Tuesday, March 4, 2008

He's here........

The image “http://paranormalinsider.com/poltergeist_tv.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

After self-imposed exile I have chosen to return at the appointed time, March 4th, knockout punch day. Well, hopefully knockout day.

My topic for today is again my incredible disappointment in our country's conservatives. I feel myself drifting further and further away from the conservative base and the GOP, and it has very little to do with what are traditional conservative principles. It has everything to do with the behavior and attitudes of contemporary conservatives. I just don't want to associate with them. I am in fact deeply ashamed to have once been part if their movement.

Suspect #1:

Rush Limbaugh. This is his mugshot, by the way, when he was arrested on drug charges.
Rush Limbaugh Mug Shot

Rush Limbaugh is calling on his loyal listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton:
"It will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need and it'll be fun, too."

Wow. Democracy is a soap opera? It's a fun game? What happened to all those deeply held beliefs, all that screaming about abortion and gun rights and taxes and the constitution? Conservatives can walk into a voting booth and contradict everything they stand for and vote for the person they most despise, just to cynically cause mischief and play? Does their vote mean so little to them, that they can throw it away, because it's "fun"? Because it's good strategy? Mike Huckabee is out there, asking for your vote, fighting for the unborn, fighting against illegal immigration, fighting for all those things you claim to hold so dear, and you leave him hanging out to dry because you'd rather play games?

This is what has become of conservatives. They have traded in the legacy of William Buckley and Ronald Reagan, principled, steadfast men who believed in a cause that was greater than themselves, for Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who believe in nothing but their own greatness, and in their own capacity to provide entertainment. Can you imagine either of those great men pulling the lever for Hillary? No.

Maybe one day this independent will be back in the conservative fold. But that day won't come until the rotten, dead heart of it has been cut out. Until then I will look to a man of principle and conviction who can unite this country and, like Reagan, help us be proud of ourselves again, instead of small, selfish, and mean. That man is Barack Obama. I pray and hope he wins the day.


Monday, March 3, 2008

Weird Picture Time: Caption This!

Is this an example of unbiased reporting?*

Hey Walker--
I clicked through your link on Obama's Sermon on the Mount reference, just see what version of it you read, as I had already read it elsewhere. And it was in this manner that I discovered the existence of CSN News Service. I decided to read up on the "News This Hour" as reported by CSN. This is what I discovered: "Obama's Candidacy 'Speaks to Muslims Abroad.'" Dear Texelection readers, after reviewing the story, does this headline strike you as fair, or not? Let the media criticism commence.

PS: I have posted about this before, as it was the address that brought Senator Obama to my (favorable) attention, but for a much longer statement from the Senator on the relationship between religion and public life, go here.

*See Walker's post on an obscure Reuters wire item from earlier today.

Predictions for Tomorrow's Primaries


Alright, folks, let's bring some serious FUN to the blog!!!

I am pretty damn good at prognosticating election returns, I must add.

Tomorrow we are facing four Democratic primaries (I don't care about how
much McCain destroys Huckabee): Texas, aka the Big Kahuna, Ohio, aka, the Little
Kahuna, Rhode Island, aka The Postage Stamp State, and Vermont, aka, Little
Stalingrad.

I am going to go on record and say that the BIG NEWS STORY of tomorrow might
will be: "Clinton Surges to Wins in Three of Four Primaries".

She will win Ohio by +8, Texas by +6 (mostly on the backs of Hispanic Democrats),
and Rhode Island by +8.

Obama will win Little Stalingrad handily but it will matter little in the noise of the evening.
Clinton will add a few delegates to her column but not enough to seriously close the gap to Obama because of the strange Democratic party primary rules.
Clinton's next talking point will become, "Hey, look at me. I won New York, California, Texas, and Ohio. I also won in Michigan and Florida (although they supposdely won't be seated). I should be the nomimee. I can win big states!"
Look for a protracted primary campaign after tomorrow. Tuesday, March 3rd will settle nothing.

