Biden out, Hillary in?

I don’t actually think that this will happen- but boy oh boy, for those who enjoy political theater, it’s fun to think about.

The speech Sarah Palin wasn’t allowed to give

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were both invited to speak at a rally today against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a nuclear Iran.  Clinton, after finding out Palin was coming, opted out.  Which is fine- she can do what she likes.  Unfortunately, Palin was then disinvited by rally organizers.  The reason for this is not clear to me.

However, below is the text of the speech she would have given today.  It’s pretty great.

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country – leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York – to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan – and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a “Final Solution” – the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.”

Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman -not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the “Iranian nation would not retreat one iota” from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons ? they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world’s most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran’s desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran’s official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government’s threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad’s rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed. If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the “One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws.” The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women’s rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of “propaganda against the system.” After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to “only” 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that” effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime’s dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran’s behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech – a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran’s allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran’s refined petroleum imports. We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran’s economic influence.
We must target the regime’s assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran’s Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization. Together, we can stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel’s enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain’s promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

Guess I was right

About a month ago I said:

While Obama supporters will simply stay home if faced with a choice between McCain and Clinton, many Clinton supporters will cross over and give McCain a distinct advantage in a race against Obama.

Observe exhibit A:

and exhibit B:

Now, a new question: are these people being reasonable? Independent of any emotional aversion to Obama, does it make sense for a Hillary supporter to switch to McCain?

Let me think about that and get back to you because right now, I could make an argument on both sides of the question and am not sure which is the correct answer.

McCain’s #1 advantage?

Bill Bennett just said on his talk show that McCain’s #1 advantage in the general election is going to be that people who like him the least- people like me- will vote for him anyway. The implication is that people who don’t like Hillary will not vote for her, nor will Obama’s biggest detractors vote for him.

This would be nice if correct- but is this true though? First of all, I know lots of libertarian types who will never vote for McCain. However, I realize that this group represents a small fraction of the folks McCain needs to win over, and anyway, these same people wouldn’t vote for Hillary or Obama, either. Bennett is probably right about the majority of people who don’t care for McCain: the most conservative, townhall worldnetdaily dot commers. It’s certainly true of me. However there is a good chunk of folks- the ones Obama would probably refer to as bitter and clingy- who care very little for his positions on immigration and will absolutely stay home. How many of these are there?

Then there’s the other side of the comment. It is obvious that Obama supporters very much lack depth of vision and critical thinking- so it is not surprising to me that they would not vote for Hillary. Would they vote for the pro Iraq war McCain? On the surface it is tempting to say, “of course not; they’re anti war.” However I can name at least 3 people who I know personally that have told me directly they will vote McCain if Obama does not get the nomination. This makes absolutely no sense- but as I said, we’re talking about Obama supporters. Sense doesn’t enter into the equation. There is also the race aspect. Obama of course has incredibly high number among blacks, and those folks will be extremely upset of Hillary is perceived to have stolen the nomination from Obama via the super delegates.

Will Hill Rod supporters vote Obama in the general? I can’t intelligently comment on this one in a sweeping generalization; my sense is that it depends on why an individual is supporting Mrs. Clinton. Those folks who are part of the older, historically Democrat voting crowd, will definitely vote Obama. However, those Clinton supporters who worry about national security above issues such as abortion are likely to cross over to McCain. There’s lots of other issues that could push a person either way.

So, it seems to me that the only group who will not come out for McCain are those that are simply too angry at McCain about immigration issues to do so; the rest will get and and vote for him. Obama supporters by and large will NOT vote for Hillary, and Hillary supporters might get split right down the middle. Based on this analysis, I think Bennett’s comment is an accurate one; but is it a more important factor in a McCain vs Mrs. Clinton or a McCain vs. Obama race? I believe that it may actually be more instrumental in a McCain v Obama race. While Obama supporters will simply stay home if faced with a choice between McCain and Clinton, many Clinton supporters will cross over and give McCain a distinct advantage in a race against Obama.  This is of course assuming that my anecdotal example of friends of mine who like Obama crossing over to vote McCain is not indicative of a larger trend- which it may be for all I know.

Based on this analysis, it’s my opinion that Obama is definitely the candidate to root for if you are a conservative-leaning voter, but more than that it is important that the Democratic primary process becomes as long and drawn-out as possible.  For this reason, I’m rooting for Hillary to win both North Carolina and Indiana this week; not because I think she’ll be easier to beat in the general, just because the longer the dems argue and fight each other, the better it is for McCain (and by extension, the better it is for America).

Hillary’s personal D-Day

Just to be clear before Super Dooper Yooper Wooper Tuesday, Part Deux tomorrow.

I still think that Hillary will win the nomination, although Obama has done a much better job of bloodying her nose than I ever thought possible.

I know pretty much everyone else would disagree, and that it’s not looking good for her.

