The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Move Over Hillary, Bill Fights For South Carolina!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?ei=5090&en=75b41812ad90fbd7&ex=1358744400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1201129731-sQaYh2siujux3hx/ujUCEA&pagewanted=print
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Storming Norman Backs McCain

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf has decided to endorse John McCain for President. The candidates are busy campaigning heavily in Florida ahead of its primary on Jan. 29th. As with all endorsements it is hard to determine their value. McCain has put together wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and with a win in Florida could become the prohibitive favorite.

Politics Ain't Beanbag

When Finley Peter Dunne coined that phrase he must have known that individuals like the Clintons would inhabit the world of politics one day. They are perhaps the best practitioners of the no holds barred, no limit politics. This dynamic duo has cultivated an impressive political machine that has left many behind in its destructive path. This battle scarred couple seem to have set their sights on Barack Obama for their next target. After all this is Hillary's turn to be President and Bill's chance for a third term.

It is interesting how this Democrat party family feud has evolved. It appeared as if Hillary would sail through the Democrat nomination process. She had all the name i.d., money, and organization to do just that. Doing so would allow her to avoid attacks from her own side and she could focus herself on simply fending off the Republicans. But Barack Obama threw a wrench into Hillary's machine. After stagnating in the polls, Obama won Iowa and became viable to many voters looking to see if he would be able to be a true counter to Senator Clinton. Mrs. Clinton has had to adopt new strategies to confront Obama, namely bringing in her attack dog Bill.

The former President has been called upon to fight off Obama and do her dirty work. This tag team approach appears to have been somewhat successful. With each attack by Bill, Hillary has been able to rebound and win a contest. First there was New Hampshire and then Nevada where huffed and puffed about Obama and his union supporters inhabiting casinos during the caucus. The role Bill is playing is usually reserved for V.P. candidates, or wives in John Edwards case. Bill softens him up and Hillary finishes him off in the political ring.

Hillary and Barack continued their tit for tat during Monday night's Democratic debate. The mud was flying on both sides as each candidate tried to out slime the other. John Edwards remained relatively clean and at one point had to remind everyone that he was still there. Each of Senator Obama's and Clinton's policies and former statements were fair game. Accuracy did not seem to be a priority as anything that might stick in the minds of the voters was said. The queen of double talk tried to portray Obama's position on the war in Iraq and changing and nebulous. Meanwhile her own position on the war seems to change with the conditions on the ground.

Both Hillary and Barack tried to tag the other with their previous involvements, Hillary and Wal-Mart and Barack working for what Hillary called a "slum landlord business." It did not take long for corporations to come under attack. The "C" word for liberals constitutes a swear word, even worse is being associated with or working for one. It would seem to me that being anti-business is bad business. Liberals like to think of business as some monolithic force destroying the fabric of America.

I am not sure if the debate produced a clear winner. Maybe it was John Edwards who while ignored managed to stay out of the fray. Unfortunately he is neither a woman or black so he can forget about the nomination. Obama and Clinton may be the losers as both continued their war of words. Another loser may be anarchy as this debate was sans rules. The debate got out of hand at many points as Obama and Clinton could not resist going after each other and looking like lions about to descend on their prey. Wolf Blitzer tried to maintain control and keep Obama and Clinton from devouring each other live on stage. You have to give Obama credit he has held up against the double-headed assault of the Clintons so far. But South Carolina is next and Hillary is sure to have Bill on stand-by ready to pounce.

Syndication Weekly

It's the economy stupid. Those were the sentiments of Bill Clinton the first time he ran for President and the title of Phyllis Schafly's latest column. Politics sometimes comes down to a catchphrase and may get you elected. Bill used the feeling about the economy back in '92 to beat Bush the elder out of a second term. Schafly ask whether the same thing might happen this election cycle. After all we have all been hit over the head with economic talk from talking heads that have been predicting disaster on a daily basis. We even have another Clinton running for office, but no Bush although you would not no it from the Democratic candidates campaign rhetoric. Mantra seems to be what we hear from both sides of the aisle and Schafly ask if it will be nothing more then the same. Both sides seem to have their answers that can be pulled out of their pockets are read off at a moment's notice. The column points out that it has been certain U.S. policies that have created much of our current problems. This would include our dealings with immigration which has been minimal or pathetically inept. In Schafly's mind Free Trade has not lived up to its monikor, and the U.S. worker has payed the price. A debate over Free Trade can take place at another time. I agree that many are looking for those who can restore jobs and are looking at the candidates for answers.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/jan08/08-01-23.html
Courtesy of www.eagleforum.org

So Very Correct

Click on image to enlarge
Courtesy of Patriot Art
Find more great art at www.patriotart.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Dead At 28
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA4KG4.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Thompson Drops Bid For Nomination

Fred Thompson announced that he will be dropping out of the race for his party's nomination for president. Thompson, who entered the race late, never really caught any momentum. Mostly lackluster, Thompson's campaign lacked a great deal of passion except for moments during recent Republican debates. Many felt as if Thompson would be the one to fill the conservative void that many Republicans were looking to support. Instead after entering the race he enjoyed a spot near the top of the polls only to sink and be passed by other candidates. A series of disappointing finishes followed in the first primary and caucus contests. Some have speculated that Thompson helped John McCain in South Carolina by taking away from Hucabee support. Now those Thompson supporters will have to find a new home and I am sure all candidates would welcome them.

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Good Thing It's a Holiday!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/world_markets.html
Coutesy of www.drudgereport.com

Delegate Count Jan. 19, 2008

Democrats
Hillary Clinton-210
Barack Obama-123
John Edwards-52
Dennis Kucinich-1
Mike Gravel-0
2,025 needed to win
Total includes pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Republicans
Mitt Romney-72
John McCain-38
Mike Huckabee-29
Fred Thompson-8
Ron Paul-6
Rudy Giuliani-2
1,191 needed to win
Total includes pledged and unpledged delegates

Courtesy of www.cnn.com
Election Center 2008

Obama For "Change"? Array He's Got My Vote By J.J. Jackson

By J.J. Jackson

Have you heard the good news? Barack Obama is for change! Well, that seals it! He’s got my vote!

Why you ask? Isn’t he a liberal Democrat? Well yeah, but he’s for change! So let’s look at the status quo which he will be looking at changing shall we?

