April 29, 2008
Apr 29 00:38 The Latest On King Apr 29 01:37 Rendell: Democratic Nomination Process Undemocratic Apr 29 02:10 BREAKING NEWS!!!! Apr 29 02:38 Sen. Obama Doesn't Dare Answer These Questions Apr 29 12:47 King's Out of Surgery!!! Let The Recovery Begin Apr 29 13:55 Greta Takes Obama To The Woodshed Apr 29 17:45 Coleman Statement on Franken's Fianancial Fiasco
The Latest On King
I just got another update on King's condition from his wife. Here's the text of Barb's email:
Thanks so much, Gary, for forwarding the emails and I can't begin to tell you how moved and comforted I am by this outpouring of love and concern for King.Phil Miller has chimed in his support via this post . Speed has a great post on King's condition here , as well as his story of being laid up with this painful affliction.
When I visited him tonight he was heavily sedated but resting more comfortably. I think the surgery will transpire at scheduled time (8:15 p.m. or so) but I'm not positive.
I'll continue to keep you posted, and thanks again to the great blogging family for their love and support,
Barbara B.
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:38 AM
No comments.
Rendell: Democratic Nomination Process Undemocratic
The last thing Howard Dean wanted to do on Sunday's Meet the Press was defend the process in the Democrats' presidential nominating process. That's what he was forced to do, though, thanks to this quote from Ed Rendell:
GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA): The popular vote is, to me, a much fairer indicia than the pledged delegates because the pledged delegates are elected in a very undemocratic way.Here's Dean's reply to Russert's question:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that?Dean's got a point that both sides knew the rules going in. That said, Gov. Rendell is justified because he's saying that it goes against the Democrats' own principles. How can Dean's Democrats justify Hillary winning Texas by a healthy margin but Obama getting more delegates than Hillary? How can they call that proportional apportionment? That's what Al Gore called fuzzy math throughout the 2000 campaign.
DR. DEAN: Well, no, I don't. First of all, I don't agree with it. And secondly, look, we have a set of rules. My job here is not to side with one candidate or the other and talk about pledged delegates or superdelegates or any of that stuff. My job is to take the rules that everybody started with and enforce the rules without fear or favor of any candidate. The--somebody's going to lose this with 49 percent of the delegates in Denver, and that person has to believe that they were treated fairly if--otherwise, we can't win. Look, John McCain is a weak candidate. He's wrong on Iraq, as far as the American people are concerned. We don't want to stay there for a hundred years. He's wrong on the economy; it wasn't the mortgage holders that, that, whose fault this was. He's wrong on healthcare. We should have health insurance for all our kids. He is not a strong candidate.
The only thing that's going to beat us is if we're not unified. And my, in order to be unified, both the losing candidate and the winning candidate have to feel like the system was fair. So Senator Rendell may say--I mean, Governor Rendell may not like the rules, but the rules are what we started with. Most of them have been in place for the last 25 years. That's what we've got to go by, whether you like the rules or you don't like the rules.
Dean's answer isn't pure spin but it's close. Dean's calling John McCain a weak candidate isn't close to the truth. Though Dean will attempt to paint Sen. McCain as a George Bush double, the truth is that that's an uphill fight for Democrats. They'd have better luck selling parkas in Miami than selling John McCain as a Bush clone.
I'm left questioning why he's even attempting that tack, especially given all the articles that've been written about McCain the maverick, the biggeest thorn in President Bush's side. Howard Fineman was on Chris Matthews' show all the time talking about how much trouble Sen. McCain was supposedly causing him. I never bought into that meme, though the internet is littered with those types of stories. (For all the heartburn Sen. McCain was supposedly causing President Bush, the list of achievements on President Bush's resume is rather lengthy.)
Here's proof that Gov. Rendell is right about the undemocratic methods used by Democrats:
MR. RUSSERT: The candidate with the most elected delegates is not guaranteed the nomination?Is it just me or is Gov. Dean doing an excessive amount of tapdancing around these questions? Personally, it sounds like Gov. Dean would rather be taunting a cobra than facing Mr. Russert. To be fair, he should be nervous. Both Democratic candidates have been exposed, one as a lightweight with questionable judgment, the other as someone who can't give a straight answer if her life depended on it.
DR. DEAN: The rules say that the candidate with the most delegates gets the nomination, and I support the rules.
MR. RUSSERT: So that the superdelegates could, in effect, overrule the elected delegates?
DR. DEAN: That, you know, you shouldn't think of it that way. So-called "superdelegates" are, in fact, elected by exactly the same people who vote for the elected delegates. This is just--this is like an--a representative democracy. You elect a--80 percent of the delegates, and they have to do what you ask them to do. The others, the 20 percent you elect, essentially do what's in their best judgment, just like the House and the Senate does. Sometimes you like it, and sometimes you don't. But these folks are elected, all, all of them, almost all of them are elected. A tiny minority are not elected; they're appointed. But most of them are elected. They're elected by the same people who went to the--who go to the conventions and go to the--vote in the primaries. They're governors, senators. A lot of them are, are, are DNC members. There's 21-year-olds there, there's--50 percent are women and so on, and on, on it goes. So this should not be looked at as some bunch of cigar-smoking folks in the back room slapping each other in the back and electing the next president. It doesn't work that way.