However, I stand by my prediction; whether because of the Rush Limbaugh effect (Republicans in Texas and Ohio voting for her tomorrow) or because of the hopeless corruption of the Clintons, or some other unforeseen eventuality, I cannot say exactly. I just have a feeling that she’ll pull it off.

That is all.

What’s a conservative to do?? Plus mid-post bonus: Super Bowl joy

So long, Mittster. It was nice knowing ya.

It’s pretty obvious at this point that the results of Sooper Dooper Yooper Wooper Tuesday aren’t good for conservativism. It seems that, far from being a contender, Romney is a goner. And so that leaves McCain (McYuck) and Huckabee (I’ll refrain from the obvious slur on this one). I would not be surprised at all if Romney drops out this week.

It’s amazing what the roller coaster of life brings along. Just 2 days ago I was reveling in the pain of the object of my despisement (new word!), Mr. Tommy Brady Bunch. So, in the interest of cheering myself up, I’ll revisit that a little now…

HAHAHAHAHAAH!~!!!!!!!!! TOM BRADY IS A LOOOOOOOOOSER! How’s it feel now, mr. dump my pregnant girlfriend for a supermodel? eh? eh? Oh oh what’s that? Not the best ever? Can you say choke? choke choke choke??? No? How about lackluster performance? Can you say that? Oh wait, it’s not monosyllabic. I apologize.

Anyway. Back to the the end of conservative politics and the republican party as we know them. I am feeling sober this morning about the future prospects of many of the principles in which I firmly believe, but I haven’t lost hope. If there’s anything this whole process has taught me, it’s that KNOW ONE knows the future. Nobody, for example, would have predicted a scant 6 months ago that McCain and Huckabee would get this far. That being said, this election cycle is pretty much over for me. I have zero interest in any of the candidates left, and figuring out what I’m going to do in November in the voting booth will be a long difficult process. On the bright side, the very late May Kentucky primary might actually have some say in who wins the noms for a change.. it’s really too bad that they can all just go eat rocks as far as I’m concerned.

Now, although neither I nor anyone else can possibly predict what’s going to happen, I will try to get lucky.

I am sticking with the same prediction on the Democrat side that I’ve been making for over a year: Hillary wins. But, unlike what I had thought previously, it will not be by a landslide, but by the tips of her chest hair. And honestly, that’s the better thing- an Obama presidency would be a disaster.

On the Republican side, I’m sticking with what I’ve been saying since just before Christmas: McCain wins the nom, and ultimately loses the job to Hil Rod. Get ready, America.

And what of the Huckster? Unfortunately, I think we’ll be seeing him again in 2012 (how’s THAT for a prediction?!).

Told ya so

Clinton wins New Hampshire, and as the Drudgereport so astutely observed:

NOW IT GETS FUN!

I meant to put it here on the old blog and neglected to do so, but I have proof that I predicted Clinton is still in this thing on facebook, where I wrote under one of my status thingamajigs:

Ricky thinks it will be a McCain vs. Hillary election. And then he muses, what’s the difference?

So, I stand by that assertion- both parts of it. McCain is basically a pro-life Clinton, minus the whole more-corrupt-than-a-medieval-pope aspects. Which is why I’ll vote for him over her. But just barely.

Every time I hear the words “It’s still too close to call”, I am transported back to a rather temperate November evening at Asbury College in 2000, watching the Bush-Gore election returns with my college hallmates well into the wee hours of the morning, while engaging in much tomfoolery and consumption of Ale8. As mind-nummingly frustrating as those words must be to the rest of the country, they will forever be at least 51% pleasant to my ears.

ABC? I tend to think ABB.

Ladies and gentlemen, the wonder boy himself:

 “If we simply ask higher income Americans to contribute a little more, we can shore up Social Security for generations to come..”

—Democratic Senator and candidate for POTUS, Barack Obama

ASK them to contribute a little more? Oh, is that how Social Security works then? Someone knocks on your door and asks to borrow a couple bucks.. you know, all neighborly like. If that’s the case then shouldn’t April 15th be more of a neighborhood block party?  With sack races and hot dogs? And here I’ve been going along for years now under the impression that I didn’t have any choice in the whole Social Security matter.  Good thing Mr. Obama is there to set the record straight.

I’ve said it many times before, but it needs saying again. The more I hear from Barack Obama, the more I thank the lord above for Hillary Clinton.  2009 through 2012 will be a gloomy 4 years (assuming she becomes president), but when it looks the most bleak, always remember: it could have been a lot worse.

ABC?  More like ABB.

It turns on a dime

The more things stay the same, the more unpredictable they become.

Pat Robertson has done exactly what I have been suggesting the ultra-conservative leadership ought to consider (and complaining about James Dobson not doing)- he’s not only giving Giuliani the benefit of the doubt, he’s endorsing him.

And on the Democrat side, Hillary is in trouble.

Amazing. Only time will tell the tale, but I think this might be a turning point.