First up is McCain/Feingold which is a horrible restriction on free speech despite the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from making any law that restricts our freedom of speech. Elect Obama and he will “change” this and end this horrible law.

Next are the constant infringements on our second amendment rights by the myriad of gun laws on the books which do not punish criminal activity but rather simply infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own arms. Elect Obama and he will “change” this.

Then there is the horrid income tax which basically allows the government to take money you worked hard for before you get a chance to spend or save it unless you put it in one of their approved forms of investment. Since I firmly believe that the money earned by people in compensation for their labor belongs to them first and not the government I have to vote for Obama because he will “change” this.

Moving on, there is that pesky problem of unborn children who are both alive (see basic definition of life if you disagree) and human being denied their constitutional protections and being murdered. That is definitely something that needs changing. So Barack Obama appears to be our man!

Oh, and then there is the constant treasonous messages coming from our elected officials during a time of war which continually go unpunished. Personally I’m tired of the claims that our troops are cold-blooded murderers and that the war is lost being echoed by terrorists around the world to give aid and comfort to their followers. With his campaign promise of “change”, President Obama will undoubtedly correct this and start prosecuting the offenders.

And what about Social Security? After all it is clearly above and beyond the limited powers of the federal government to tax and spend. Just read Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (including his Federalist 41) and any other of a myriad of founding fathers that actually wrote the Constitution. So apparently with Barack Obama in the White House we can expect this massive mortgaging of our future to be ended in the name of “change”.

Along those same lines we can obviously expect an end to Welfare.

War on Poverty? Gone - ended in the name of “change”. We’ve spent trillions and still have “poverty” so it apparently hasn’t worked. Elect Barack Obama and we can get away from this failed policy and save us billions.

Then of course Barack Obama will obviously terminate the Department of Education which is also specified nowhere as a power of our government. Can you feel the winds of “change” blowing yet?

Ah! I’m swelling with pride at knowing that there is a candidate that is going to help “change” America for the better! But wait, more “change” would be on the way if Obama is elected!

How about policies and laws that classify people by the color of their skin, ethnic background, sex, and so on and grant them special rights and privileges based on that classification? Gone! All in the name of “change”!

Huh? What’s that? That’s not the sort of “change” Barack Obama is talking about? Well, of course it’s not. And I’m not really going to vote for him either because I know that.

What I was demonstrating to you was how many people will vote for him based on his broad based message of simply “change”. Every speech Barack Obama gives he makes sure that the center point of it is this one word and repeats it as often as he thinks he can get away with it because to claim to be for “change” gives people a blank slate upon which to project their own hopes and desires.

Don’t like a certain policy? Well, Barack Obama is for “change”. So he hopes that you will consider voting for him in the hope that when he talks about simply being for change. He’ll only talk about specifics of his policy for “change” when he has to. No need to give people willing to believe what they want to believe anything to not like after all.

But when he does talk about specifics we really see that what he calls “change” is not much more than the status quo; bigger government and less liberty on a greater scale than we already have.

The only question is how long he can ride this wave of nebulousness before he actually has to start delving a little deeper into what changes he actually proposes. And how much longer until people figure out that when he is talking about “change” he really means more of the same failed policies that have put America in the precarious situation it is in today? And will people even care?

I shudder to think that they will not.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-for-change-array-hes-got-my-vote-310806.html

About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .

McCain Wins South Carolina

Everyone is now ready to declare Senator John McCain the winner in South Carolina. McCain wins the hotly contested contest in the Palmetto state. This is somewhat of a disappointment for Huckabee who had the edge in evangelical support which makes up a large part of South Carolina. The candidates will now turn to Florida and join Rudy Giuliani in the battle to become the front runner.

Hunter Out of Race

Duncan Hunter has made it known that he is no longer continuing his bid for the Republican nomination for president. Hunter who has never made it out of the bottom of the polls finished with only two percent in the Nevada caucus today. The California congressman who was strong on national security and defense and intent on solving illegal immigration never gained traction as a candidate.

Hillary Wins Nevada

It now appears as if Hillary Clinton will win Nevada beating Barack Obama. News sources are all declaring Senator Clinton as the winner of the Nevada Democrat caucus. She will take this win and try to build on it as the Democrats move to South Carolina.

Mitt Romney Wins Nevada

MSNBC is reporting that Mitt Romney has won the Republican caucus in Nevada. We will see if this has any affect on South Carolina. Romney may have been helped by the strong Mormon support in that part of the country. This would be the third state won by Romney which include Michigan and Wyoming. The win will add to Romney's delegate count but it remains to be seen if this will propel him to front runner status. No one candidate has been able to keep momentum and be declared the prohibitive favorite.

Race Day

Today is the day as we wait on the results of the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucuses. In a divided race so far no clear cut frontrunners have emerged on either side, especially for the Republicans. So these two contests today might clear the mud a little more and reveal a leader of the pack. It appears as if McCain and Huckabee are fighting it out in South Carolina. As has been stated before many feel this is a must win for both. Another story has been the fall of Giuliani who has fallen in the Palmetto state polls and nationwide. Will his wait for the sunshine state pay off? Nevada will be a race between Obama and Clinton. Obama is trying to slay the political giant and emerge as number one. Clinton lost out when the courts ruled in favor of allowing voting in the casinos. This ruling will appear to help Barack Obama after winning the endorsement of the culinary union. So it will be a battle of the unions and Obama will be singing one tune today, just get them to the casino on time.

Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003

January 18, 2008
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1776

With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with economic stimulus proposals centered on tax rebates. Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.

Tax Rebates Don't Stimulate

By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.

Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.

High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.

By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.

Supporters of rebates argue that they "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)

Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children's education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.

Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.

The Failed 2001 Tax Rebates

While the 2001 tax cuts reduced some marginal tax rates, the centerpiece was tax rebates. These rebates were rationalized as a pre-payment of the reduction of the lowest marginal income tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent. Yet because they were not based on encouraging productive behavior, the rebates had little economic impact.

In the spring and summer of 2001, Washington borrowed billions from the capital/investment markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. In the fourth quarter of that year, consumer spending responded with 7 percent annualized growth, and investment spending correspondingly decreased by 23 percent. The economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent annualized rate.[1] The simple redistribution from investment to consumption did not create new wealth.