This exhange will give you mental whiplash if you think it through:
MR. RUSSERT: But the elected delegates were elected because they ran supporting the person that won the primary or the caucus. What should be the criteria of a superdelegate when they make their judgment as to who to vote for?There you have it. Gov. Dean was for voting the superdelegates voting their conscience until he was against the superdelegates voting their conscience. That was Gov. Dean's personal belief until it wasn't his belief 20 seconds later. Was Gov. Dean lying the first time when he said that it was his personal belief that the superdelegates were "going to vote for the person they think, think can beat John McCain" or was he lying when he said that that wasn't his personal belief? Or is it just that he's tapdancing as frantically as any political party chairman has ever tapdanced?
DR. DEAN: Well, I'm not going to say what their criteria should be because that's not what the rule--the rules don't give you a criteria. They're supposed to vote their conscience. My personal belief is they're going to vote for the person they think, think can beat John McCain , which is what I think a lot of these voters are voting for. I think a lot of these folks are going to the polls and are going to go the week after next in Indiana and North Carolina are saying, "Which one of our folks, of our folks, Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, can best beat John McCain?"
MR. RUSSERT: So your personal view is that even if someone has won more elected delegates, if you think the other person would be a stronger candidate against John McCain, you'd opt for the other person ?
DR. DEAN: Tim, that is not my personal view. My personal view is, I am the chairman of this party, we have a set of rules that have been in place for a year and a half, and I am the person who's in charge of upholding the rules whether I like them or not. Are there some rules I might change next time around? Yeah, maybe so. But right now we're focusing on the rules we have. Look, that's all we've got. No--I feel like I'm the referee here at the NCAA finals. You know, you make some calls, but if you stick to the rules and do the right thing according the rules, you're going to end up with a decent process. And that's what we have to do.
Whether it's A, B or C, it's indisputable fact that Gov. Dean's appearance hurt his party by sounding so incoherent.
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:38 AM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS!!!!
Anyone that thinks that Sen. Obama has North Carolina wrapped up better rethink their thinking because of this news :
Gov. Mike Easley will endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, The Associated Press has learned.I didn't buy into the punditry's thinking that North Carolina would be a big Obama blowout. Beasley's endorsement of Sen. Clinton a week before the primary is a momentum-changing event. Sen. Obama still might well win North Arolina but I'm betting that it won't be a blowout.
Easley was expected to announce the endorsement Tuesday morning in Raleigh, the state capital, one week before North Carolina's primary on May 6, according to persons close to the governor and to Clinton. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because a formal announcement had not yet been made.
Easley is a Democratic superdelegate who has served two terms as governor. His decision comes despite several recent polls showing Clinton trailing rival Barack Obama ahead of the state's May 6 primary.
The endorsement is a major boost for the former first lady. Besides being a respected figure among Democrats in the state, Easley is one of the all-important superdelegates likely to choose the party's presidential nominee.
Bob Beckel has often said that "Superdelegates aren't profiles in courage", something that I agree with. If we accept that as fact, then it isn't a stretch to think that Hillary showed Gov. Beasley some polling that showed her running more competitively than is being reported in the press.
There's two other considerations to think about in North Carolina:
- There's a ton of pressure on Obama. Expectations are high because of the high percentage of African American voters in the Democratic primary.
- Would Sen. Obama be perceived as a weak candidate if he doesn't win with a significant margin?
Either way, North arolina just got alot more interesting.
Technnorati: Hillary , Mike Beasley , Endorsement , North Carolina , Indiana , Primaries , Superdelegates , Election 2008
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:11 AM
No comments.
Sen. Obama Doesn't Dare Answer These Questions
George Will has written another masterpiece , this time asking Sen. Obama a set of rather difficult questions, questions that actually require intellectual heft. Here's the easiest question in the bunch:
You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?Sen. Obama can't answer that question because it requires a capitalist answer, something that'd infuriate Sen. Obama's ardent socialist supporters. This is the only time it's difficult being a liberal. It's easy being a liberal if you're never asked thoughtful questions. It's immensely difficult when they're asked why questions. Liberals are used to giving answers to 'what' type questions. It's difficult for liberals to answer 'why' questions because that requires logic.
If I've learned anything about politicking, it's that most liberals can't handle answering why questions because they're so used to not having to defend their principles and policies. Altogether too often, liberals are asked a what question, which often gets accepted without further questioning.
Here's a most difficult question for Sen. Obama to answer:
Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors-say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue-matter?Sen. Obama can't answer that question. If he gave a response, it'd be all nice sounding soundbites which meant nothing.