Hill Rod! Part Deux

Pretty much, at this point, it’s borderline inevitable.  I don’t want it to be true, but folks, it’s best you start getting used to the idea, because the odds are overwhelmingly good that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States of America.  Katy, bar the door.

Obama can’t beat her- as I’ve spent a little bit of time chronicling here on this blog (and could have spent copious amounts more), he’s probably the dimmest light bulb in the presidential candidate box right now   He’s a goner.  Which is ironic, because he seems to also represent the best chance we have of avoiding President Clinton Now Redux.

So she gets the dem-nom.

McCain is OLD.  Period.  Plus, conservatives hate him.  They really do.  I don’t hate the guy- I’ve actually grown to like him a lot more over the past few months; I don’t make the decisions though, and even if I did, campaign finance reform was probably a big enough sin to disqualify him from the presidential post.

Ron Paul can’t win.  I love his tenacity and his love for libertarian ideals, but let’s face it- the guy’s a nutter.  And even if he wasn’t, his following is nutty enough that the American people would shun him based solely on the people who represent him.  This isn’t fair, of course- but presidential politics rarely are.

Fred Thompson, you say?  Daniel Larison seems to think he’ll be the Republican nominee; not that Larison is a prognosticator of prognosticators- I happen to think it will be Romney- but if he’s right and it is Thompson, he will lose to Hillary.  Despite his being from Tennessee, Thompson isn’t, um, “Christian enough” to appeal to people in the South and the Midwest like those I go to church with- I don’t see the lady who heads up Saturday Night Worship and Prayer voting Fred, for example.  And it doesn’t help that he’s been snubbing James Dobson a little lately, either. His charisma, if he has the right kind, might be able to make up for this, but (from what I’ve seen) he doesn’t have the right kind.  He’s a Hollywood guy- and not an Old Hollywood guy either, like Reagan was.  There’s a big difference between Cary Grant and George Clooney.  Thompson reminds one more of Charles Grodin than Ronald Reagan.

Huckabee.  Has no money.  He’s out.  He’ll hang around a few more months nd disappear.

Giuliani, as my pal Pedro pointed out to me tonight, has been “blackmailed by Dobson”.  Now as a fan of James Dobson I take issue with that choice of words, but I’m not sycophantic enough that his point is lost on me.  Giuliani might have represented the best chance we had to stop the Hillary ’08 bullet train, but his conservative credentials don’t seem to be pure enough for the folks over at Focus on the Family.  I’m sympathetic enough to the positions FotF purport, yet I question the decision to come out against the guy so early.  As has been said over and over again in various places, we are not voting for a Pastor in Chief.

Which brings me to Mitt.  To be honest, I’ve been a fan of this guy from the beginning.  Call me crazy and naive, but I believe in his sincerity.  I think he has what it takes to lead the country in the times that are coming, and I believe he possesses the moral authority we ought to expect of persons we put in that position.  And oddly enough, as a person intimately acquainted with the thinking of Right Wing nut jobs like myself, I also believe that the leaders of the most conservative of national groups will extend the benefit of the doubt to him which they have denied to Giuliani and over look his Mormonism.  Which speaks well of such people by the way, because it means that what is important to us is values and not politics.  And so Dobson et al will back Romney.

And Clinton will beat him.  It will probably be close, and very exciting, and I’ll do everything I can with what limited power I possess to make sure it doesn’t happen, but it will.  Because as much as I like Mitt, one irrefutable fact has been pointed out in too many places for me to ignore it: he’s too slick.  He is the typical Mormon patriarch.  I’m not bashing Mormons here-  as a Christian I think they are deceived of course, but I admire their family values and the level of sincere happiness they have because of that.  Watch the episode of South Park where the Mormon family moves into town if you want to see how most Americans perceive Mormons. Most Americans don’t like anything that seems bogus, and unfortunately Mormons come off as bogus.   They want someone with more grit.  Romney doesn’t have that and will have a hard time manufacturing it.

So barring miracles and signs and wonders, we’re in for 4 years of Clinton dominated politics, the first 2 years of which will be coupled with a Democratic Congress.  Stevens will resign from the court over that time, and perhaps Ginsburg as well, and we will have 2 more young liberal judges installed on the Supreme Court- ensuring a continued 5-4 liberal majority. We’ll probably see some sort of national health care forced on us (poor Canadians- where will they go for MRI’s?).  The ban on stem cell research will be lifted.  The cause of homosexual marriage will probably advance somewhat,although how far is difficult to know.

On the bright side, I think Americans will quickly become sick of her leadership, and fire her in 2012.  She’s smart enough to understand that we can’t pull out of Iraq and can’t just ignore Iran.  She won’t fall asleep at the wheel of domestic security either.  The border fence will probably continue to be built, by sheer political will of the American people screaming for it.

All that to say- it’s not the end of the world.  But is sure does stink.