All traces of the rebate policy effectively disappeared by the next quarter. Consumer spending retreated to 1.4 percent annualized growth, and investment spending partially recovered from its steep decline with a 13.6 percent annual growth. The economy remained stagnant through much of 2002.

The Successful 2003 Tax Rate Cuts

By contrast, the 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:

• GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
  
• Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
  
• The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
  
• The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs--and 5.3 million jobs over 13 quarters.[2]
  

Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was occurring naturally, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

Conclusion

The 2003 tax rate cuts succeeded, because they increased incentives to work, save, and invest, thereby creating new wealth. The 2001 tax cuts, based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution, did not significantly increase economic growth. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.


Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 18, 2008).
[2]U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, revised, at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 16, 2007); Yahoo Finance, "S&P 500 Index," at www.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC (January 16, 2007); and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)," at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth (January 16, 2007).

Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find more articles at http://www.heritage.org/

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Rivals Blast Obama's Praise For Reagan
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2325872
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

A Thousand Words

What more could I possibly say then what is already so perfectly said through this image.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2008/01/global_warming_protest_snowed.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Place Your Bets: The Voting Will Go On!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080117/D8U7TB380.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/

Obama Closing

No longer a 21 point lead, Hillary Clinton is now in a statistical dead heat with Barack Obama. According to a new Zogby poll. Obama has steadily climbed back from a once overwhelming deficit to currently sitting one point beyond Senator Clinton. It is clear that Obama's star is rising has so in recent weeks especially after his win in Iowa. I admit I have labeled Hillary the inevitable candidate based on her national numbers and the political organization behind her. While not ready to put the nail in Hillary's political coffin, Obama's rise has given cause for reflection. Once thought to be unstoppable, Hillary's inevitability has suffered serious blows by Obama's success. Clinton stopped the bleeding in her campaign with a win in New Hampshire, but Obama's win in Iowa showed the ability to compete against Hillary and turn out voters. Change is the buzz word for this election cycle and Obama has made it his message and strategy for defeating Hillary. What only a few months ago seemed impossible may indeed be possible. The election season moves on and this David may find himself victorious over his Goliath.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1554681020080117?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Visit These Great Pork Vacation Destinations

Click on image to enlarge
Courtesy of http://www.heritage.org/

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Romney's Turn!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080116/D8U6UN580.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Delegate Count

Through Jan. 15

Democrats
Hillary Clinton-190
Barack Obama-103
John Edwards-51
Dennis Kucinich-1
Mike Gravel-0
2,025 Needed to Win

Republicans
Mitt Romney-52
Mike Huckabee-22
John McCain-15
Fred Thompson-6
Ron Paul-2
Rudy-Giuliani-1
Duncan Hunter-1
1,191 Needed to Win

*Totasl includes both declared and undeclared delegates
Courtesy of www.cnn.com

Mac Pulled Back

So much for John McCain's forward momentum towards the Republican nomination. After a comeback win in New Hampshire it appears as if he has been pulled back down to Earth, after a meteoric rise after a win in the Granite State. Many will now talk about how the Republican race is now once again undecided after each of the top three candidates have won the early contests. While Romney might not be considered the front runner he has stabilized his campaign with a win in Michigan many felt he had to have. Now all focus will be on South Carolina as we move state by state waiting for someone to emerge as the true number one. With these early results Giuliani's strategy may prove successful with no permanent momentum behind a single candidate.

Michigan Primary Coverage

NBC News is declaring Mitt Romney the winner of the Michigan Primary. John McCain will finish second with Mike Huckabee third.

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
The $18B Write Off And New Rescue By Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080115/earns_citigroup.html?.v=5
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Real Clear Politics State Polls

Michigan Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/9-1/13
Romney-27.0
McCain-26.3
Huckabee-15.9
Paul -6.6
Giuliani -5.7
Thompson-5.4
Romney +0.7

Nevada Democratic Caucus
Research 2000 1/11-1/13
Obama-32
Clinton -30
Edwards-27
Obama +2.0

South Carolina Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Huckabee-26.5
McCain-22.8
Romney-16.8
Thompson-10.3
Giuliani-6.8
Paul-5.0
Huckabee +3.7

South Carolina Democratic Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Obama-42.7
Clinton- 32.0
Edwards-16.0
Obama +10.7

Florida Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/7-1/13
McCain-21.3
Giuliani-21.3
Huckabee-18.3
Romney-17.0
Thompson-8.8
Paul-4.8
Tie

Florida Democratic Primary
RCP Average1/7-1/13
Clinton-49.0
Obama-27.5
Edwards-11.5
Clinton +21.5

Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Brett Favre's Wife and Hillary Clinton

A wonderful email that was sent to me by one of my relatives. This is for those of you like me who laugh when we hear the words experience and Hillary in the same sentence.

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, State, company or corporation. She has never been a CEO or led anything larger than an office. She's had a "staff" when she was first lady and first lady of Arkansas. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef".

I do not know where this originated from so I am unable to direct you to the source or to give credit.

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

The Real American Idol

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080114214623.bfyxnd9w&show_article=1

Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
'Who Better...'
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080110/D8U3ACF00.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Kerry Endorses Obama

Massachusetts Senator and former candidate for president John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama for president. Some may find the endorsement surprising considering Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, is still in the race. Perhaps Senator Kerry like everyone else realizes the futility of the Edwards campaign and sees this as a two dog race between Obama and Hillary. Obama might want to ask for a favor from his newest endorser. Many see Edwards as splitting votes from Obama as both compete for the change vote. The sooner Edwards drops out the better for Obama.

Richardson Drops Out of Race

Bill Richardson has officially dropped out of the race. Richardson was unable to crack into the top tier of candidates in the Democrat field despite the touting of his experience throughout his campaign. In a weird twist the Democrats have relagated those most experienced candidates into the second tier forcing almost all to drop out of the race. Instead their three top tier candidates' experience is minimal at best, the three being led by Senator Hillary Clinton.