Obama's Sermon on the Mount



Barack Obama is a professed Christian and member of Trinity Unity Church in Chicago, Illinois. He is also a candidate for the office President of United States. Barring a miracle by Hillary Clinton, he will be the nominee for the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama also holds several heterodox views about Christian morality. Heterodox to other Christians, that is. He is pro-abortion and pro-gay civil unions/adoption.

Senator Obama was at a campaign event yesterday. It was a town hall meeting with a question/answer format. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

So Obama believes that the Sermon on the Mount condones sexual unions between two people of the same sex. He also believes that Romans is "obscure". Where did he learn that?

Romans 1:24-27 is the "obscure" passage that Obama referenced in his answer, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised, Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

What makes Romans "obscure" to Obama? We may never know. Maybe it is obscure because it doesn't fit into his belief system? Maybe it is obscure because it might hurt his chances of being his party’s nominee?

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Mmmm…Now, a Christian can certainly be pro-abortion, I suppose. But they would be wrong and clearly going against biblical, orthodox Christianity.

Obama certainly has voted pro-abortion. When he was in the Illinois Senate he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a "devout Christian."

"In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts," he said. "I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. I used to go quite often.

"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."

You can read the whole story here.

Is This An Example of Un-biased Reporting?

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL03124515

This explains a lot

When I was swooning over the final season of the West Wing a few years ago (the last refuge of those demoralized by the Bush presidency), Mark used to say, "You know, you're a Santos Democrat!" Santos was the democratic presidential candidate played by Jimmy Smits. Turns out he was based on Obama.

I guess smart, pro-growth, anti-tax policies work......



As it relates to the huge primaries tomorrow...
From the Wall Street Journal:
"As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race around Ohio and Texas for tomorrow's primaries, they are telling a tale of economic woe. Yet the real story isn't how similar the two states are economically but how different. Texas has been prospering while Ohio lags, and the reasons are instructive about what works and what doesn't in economic policy.


There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.
Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.


Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are losing auto jobs, but many of these "runaway plants" are not fleeing to China, Mexico or India. They've moved to more business-friendly U.S. states, including Texas. GM recently announced plans for a new plant to build hybrid cars. Guess where? Near Dallas. In 2006 the Lone Star State exported $5.5 billion of cars and trucks to Mexico and $2.4 billion worth to Canada.


Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state's problems on President Bush. But Ohio's economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted. Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.


Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations.


On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.
So tomorrow the eyes of America will be on these two states moving in different directions. Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call.


The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio."

Posted Without Comment


Sunday, March 2, 2008

Dirty Democrat Tactics...


The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses.

The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."


Typical. Can you imagine the outcry of "disenfranchisement" if a Republican put out memos like this?

Saturday, March 1, 2008

At a recent fitness event Gov. Schwarzenegger is looking fit....

....and the guy on the right ain't lookin' too bad either.....

I understand that you all are frustrated

By the undue adulation Obama is receiving. I agree that it is unwarranted. I also understand that he has some compormised positions, and some statements in his past that contradict some of his over-lofty rhetoric. (Though I found the affirmative action statement that Walker linked to to be characteristically thoughtful and nuanced, not particularly polarizing--though I understand if you believe that affirmative action is always polarizing you would see it differently.)

However, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean everyone is not out to get you. By which I mean that just because some people are freaking out over Obama (a group in Fort Worth, I think it was, recently applauded one of his sneezes--tried to find the you tube link but I couldn't) does not mean that he is not the best candidate to be president in 2008.

I do not believe Obama is politically uncompromised. I think it's great that people are starting to throw the book at Obama now. It is past time. I do believe that will.i.am has come unhinged, and he and his ilk need to realize that their hero is not completely pure. But he has the talent to succeed, and the kind of approach to public life that people are desperately hungry for--witness Obamamania.

Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope--before all this presidential insanity started--that he knew he was a blank canvas onto which people projected a lot of different things. I wonder what he is thinking now about all this. When we saw him speak in Houston last week, he walked on stage in a Toyota Center full of 20,000 screaming fans, stopped, and just squinted up into the cheap seats. He didn't beam, or wave. For just a second, he looked puzzled, or possibly concerned. Then he walked to the podium and began his address.

