapper, douchebag!"
"A**hole!"
"Party wrecker!"
"I'm writing a diary!"
"Me too!"

[ker-SLAM!]

Meanwhile, McCain gets to campaign with his former opponent, making happy-face and raising bucks.

Go Hillary, fight Obama!

Go Obama, fight Hillary!

Photo courtesy of the goofy but fun McCainBloggette blog.

Fools Who Trust Big Government

In this week's Watcher's Council readings, there's a bright post, Have a Clear Identity, from Hillbilly White Trash on Dems and the GOP that includes this:

With all that division within their ranks why are Democrats so good at keeping their little fleet of ships all sailing in the same direction? It is precisely because the Democrat party is so fractured and fractious that it is so good at keeping order within its own ranks. It is a matter of survival. If they couldn't keep everyone more or less in line the party would fly apart and they would never win an election.

What unites Democrats is a desire for continued increase in the size, scope and power of government at the expense of the individual.

That's a good working definition, although I might simplify it to "faith in government's superiority." As a Christian, I'm used to challenges to prove my faith, and I can dish as well as receive, so what is the Dems' justification of their faith in government in light of stories like this:

SACRAMENTO (Sac Bee) -- California prison administrators and clerks reviewed the file of Sara Jane Olson multiple times since December, failing to catch the miscalculation that led to the premature release of the former 1970s radical, officials confirmed Thursday.

Olson, 61, was paroled March 17, a year before her sentence was to end. She was re-arrested five days later after the error was caught.

We've often heard people jibe the Dems, saying, "Would you trust your health care to the Department of Motor Vehicles?" Let's add to that, "Would you trust your security to the Department of Corrections?"

Fiscal Conservatism: An Unforgivable Sin

Last year, Merced CA GOP state senator refused to vote for a bogus state budget that failed to deal with run-away spending and out of control bureaucrats. His defiance was highly visible, as his refusal to give in to crappy economics held up the state budget.

In return, the state honored him with laurel wreaths and trophies. In your dreams.

It's on.

Voters will be asked whether state Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, needs to
be recalled, and if so, who should take his place.

The recall effort -- spearheaded by Democrats because of Denham's
opposition to last year's budget -- has enough signatures to go before voters,
the Secretary of State's Office announced Tuesday. (Fresno Bee)

Yep. Budget hawk Denham is now officially the target of a recall.

The recall campaign is called "Dump Denham." Being able to alliterate two words is the culmination of creativity in some circles, I suppose. Here's what they have to say about anyone defiant enough to stand up for the taxpayers of California:

The voters have caught on to Jeff Denham – they’re recalling him for the same reasons they take unsafe toys off the shelf and tainted meat out of supermarkets – because they’re no good, and because we deserve better.

Tainted meat? There is something rotten in the state of California, but it's not Jeff Denham. It's the California Democratic Party and the wild-spending, unconstrained Dems in the state legislature.

Uneven Fields

Geraldine Ferraro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

Rev. Jeremiah White:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."

White is talking about a white government, not a black government. This is clearly a statement about race.

Ferraro:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up."

White:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Hillary Clinton immediately distanced herself from Ferraro ...

"I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."

... and before the end of the first day of full-blown media frenzy, she was sacked from her position in the Clinton campaign.

I've just scanned the Brietbart U.S. politics headlines, and there's no big news story about Obama apologizing for his pastor, quitting the church, and urging us all to have a big group hug. That could come tomorrow, or Obama may try to say it's not fair to have a "religious test" for him, any more than it was for Mitt Romney. But Romney's church is a church, not an ongoing racist political rally under the guise of weekly sermons.

Granted, the same quick fate that met Ferraro met Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power after she called Hillary a monster, she was canned, and Obama issued a statement distancing himself from her. But Power didn't ist-speak -- nothing racist, nothing sexist -- just something in crushingly bad taste.

Now, if Ferraro had used rhetoric in the style of Rev. Wright, her comments would have been more along the line that because Obama is black, he sells crack, has a long rap sheet with prison time, and is a sexual threat to decent white women everywhere.

And even though we all know what Powers said is a pretty accurate characterization of the junior senator from New York, it was far short of what she would have said if mimicking Rev. Wright's style. After all, he said the 9/11 victims got what they deserved.

Obama had to know this was coming. He's sat in the church and has heard the sermons. He knows that the preaching there pushes blacks away from America, as Victor Davis Hansen said in delightful understatement:

Most who could sit through those diatribes and venom each week might find it difficult to have a balanced view of so-called “white” people or the country at large.

Yet Obama, knowing America's double standard when it comes to race speak, didn't bother to distance himself from Wright, other than saying the Rev. sometimes gets wound up and is a bit of a crazy uncle. Well, you can't leave a crazy uncle; he's family. But you can leave a church, and should if the teachings are inflammatory and make you uncomfortable.

If this blows over without doing serious damage to Obama, without changing the media's go-light coverage of him, we know that what I've been worrying about is true: The GOP will not be able to challenge Obama without cries of "Racist! Racist!" from every corner.

Or "Sexist! Sexist!" if Hillary wins the nomination.