Delegate Count

Democrats
Barack Obama-25
Hillary Clinton-24
John Edwards-18
Joe Biden -0
Chris Dodd-0
Mike Gravel-0
Dennis Kucinich-0
Bill Richardson-0

2,209 delegates needed for nomination

Republicans
Mike Huckabee-31
Mitt Romney-19
John McCain-7
Fred Thompson-3
Duncan Hunter-1
Sam Brownback-0
Rudy Giuliani-0
Ron Paul-0
Tom Tancredo-0

1,259 delegates needed for nomination

Courtesy of MSNBC Decision 08
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914/

Ice Queen Cometh Forth With Tears

Apparently Hillary Clinton does have emotions. Well if you believe what she did the other day was real then you would say she has emotions. I being of the skeptical nature, especially when it involves a Clinton, am not so convinced. The emotion that she portrayed was uncharacteristic for the former first lady who has kept emotion out of her life when it comes to her public appearances. But there she was tearing up; breaking down from the emotional roller coaster of the campaign, or maybe the fact that Obama had just trounced her in Iowa. After all this is Hillary's time to be president, an heir apparent to fulfill the Clinton dynasty and bring back the good old times of the Clinton decade of the 90's.

The once thought breakdown of the Clinton political machine has made a 180 degree turn with Senator Clinton's win in New Hampshire last night. Surprising to many pundits and pollsters who had Barack Obama winning the Granite state primary. The results poured in throughout the night and Obama never took the lead and closed out in second place. One story of the night might be how the pollsters and their polls could have gotten the race so wrong? Almost all the polls showed winning with some projecting a double digit win. Instead Hillary staring as the comeback kid took her place on stage at the end of the night a declared winner. The other story of the night was how Hillary staged such a comeback.

Maybe we should not be shocked by Hillary's win in New Hampshire. She certainly has been the declared front runner for some time. The win by Obama in Iowa simply shifted the focus from Hillary and cast doubt on her political machine. But firing on cylinders she rallied enough support to win and to perhaps take over control of this race from Barack Obama. With Obama winning Iowa and with the bump he got compounded with the short time between contests, Senator Clinton was able to sway support back to her side. Could it be that her tearful display was just the thing to gain her that support?

In a week in which she drew fire from Obama and John Edwards perhaps she garnered the sympathy only enjoyed by her during her husband's scandals. It could be that women saw the attacks as an attack on Hillary and drove support her way. If true then the strategy certainly worked and gives her new life. For such a strong response to one emotional performance Hillary might deserve an Oscar, it is not totally ridiculous Al Gore has one.

Because of my skeptical nature I doubt the genuineness of Hillary's emotional breakdown. I am not alone in this as many have questioned her display. I happen to think that speaks volumes about Mrs. Clinton. For most we would not even question if someone was simply employing a strategy to garner sympathy. When it comes to the Clintons and their ambitions, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. After all the breakdown seemingly came as a result of her loss to Senator Obama in Iowa. And as she talked about in her tearful conversation with her audience, everything positive that can happen in this country would be as a result of her place in the White House. The campaign trail is long and obviously takes its toll but does it compare to life as the president and especially with the problems that exist for the next one. If someone is unable to bear the brunt of a campaign can we really look to them to lead our country during the next crisis.

Maybe Hillary's emotion show was not just for show. Perhaps she shared a real emotional moment with us. We must look at the source and decide what we can believe. Maybe I am to skeptical and should except Hillary's display on face value as a women feeling the emotions of a long campaign. It is wholly believable that Hillary would try every play in her playbook to disrupt the wave Obama was riding after Iowa. The suspension of disbelief required to accept Hillary's emotion as real rivals that of global warming and Bill not knowing the definition of is.

The Madness of Would-be King John by J.J. Jackson

Liberals complain loudly about President Bush and how he is supposedly accruing power to the Executive Branch. While he has certainly promoted some bad laws, which liberals would tend to love otherwise, that increase the power of the federal government as a whole and without Constitutional Amendment, to say that he is accruing power for himself is a bit of a stretch. If you listen to the political left, President Bush is a virtual tyrant wielding dictatorial power.

Talk about projection. Especially when you have Hillary Clinton running around crying about how if only you would vote for her, pretty please with a cherry on top, she would work to relinquish some of these powers which President Bush has menacingly and supposedly acquired. But remarkably you never hear these same liberals decrying her own power grabs such as when she proudly proclaims that as president she would take money from the oil companies and your 401k for the “common good”. Oh no. That, despite having absolutely no constitutional basis in the least, is ok.

With Iowa now behind us we have seen liberals like Barack Obama run out to an amazing lead over other candidates on a message of accruing power to the federal government. Take your pick of the other candidates from his party and you’ll hear the same message with different wrapping.

You even have second place finisher, and would-be King, John Edwards who will not be outdone issuing his own dictates over the past months.

Weeks ago, for example, he threatened Congress that if within six months of his election they did not pass his version of socialized health insurance and medicine, he would with his powers as President take away Congress’s own sweet health insurance deal. Now, I’ve read the Constitution. And I’ve read it many times. Obviously that is many more times than John Edwards and other Democrats. And I’m perplexed as to what powers John Edwards claims to find that would allow him to do this.

Under Article I Section 6, Congress is granted the right to compensation for their service as the laws which they pass (not the President) dictate. Now, that doesn’t mean that I agree with how much they get compensated for the often poor job they do, but the Constitution allows it. Mr. Edwards could certainly veto any law that Congress would pass affecting their own compensation, but if that veto is overridden, and the courts fail to find anything unconstitutional about the appropriation what is he going to do? Whine at them? Comb his hair menacingly at them?

Or does he really think he has the ability, like a good little authoritarian, to rule by decree beyond the powers of the Constitution? Will he simply accrue more power to himself?

Of course this is all a moot point right now considering that Mr. Edwards finished a distant second to Barack Obama and his own authoritarian socialist plans. The good news for Edwards? He came out slightly ahead of Senatorette Clinton. You go “girl”!

So, since Democrat voters seems to be drawn to which ever candidate has the most arbitrary and authoritarian policies I though maybe I could help out Mr. Edwards. What John needs is a bigger, more absurd list of government decrees than his opponents.

So what else could Mr. Edwards dictate? Well, I’ve come up with a list that would befit the madness of a man such as John Edwards and probably any other of the Democratic Party’s candidates for that matter.

First, the sky will be now pink. And if Congress doesn’t pass legislation within 100 hours after his coronation mandating such a change, he will make it so with a stroke of his pen. “After all, don’t you think pink looks better?” you will be asked to the sound of a guns being cocked and then pointed at your head.