What would you do in his shoes? Tamping down the ardor of the fans would probably be unwise in a race this tight. But he has to be making the same assessments all of us are about the precarious situation he's in. In the last year, Obama has grown as a candidate due to tough competition from Senator Clinton. Time will tell whether this next phase of the campaign will help turn him into the statesman America needs now, or disappoint the millions who have placed their hopes for change in him. Using history as a guide, I'm betting on the former.

NAFTA and Hypocrisy



When politicians demagogue an ally most of them just go ahead and do it. But Obama is so nice he lets the target of his attacks know he doesn't mean it. Really is a new kind of politician.
Yes he can!

Yeah, but that's what I was saying four years ago......

Friday, February 29, 2008

If I was McCain.....

.....I would ask Obama to clarify these statements.

There is nothing so loathsome, so un-American, and so un-democratic than
government policies that balkanize Americans into fractured sub-groups
based on race.

If Obama seriously repudiates these policies of the past I will take seriously
his promises to rise above politics as usual.

As it Relates to Global Trade......

Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric

Updated Wed. Feb. 27 2008 11:45 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

"Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said."

CTV is a reputable Canadian news bureau.

If this is true it could create an opening of hypocrisy, not a difficult thing when your presidential campaign is based largely on swooning Messianic overtures....

This Stuff is Getting Freaking Ridiculous



Obama, Obama......
Obama of the World.....
Obama, Obama......
Very Obama of Very Obama......
Obama, Obama.....
Tuck me in at night.....
Obama, Obama.....
Mighty legislator.....wonderful friend.....

This type of group-think-mass-adulation-hysteria driven by the consumerist entertainment industry will quickly turn off lots of people.

Is Jessica Alba supposed to represent something profound?

I am not looking for a savior. I already have one. I am looking for a good president.

Talk about setting expectations a little high. Even if he wins he's doomed.

Obama....Obama......

Are the Democrats Serious About Free Trade?




Like many Americans I watched the most recent Democratic debate between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I almost fell asleep while watching the two argue about one another's healthcare plan for the 494th time but my curiosity was again piqued when the topic finally switched away from healthcare to NAFTA and free trade.

I enjoyed watching both senators wiggle around a little bit in their chairs. It seems that they support NAFTA when they are in the South. They'll talk about how great it is for inland port cities like Laredo while trying to win Texas votes but they'll pander to the "I lost my factory job" crowd in the old steel regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Hillary was especially apologetic because it was her husband who signed NAFTA into law. Hillary said that she "quietly and privately" thought NAFTA was wrong back then. Mmmm...How convenient.

After the NAFTA portion of the debate ended I was left scratching my head. Which is it? Does the future president of the United States (assuming Democrat victory which is not a far gone conclusion) have any idea what free trade actually does?

I think that we saw typical Democrat pandering during the debate. A recent Wall Street Journal piece by Kimberly Strassell agrees with me.

Here are some highlights...

"I think Lou Dobbs took the pulse of America and realized he could drive his ratings up by engaging in protectionist rhetoric and pandering. I think there are an increasing number of politicians who are also pandering to the less informed emotional impulses of a lot of U.S. voters," says Cal Dooley, a former Democratic congressman from California who helped lead the party to trade victories in the 1990s....

If Democrats wanted be trusted on national security, they've got to underpin their promises with a commitment to trade. "Once you are president of the United States you have to first and foremost protect the security of the United States, and one of the tools that you have to protecting that security is in building strong relationships that are going to be founded on an economic partnership," he says.

In other words, it's hard to make nicey-nice with the global community when you are stiffing it on trade.

You can find the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424592454501493.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries.


Have Americans lost factory jobs because of NAFTA? Sure. But cotton weavers lost jobs when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin too. Progress happens. People adjust and learn new skills. Should we have held back the industrial revolution because it hurt farm jobs????