The more intense the glare of the spotlights shine on Sen. Obama, the more likely it is that he'll get exposed as a lightweight who isn't qualified to be president.
I strongly recommend that you read the entire column because it's one of Mr. Will's finest works.
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:39 AM
No comments.
King's Out of Surgery!!! Let The Recovery Begin
Barb, aka Mrs. Scholar, just sent me an email update with the latest on King. Here's the content of that email:
King had his gall bladder removed but needed the major incision for which his hospitalization will be prolonged until Thursday or Friday.I just replied to Barb's email, wishing King a speedy & full recovery, combined with a return to the airwaves after getting a sufficient amount of rest.
Apparently, it was very infected.
Barring complications, he will recuperate on the 4th floor of the hospital.
I'll continue to keep you posted; meantime, what a blessing the Blogosphere has been. I can't thank you enough,
Barbara
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment 1 by Matt Abe at 29-Apr-08 01:30 PM
Long live good King Banaian!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 29-Apr-08 02:03 PM
Amen to that Matt!!!
Greta Takes Obama To The Woodshed
Wow!!! Greta van Susteren just posted something on the Pastor J-Wright-Obama controversy . To say that it was a blistering attack on Sen. Obama's observational skills is understatement. First, here's what the AP is reporting on Sen. Obama's statement:
Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.Let's give Greta credit for asking the most pertinent questions in this paragraph:
Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."
Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.
Reverend Wright is not the man he thought he was,..so naturally people will ask: what took you so long to figure it out? 20 years and only yesterday? are you that oblivious or is this statement political and calculating? and others will applaud him,saying what courage to address the issue,that he is standing up for what he believes even if it means denouncing someone you had admired..and that he is showing candor,It wouldn't take the world's greatest salesman to make the case that Sen. Obama is a typical calculating politician. If it was polled, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of voters would say that they didn't buy into Obama's line that he hadn't heard any of these disgusting, incendiary remarks.
Let's pose this hypothetical question: If Sen. Obama truly didn't notice Pastor J-Wright's disgusting statements over a 20 year period, why should we think that he's qualified to be the leader of the free world?
I don't doubt that people will defend Sen. Obama. I don't doubt that some will praise Sen. Obama for distancing himself from Pastor J-Wright. To those Obama apologists, I'll simply ask one question: Why didn't Sen. Obama distance himself from Pastor J-Wright faster?
In fact, I've thought of another question: Considering Michelle Obama's statements that America "is a downright mean country" and that she was finally proud to call herself an American after people started voting for her husband, why should we believe that Sen. Obama doesn't believe in much of what Pastor J-Wright preaches?
For that matter, why did Sen. Obama stay on the board with William Ayers? Why didn't he utterly renounce Ayers' terroristic attacks in the harshest language possible? After all, the things Ayers did and the things that Pastor Wright said weren't just mildly controversial. Ayers killed people but didn't think he'd done enough. Wright said that white people had invented the AIDS virus to commit genocide on the black race. Wright also told the audience at the National Press Club yesterday that America is a terrorist nation.
Greta, thanks for saying on a large stage what many of us on smaller stages have been thinking for quite some time.
It's time to start questioning everything that Sen. Obama says. We really don't know who he is or what his beliefs are. Based on the information available, America should be worried about him getting elected in November.
UPDATE: According to this article , Sen. Obama is planning a "big press conference" on Jeremiah Wright's incendiary statements.
I'm not buying into this because I question his sincerity. Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Dick Morris said that the best way for Sen. Obama to distance himself was to chastize Jeremiah Wright in the strongest terms possible, then to call a press conference that would deal once and for all with that issue. It sounds like Sen. Obama is following that advice to the letter.
Morris said that that would essentially lay the issue to rest. I don't agree with that. He can have his press conference but unless he's completely straightforward and credible on all the questions asked, people will still have their doubts. It's not like we can't do our own digging into Pastor J-Wright.
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:26 PM
No comments.
Coleman Statement on Franken's Fianancial Fiasco
The Coleman for Senate Campaign just released this statement pertaining to Franken's failure to file his taxes. Here's the text of that statement:
"These are troubling admissions by Al Franken. Clearly, with self-professed violations in 17 different states, there will be many, many questions about this matter. On behalf of the tens of thousands of small businesses in my state, and on behalf of the millions of taxpayers of Minnesota who work hard, obey the rules and follow the laws, I believe this is a serious, and troublesome situation that must be addressed."It's become extremely clear that Al Franken's behavior has been extremely irresponsible in dealing with his financial matters. He wants to become a lawmaker even though he's ignored the laws of 17 different states. It's impossible to take this man seriously. He's either a willful lawbreaker or he's the most incompetent money manager that's ever sought elective office.
Either way, he's someone that should be rejected by voters this November.
As usual, Michael's all over this story . Should we expect anything less?
Posted Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:45 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Apr-08 10:59 AM
OK, so Franken is toast. Now what happens to the Coleman campaign's entire justification for Norm's re-election, which is that he is better than Al Franken?