Second, water shall no longer be called water. Instead it will now be called The Nectar Of John Edwards. Because all good things flow from John’s good graces. And if Congress doesn’t act within thirty days to make this true, he will simply declare it to be so.

Third, AIDS will be cured. And if the drug companies don’t cure AIDS within six months after Mr. Edwards takes his oath of office he will nationalize them and have the disease cured within thirty more days.

Fourth, to appease the radical environmentalist, all oil refineries will be shut down and 10,000 new wind farms will be built within thirty days. But they will not be built anywhere near the Kennedy Compound in Massachusetts or near the property of any other of the Democrat Party power elites mind you. And what if those 10,000 new wind farms are not built? Well, the executives of all the oil companies will be put on trial for treason, found guilty and summarily shot. At which point 10,000 new wind farms will magically appear from special acorns which Edwards will plant.

Fifth, Global Warming will be ended. Not only will it be ended, but it will be reversed by King John’s will alone. All glaciers will be returned to their previous locations and all people currently living on land that was habitable before this reversal shall be rounded up and placed into government work camps where they will be charged with maintaining the glaciers.

You want more? Well John Edwards will be pleased to accommodate you.

Sixth, poverty will be ended and the “two Americas” will become one. Thanks to Mr. Edwards, all wages will be controlled and equal and all will make $1,000,000 per year. Expect for him of course. After all he is king and he deserves so much more. This will be done within a year of his taking office. Sure, there won’t be much on the shelves to buy, but you’ll be rich so quite your belly aching!

Seventh, all hurricanes will be banned from the United States. That’s right, you heard correctly - banned. And if Congress will not act to ban all hurricanes within the first ten minutes of his presidency, he will make it the absolute law of the land and protect all citizens from their wrath. Of course, he’ll do this by simply issuing a decree that hurricanes are no longer to be called hurricanes but rather “big windy thingies filled with lots of the Nectar of John Edwards”. But hey, there won’t be anymore hurricanes!

Don’t believe him? What are you? One of those “free-thinking” types?

Eighth and lastly, because only John Edwards can solve the problems of this world, he will declare himself King of the World for life and reserve the right to issue proclamations which will automatically become true regardless of how nutty.

With a platform like this there is no way that the liberals would not flock to his side and propel him into the White House in 2008. Take my advice John. Liberals love this sort of insanity.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-madness-of-wouldbe-king-john-299102.html

About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .

Syndication Weekly

Jonah Goldberg is not a fan of Iowa's first in the nation status. To be fair his latest column states that no state should have all the power. I was very interested to read Mr. Goldberg's comments as an Iowan. I would agree that perhaps the world is not holding their breath to see which Republican and which Democrat should be their party's nominee for president. By judging the interest in this country be media migration to the state, I would rate it very high. But the argument may be moot as Iowa has been chosen to be first and such attention might follow any state which found itself first. Goldberg does praise the people of Iowa for their niceness, and for having a great steakhouse in Montour. His comments are not simply directed at the Hawkeye state but go for New Hampshire, or any one state in the union. He writes that no one state should have all the power. Goldberg writes about how stupid caucusing is as compared to voting. One involves a secret ballot the other a song and dance in front of your neighbors that involves politicking and jockeying for bodies to make a certain candidate viable. Mr. Goldberg describes it as, "a mix of Chinese fire drill, Politburo theatrics, and Roman priestly ceremony. I would agree with that comparison, I am glad that as a Republican we are left with a simple straw poll vote. For as much as we value tradition, I think the choice of a caucus is somewhat antiquated. If we want as much participation we should aim at creating a process all want to participate in. Mr. Goldberg also makes the participation argument in which he points to the relatively small numbers that take part in the caucus. I think that this is not unique to Iowa but overall participation in our political process in nowhere near where it should be. Maybe some other states would do a better job, as a native Iowan I must admit I enjoy the attention our small state gets every four years. We draw attention from the nation as pundits, media, and other observers come to watch the process unfold. This is rare attention for our state, those same individuals are not flocking every year to watch the corn grow. In the concluding statements Mr. Goldberg provides a solution to the problem by instituting that the states rotate. In doing so Mr. Goldberg states that by doing so it will ensure, "that the country isn't hostage by the same left-wing and right-wing populists every four years."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZjOGE1YmY0OGEyNzdhN2QyY2Q1OTlhNzZjMTgzYzg=
Courtesy of National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Now it Gets Fun!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U2H5A80&show_article=1

Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/

New Hampshire Primary Democrat Results

MSNBC and the AP are declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of the New Hampshire Primary over Barack Obama.

New Hampshire Primary Republican Results

Fox News is reporting that Arizona Senator John McCain has won the New Hampshire primary over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Now We Have to Finish It
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashonh.htm
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Carefully Consider Compassion

Compassionate conservatism came into our vocabulary with the election of President George W. Bush as our 43rd president. It was a new way to define that particular brand of conservatism that aims itself at helping the lowly and disadvantaged. The problem is that this philosophy inevitably leads to government solutions that look like government solutions. With issues like healthcare and immigration compassion clouds judgements and can result in failed policies. You end up with the government trying to solve problems by putting it on its credit card. The time comes to pay up and while shouts for more hand-holding across the aisle pierce our ears, it is those unholy unions that lead to ruinous legislation. One has only to look at Medicare entitlements and the continual attempts to open up our border and bestow amnesty to those who entered our borders illegally.

We may not have recognized this brand of governing in President Bush but we have become familiar with it and are now able to see the problems with it as a governing philosophy. We fool ourselves by believing that by diluting our true conservative roots with muddled philosophies that claim to be aimed at lifting up those down in the muck and mire. This Prince Charming attitude of coming to the aid of the citizen in distress with entitlements and monetary promises is what conservatives have argued against. It used to be that liberals wholly owned such views on governing but it has crept into the thinking of some Republicans, while calling it heroic.

We now have a candidate in the form of Mike Huckabee who seems to want to continue the legacy of compassion. The former Arkansas governor has defined himself as socially conservative, but it is on other issues like fiscal politics where things get murky. Some are weary of him because of his fiscal approaches in his state which included raising taxes in numerous areas, including taxes on purchases made on the Internet. His spend and tax attitude has turned off many from his own state. While he may be solid on social issues, his moderate tones on issues like taxes, the environment, and immigration make you wonder if he will come up heads or tails when political decision time comes.