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Misrepresenting Statistics

Democrats Are Not Saints

Walker suggests in his previous post that the Republican Party has done more for African Americans than the Democratic Party. At no time did I ever assert anything different. It is debatable whether this record of supporting civil rights holds true after the 1960s, for some would argue that entitlement programs actually hurt minorities instead of help them. Never mind that.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Republican Party was the traditional party of civil rights before the 1960s. That was back when the Democratic Party was the party of the South. Walker asserts that "The Democratic Party certainly panders more with an old south kind of 'we'll take care of you' attitude all the time," but this was NOT true prior to the 1950s. Before then, the Democratic Party was the part of the white South, and it most certainly did not represent African Americans.

Statistics for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Let's look at the statistics regarding passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to see just how split the Democratic Party was on this issue. (By the way, I got these statistics from Wikipedia, so I have no idea whether they're accurate.)

The entire measure was divisive, as we can see from the total passage. For the Senate version, the votes were 73% for and 27% against. In the House, it was 70% for and 30% against. About the same, I would say.

By party, however, things get odd. For the Senate version (in Yes-No format):

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

I'm not sure where Walker got his figures, but he says,

"89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A FAR greater percentage than Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the struggle for civil rights was overwhelming supported by Republicans and overwhelming hated by Democrats."

I'm not sure whether those figures are "overwhelming," as Walker suggests. Nevertheless, things get really strange when we divide the votes by Southern and Northern states, where Southern refers to those states that were once a part of the Confederacy. Northern refers to all other states, no matter where they are.

I don't think the statistics make the Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad, for I'm not pleased that anyone chose to vote against civil rights. And it really upsets me that my chosen party was so divided on this issue. But I think this division needs to be clarified instead of taking Walker's assertions at face value.

In the South, there were ten Republican Representatives, and all of them voted against the Bill. There was one Republican Senator, and he voted against it, too. For the Democrats, it's no better: 93% of Representatives voted against the bill and 95% of Senators voted against it. Here are the statistics:

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

In the North, however, it was a different story:

The House:
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate:
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

I'm not going to make much of these statistics except to say that the Democrats voted FOR the Civil Rights Act in the North in similar percentages that they voted AGAINST it in the South. For the Republicans, they were actually more divided in the North than the Democrats, but the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions, except that they were more divided in the North.

The Red State/Blue State Divide
What is really interesting about these statistics, however, is how things switched after this bill. Not only did some representatives leave their party based on this issue, but the very notion of Democrats and Republicans changed. The South became the Republican bastion and the Northeast became the Democratic post. Did this change happen all because of the Civil Rights Act? Absolutely not, but it helped fuel it. Before the 1960s, the South ALWAYS voted Democrat. And then, they began to pull away.

Check out the presidential election maps to see this shift most clearly. In 1956, only seven states went Democrat, and they were all southern states (here defined more broadly). Then, in 1960, more states went Democrat. In 1964, however, it all changes. Now, only six states go Republican, and only one is not a southern state--Arizona.

In 1968, everyone goes Republican except for a handful of southern states who vote for Wallace, an independent running on basically a segregation/states' rights platform, and a few mainly northern states that went Democrat.

With a few exceptions, the Red State/Blue State divide has been constant since 1964. Just coincidence? I doubt it.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Why Aren't More African-Americans Republican?

The Republican party has a much better record in terms of civil rights than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party certainly panders more with an old south kind of "we'll take care of you" attitude all the time, but what has the Democratic Party actually done for the African American?

*It was the Republican Party that were abolitionists during the civil war.

*A republican president freed the slaves.

*Frederick Douglass once said, "The Republican Party is the ship and all else is the sea."*After the civil war the Republican Party passed the first 3 civil rights acts which outlawed slavery and guaranteed equal protection of the law.

*During the 1920s the KKK was lynching blacks and it was Republican presidents Harding and Coolidge that denounced the KKK violence and supported the federal anti-lynch law, which passed in the Republican house before dying in the DEMOCRAT senate.

*In the 1940s Democrat president FDR refused to have pictures taken with blacks. During that time the Republican party was calling for desegregation of the military and the right to vote.

*In 1964, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) did pass the Civil Rights Act but only after Republicans had introduced a bill of their own.

*89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A FAR greater percentage than Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the struggle for civil rights was overwhelming supported by Republicans and overwhelming hated by Democrats. It just so happens that the President who signed the bill into law was a good man…Lyndon Johnson.