Rush Limbaugh has it right when he talks about changing conservatism to fit the candidate. Do we want someone who will agree on one set of issues but match the liberals word for word on others? As a proud conservative who has yet to see a liberal solve a problem with their philosophy you can guess how I would respond. Having compassion is not a negative character trait. In fact I think it is conservatives who truly have compassion for the people of this country. But that compassion does not involve doling out entitlements and wasteful government spending on worthless government programs. You truly help someone succeed for the long term with a hand up and not a hand out, a cliche I know but very true.

Mike Huckabee might seem like a long shot to win the Republican Party's nomination. With his win in the Iowa caucus it does not seem as long a shot. But for those who are still deciding on who they will support you should ask yourself the following. Do we want someone who mirrors the Democrats on many critical issues? I would presume the answer would be no considering the election in 2006 which resulted in many Republicans losing office because they forgot their conservative roots. We have already had one man from Hope lead this country do we really want another?

Real Clear Politics New Hampshire Poll

01/02-01/05

Democrats
Obama-33.0%
Clinton-30.3%
Edwards-18.0%
Richardson-5.5%
Obama +2.7%

Republicans
McCain-32.0%
Romney-27.%
Huckabee-12.0
Paul-8.8%
Giuliani-8.8%
Thompson-2.3%
McCain +4.2%

Courtesy of www.realclearpolitics.com

Iowa Caucus Results

Democrats

Obama 38%

Edwards 30%

Clinton 29%

Republican

Huckabee 34%

Romney 25%

Thompson 13%

McCain 13%

Note: Obama was able to defeat the formidable Clinton machine to win big in Iowa. It remains to be seen if this win will give him the momentum in the next states to win it all. For the Republicans Huckabee was ab?le to bring out his supporters and rally against Romney's superior resources and organization. The story is McCain's finish which many believe was a great result and may springboard him into New Hampshire where he leads or is tied in the polls. The question is where this puts Mitt Romney who devoted so much time and money to Iowa. His campaign focused on winning the early states and with Iowa lost New Hampshire is fastly swinging to McCain. Will he have enough to survive?

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Obama, Huckabee

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080104/D8TUQ2V80.html

Obama and Huckabee are victors in tonight's Iowa caucus.

Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

The Last Man Standing Could be John McCain by James William Smith

Author: James William Smith

His Presidential campaign was left for dead by almost everyone in the late summer of 2007. Many of his senior advisors had quit his campaign or had been fired. In just six months, his campaign had run through its sizable financial war chest ($25 million) and was broke. However, these sad occurrences were not even his worst problem.

McCain had just negotiated a compromise bill with Democrats behind close doors. The Republican Party's conservative base hated the path to citizenship for illegal aliens proposal that was a result of his sponsored bill. Both conservative and independent voters saw the compromise bill as amnesty for illegal aliens and swarmed Washington like angry bees around honey. The very people whose votes McCain needed to win the 2008 Presidential election killed his immigration bill. His Republican supporters felt betrayed and his public opinion poll numbers plunged well below 10% nationwide. He sank to fourth place in public opinion polls in the early primary voting state of New Hampshire.

McCain was running a campaign that could not manage money, made bad hiring decisions, and had a tin ear concerning one of the most important issues to his base of support. Worse, he was making decisions behind close doors and looked like a Washington insider. This in an election year in which the public almost unanimously disapproves of the way Congress is doing its job. Indeed, by the early fall of 2007, John McCain looked like the ultimate Washington insider. He appeared to the Republican Party as old, out of touch, and his campaign looked to be finished.

What McCain has done since his campaign's late summer low point is what he has done successfully throughout his life. This man, when faced with extreme adversity, simply does not quit. McCain stopped spending money and carried his own bags. He took buses instead of planes. He poked fun at himself and at his advanced age. He was always open and amicable to reporter. He has continued to campaign tirelessly. It has also helped McCain that the troop surge in Iraq which he has long supported is working.

The voting public appreciates McCain's campaign persistence and the fact that his campaign is not staged and reliant on every public opinion poll. The result is that McCain is suddenly surging as the election draws near. He has moved within two points of the lead in the New Hampshire primary that he has to win. Nationally, McCain is now within 4% of Republican leaders, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

In the last few weeks, his support has doubled in Iowa. In addition, the latest polling has indicated that McCain has the lowest core opposition of any candidate in this year's election in either party (Rasmussen). Republicans will also consider that McCain is leading in a trial match up with every Democratic candidate in the general election.

In this Presidential election campaign, the voters want change. However they do not want to create unnecessary political risk inherent with that change. Therefore, experience is also a valuable commodity. A person's character is always well considered by the voting public. In the last several months, McCain has demonstrated both his character and experience in adversity.

Still, McCain's road to winning the Republican Presidential nomination has many obstacles. He does not have the money in his campaign war chest to properly compete for primary voters nationwide. It is essential that he win the primary election in New Hampshire for his campaign to remain viable. McCain also needs to somehow reclaim some of the support from conservative voters that he lost in the last six months. The truth is that he should have stayed away from the illegal immigration issue and gone on vacation last summer.

The good news for McCain is that it is a volatile election year and all the candidates are still very close in the public opinion polls. As a result, the 2008 Republican primary election could turn out to be an extended war of attrition. If that is the case, we should never underestimate this former American hero and POW. In any war, based on his courage, discipline, integrity and character, John McCain could well be the last man standing.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-last-man-standing-could-be-john-mccain-292278.html

About the Author:
James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events.Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Assassinated Pakistan Erupts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm

Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Joy to the World

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TO1FI82&show_article=1

Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Fox News All Stars

The candidacy of John McCain was put to the panel for discussion, and his apparent rise or surge in some polls. The clearest representation of this is in New Hampshire where polls have him trailing Mitt Romney in second place. Fred Barnes has noticed the response to McCain in recent weeks as well. "I went out with him last week, and he's getting larger crowds, he's getting enormous interest." So why the new found interest in McCain? Barnes goes on to explain the enormous character of McCain as a defining feature, one that will attract those who might have written him off months ago. The panel's focus on John McCain centered on his Christmas ad that pointed to him experience as a POW, and its religious overtones. Part of the reawakening to McCain might be his chances against the Democratic candidate in a head to head match up. Bret Baier mentioned a new poll that put McCain up five points against Hillary Clinton. Republicans want a win in '08 and if John McCain is the candidate to defeat the Democrats, especially Hillary, Republicans might warm up to the Arizona Senator. But as Charles Krauthammer points out the significance of New Hampshire for John McCain, the hope is that it launches him forward to the other contests. The all stars also touched on Huckabee's comments about the Bush foreign policy being one of bunker mentality. Condolezza Rice flatly denied such claims in a recent press conference. Fred Barnes regarded Huckabee's claims as false citing the United State's attempts at multilateral meetings with North Korea in an attempt to get them to give up their nuclear weapons. He also mentioned the efforts in dealing with Iran. Mort Kondracke felt that Romney in Iowa, and McCain in New Hampshire, might gain from voter apprehension aimed at Huckabee. Recent comments by Huckabee have caused some to question his foreign policy strategy or philosophy. Competing views of our entry into Iraq, Kondracke wondering if world opinion and Middle East stability would be the current condition, and Krauthammer and Barnes not buying that notion with Krauthammer calling Kondracke's assumptions, "pie in the sky."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/panel_on_huckabeerice_axis_of.html
Courtesy of www.realclearpolitics.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Vlad's $40B Stash?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2230924,00.html

Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Helping Liberals Find Their Truth

The Truth Generator-Liberals, no more hours wasted coming up with responses to those you hate, loathe, and despise.
I came across a site recently that was aimed at helping liberals find their truth.

"Attention progressive, socialist, liberal, pacifist, anarchist, feminist, or environmentalist debaters! Whether you are fighting the class enemy over the Internet, in school, or at your parent's house over dinner, this tool is for you. No more awkward mumbling or looking for the right word! Just enter your ideological opponent's name and generate a Progressive Truth that will render your enemies speechless!"
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=297

Read more at The People's Cube
Courtesy of www.thepeoplescube.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Huckaboom Boom Boom; Tops National Poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1952159120071219?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Bush Dad 'Will Help President Hillary Restore USA Image'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/bill-clinton-george-hw-bush-will-help-president-hillary/
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Holiday Torture-Christmasboarding Liberals by J.J. Jackson

Author: J.J. Jackson

When the founding fathers repeatedly referred to God through various flowery and reverent terms in the Declaration of Independence, there was a reason for it. The reason is that they believed in God as men of deep Judeo-Christian faith.

When George Washington prayed at Valley Forge he did not do so just because he thought that it might have been a novel idea. No, there was a deeper reason for it. That reason was his Christian faith.

When the founding fathers as one proudly proclaimed in writing upon signing the United States Constitution that they did such “in the year of our Lord”, they did not do so for window dressing. They did so because they all believed in some way in the Christian God.

When John Adams stated boldly that the constitution, “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” he didn’t just blurt those words out. No, he said them because he, like so many others believed in God and had engrained that faith into our country and our founding documents.

Now, I could go on and on and spend this entire article citing historical examples that tie the Judeo-Christian faith into the very fabric of America. But what I would rather do is make a joyous suggestion to everyone. That suggestion is to do your civic duty this Christmas season and annoy a liberal.

How? Well I am glad you asked! Annoy them by subjecting them to a torture that is so unbearable, so repulsive, so unmentionable in polite company that you will no doubt be hearing rumblings from the United Nations about how it should be made illegal. Am I talking about waterboarding? Heck no. I am talking about something far worse. So please, consider Christmasboarding a liberal while you still can.

What is Christmasboarding?

It’s quite simple really. Anytime a liberal approaches you in the coming days and wants to deny reality this Christmas, you simply hit them over the head with the truth. The great thing is that you don’t actually have to tie them down to do this because they will be so incensed with their own outrage that you would dare put reality before them that they will be paralyzed and unable to move. Thus making your task all the easier.

When a liberal steeped in political correctness approaches you and wishes you “Happy Holidays” you simply respond by saying, “And a Merry Christmas to you.”

When the liberal chides you for being so “exclusive” in your greeting, you simply again wish them a “Merry Christmas”.

When the liberal complains that you are being “insensitive” by not including all faiths in your wishes of good tiding you yet again wish them, this time with a smile, a “Merry Christmas”.

When the liberal points wildly at the beautifully decorated tree in the town square and shouts, “Don’t you see the ‘Holiday Tree’?!?” you get an even bigger grin and say, “Yes, I see the Christmas Tree.” And then again wish them a “Merry Christmas.”

Now, red faced and distraught, the liberal will start demanding answers to other questions trying in vain to escape from your clutches and the horrific experience you are putting them through. When they ask you through foaming spit if you even understand how Jesus was not even born on December 25th. You just smile and say, “I know and Merry Christmas.”

When the liberal raises his or her voice to a fevered scream and asks you if you even know that this “Christmas” thing used to be a pagan holiday, you just keep smiling and say, “Yes,” and quickly follow with, “Merry Christmas.”

When he or she threatens to call the police on you for harassing them by refusing to stop saying “Merry Christmas,” you swell with pride and say, “Good, then I can wish our law enforcement a Merry Christmas too!”

At this point you will hear a loud “pop”. That is the sound of the liberal’s brain burning out and you will see a blank stare cross their face and they will collapse into the fetal position, begin sucking on their thumbs and muttering over and over, “Separation of church and state ... I will not recognize religion exists ... the ACLU will save me ...”

And then you can just walk away and search for the next liberal to Christmasboard.

Merry Christmas and have fun!

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/holiday-torture-christmasboarding-liberals-283667.html

About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .

Do We Want to See This in the White House?

Rush Limbaugh poses the question. Are we ready to watch a woman age in the White House. We know that the White House takes a toll on its Oval Office inhabitants. The difference is that society views women aging in a different light then men. Rush was commenting on the photo from the photo above posted on The Drudge Report, the caption read, "The Toll of the Campaign." Limbaugh stated his comments were not so much a focus on Hillary as a reflecting on the views of those who focus on looks and appearance in this country. Might physical appearance be a deciding factor on the election? With our societal makeup the way it is it just might be.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121707/content/01125114.guest.html

Photo courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Iran Vows Second Nuke Plant
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/africa/17iran.5.php
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Fox News All Stars

The weekly group had another set of topics to discuss, all found in the Dec. 13th transcript. The panel discussed the recent Democratic debate in Des Moines yesterday. While only marginally more interesting then the Republican's debate one moment stood out for the panel. It happened to be an exchange between Obama and Clinton after a question was asked of Senator Obama. Hillary it seems could not bite her tongue.