Why I Love Sperm Thurm

It's only tangentially related to Texas elections, but I was reminded of something by reminiscing about my gay skater days in SC.

I met Strom Thurmond in the lobby of a hotel/dorm at Clemson in 1994. A few of us were there, and the old guy came off the elevator and walked up to us and shook all of our hands. Two of the girls with us fawned all over him, saying how great he was. Me, I had no idea it was Strom Thurmond.


Sure, the Republican party abolished slavery, as Maker's Mark points out. But people like Strom Thurmond actually left the Democratic party in the 1960s because of states' rights. And what did the states have the right to do? Segregation. Talk to some people, and they still think states have the right to do whatever they want. Or even communities. There is no such thing as "tyranny of the majority," they say. Instead, there is only the will of the people.

I couldn't believe it that people kept voting for Strom Thurmond. Even people of other races voted for him. Sure, he eventually changed his views on race, but he never renounced his stance on segregation because that was a states' rights issue, and states should have the right still. People said that he was one of the most powerful senators in the country and so we should keep him in office to do good for our state.

Past voting records matter, though. I can accept when someone actually changes his or her mind based on new information, but there are some issues I can't accept, period. The Thurmonater was guilty of one of those.

My fear of some Republican and Libertarian ideas is that they still hold some of those notions of states' rights. I think the notion of the "free market" may stem from the same ideology.

William F. Buckley: 1925 - 2008


From the National Review Online:


"I’m devastated to report that our dear friend, mentor, leader, and founder William F. Buckley Jr., died this morning in his study in Stamford, Connecticut. He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas. As you might expect, we’ll have much more to say here and in NR in the coming days and weeks and months. For now: Thank you, Bill. God bless you, now with your dear Pat. Our deepest condolences to Christopher and the rest of the Buckley family. And our fervent prayer that we continue to do WFB’s life’s work justice."

Bill Buckley was a giant. He will be missed.

18 and Life: Where Edgy Youth Culture and Flamboyance Meet


The mean streets of Columbia, South Carolina....1992......the Strom Thurmond re-election parade had just went by.....18 and Life and his BFF (Best Friend 4-Eva!) Simon had just finished tossing spoiled oranges at the passing motorcade..... this cozy snapshot captured the raw exuberance of the moment.... oh, to be young, gay, and a skater in bustling South Carolina ('The Jewel of the South') during the heyday of 'Thurmond Country'.....
Above them, a refuge within the city, the Copenhagen Gay Center.....a place to read comics, play PlayStation games, and watch vintage Joel Schumacher films....

I wish I knew how to quit you.

Last weekend I was sick with a cold, and last night I had the worst back pain of my life. Some sort of a pinched nerve in my lower back. It seems that being right all the time is bad for my health.

So I will be taking a sabbatical. Since our 3 loyal readers would be become too despondent without my keen political center-left observations, I have asked someone to stand in for me until March 5th, when Barack Obama will have finally banished the Alien queen for good.
My substitute is non other than Dr. Chadwick, who also goes by the nickname "18 and Life". I will keep his full identity a secret, for he too, is employed by the academic disciplines, and we don't want another Jim Beam episode.

Dr. Chadwick cut scholarly teeth on his groundbreaking dissertation: "Ollies, 180s and Sexual Boundaries: Gay Skaters underground in South Carolina." He and his wife are blessed with the absence of children this week, so I have asked him to find time to blog for me when not researching and field-testing his new work, "The Lost Kama Sutra", which I understand is a pop-up book.

So I will see you guys on this blog in about a week. Let me heal and get some real work done. I will read faithfully.

Maker's Mark

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

LA Times/Bloomberg: Mccain 44%, Obama 42%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/feb%2021-25%20bloomberg%20la%20times%20poll.pdf

Guys, this far out doesn't mean jack but this is the highwater mark for Senator Obama....the fawning press, the lack of negative ads, the lameness of Senator Clinton as an opponent....

McCain will continue to consolidate the base and get stronger as people start to learn more about Obama's record and lifelong liberalism.

A moderate vs. a liberal?

Moderates win most often than not......

WD