CAROLYN WASHBURN, "DES MOINES REGISTER": With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisors and still deliver the break from the past that you're promising voters?
BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, you know, I am--
SEN HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want to hear that!
OBAMA: You want to hear that? Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well.

The panel agreed that Obama handled the situation the right way and came out of the debate the victor over Hillary. Overall the sentiment of Barnes, Kondracke, and Krauthammer was that these debates, both Democrat and Republican, were not worth much. Hillary's falling numbers were discussed and the recent issue of Bill Shaheen, a Hillary operative, quitting amid his comments about Obama and cocaine use. Between softball questions and not asking others, dealing with Iraq, Iran, the surge, or interrogation, were some of the panel's criticisms. The other issue covered was major league baseball and George Mitchell's report detailing alleged steroid users. The fallout from the report was discussed and the direction that MLB baseball will go in when dealing with steroids.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/roundtable_on_the_democratic_d.html
Courtesy of http://www.realpolitics.com/

The Economics of the Left and Right

I ripped this post from a website I came across and I thought it would be interesting to share. For those who want a distinction between how the left and right view economics, here is one man's classifies that difference.

• The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.
• The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.
• The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.
• The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.
• The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.
• There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it? That is such a big topic that I will devote the entire next lecture to it.

You can find the original posting of this at http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

Greg Mankiw's Blog

www.gregmankiw.blogspot.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Is It the End?

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/FRONTPAGE/712140350

Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Blast: Storm Moves into the Northeast
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071213/D8TGS6D00.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Free a Country, Save the World

The debate has been great over our involvement in the Middle East. Many see our intervention into Iraq as a wasted venture. The results of this, they claim, are dead soldiers and a soaring operational cost. Hard pressed would you be to find one on the left who supports our efforts and increasingly the same can be said for those on the right. On the right this usually manifests itself in the ideology of the libertarian, paleoconservative, the isolationist. That opinion has a voice in this year's presidential election in the form of Ron Paul. His message is clear, no foreign involvement, we are not nation builders. I have thought about that term nation building and what it represents. Is it our singular goal in the Middle East to create it in our own image? Is our country trying to sow its imperialist roots in Iraq? I think many would say yes and not all of them would come from the left side of the aisle.

I can certainly see where the other side is coming from. No one wants to see good men and women die and certainly not in a fruitless and pointless effort. But that would mean defining our mission as pointless and I am not sure I am ready to do that. That idea runs counter to those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, they see the war in Iraq as a campaign for loot and plunder by an imperialist in the form of George W. Bush. I am one who with whole heart rejects that notion and believes that this is a president who believes that all in the world deserve democracy.


And that is really what the problem is, isn't it? We have become a country who has forgotten or taken for granted what democracy is. We have enjoyed it for so long we accept it as a part of our nation's fabric. But how did we get that democracy we all enjoy? We had to fight for it from those that would oppress us and keeps us under a tyrannical thumb. The people in places like Iraq, and unfortunately too many other nations, lived under such a creature. Tyrants, dictators, call them whatever you will, they do much more then keep their own people down. With the increasing flattening of our world, these people pose more of a threats to us and our allies.

Many would say that we should not force democracy of a country that has not accepted it. The problem is that they have not had the chance. They are ruled by those who know we with free society they lose their tight grip over their people. When we talk about democracy not belonging in a country, we are saying that those people do not deserve to live in a society where they do not have to fear what they say. All people deserve that much no matter where they live or god they worship. If we are an equal world with equal individuals we should banner that sentiment. Freedom and democracy does not need to be a commodity unique only to America.

I would also make the point that by a free Iraq that it increases our security and safety. In an increasing radicalization of the Middle East we need stable partners to be rational minds combating radical Islam. The rest of the world will also benefit from such a situation, although not total participants in our efforts. For too long in our recent history have we ignored what is happening off our coasts. That changed in the year 2001 when our country got the wake up call it desperately did not want. We will no longer have the option of sticking head in sand, though I fear many subscribe to this foreign policy. Democracy for the rest of the world does not mean a copycat of our American system, in fact they might benefit from avoiding our model since we seem to have trouble with it ourselves. But societies where people can freely express support and dissent without fear of tyrannical retribution is something we should fight for and champion. It is something that our founding fathers and patriots recognized and fought for, and I for one am glad they did.

Syndication Weekly

I introduce into this weekly feature, a women, Mona Charen. She is a very accomplished syndicated columnist, and political analyst. In her latest column she addresses the press and presents a challenge for them to consider. Charen discusses the recent rash of episodes involving disturbed individuals who commit heinous crimes. She points to the Omaha shooter, the man at the Hillary Clinton headquarters in New Hampshire, and the Virginia Tech tragedy. The problem is the coverage of the media who gives these people a name and face. The thought is that this might lead to copycats that will respond with their own attention-seeking behavior. That is Charen's message in this column, these are individuals seeking fame. With a life of little notice or distinction these types of people seek out that one glorious moment when the whole world will know their name. This is where the danger in presenting these people with a stage to conduct their gruesome play. It seems to be an ever increasing reality of our society that is mesmerized by reality t.v., Charen writes about the American lust for fame. She calls upon the media to take ownership of the problem, because it a problem for them to handle alone. Charen points to the fact that the media has limited itself to not publishing the names of rape victims. She would ask the same treatment for those who commit such horrendous crimes. As she puts it, "deny oxygen to this terrible fire," I could not agree more.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/12/07/a_challenge_to_the_press
Courtesy of www.townhall.com

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report
Clinton Camp Targets Obama's Drug Use
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071212/D8TG6QUG0.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com

Fox News All-Stars

The Sunday crowd covered many topics. One of the things discussed was the campaign of Barack Obama. He has risen in the polls and has found a new campaign partner in Oprah Winfrey. The group discussed what impact if any this will have on his run for his party's nomination. The round table also talked about Mitt Romney's faith speech he made recently. Some have called this his J.F.K. moment, alluding to the speech President Kennedy made about his Catholic faith. The panel notes that Romney's speech might be to Huckabee's rise, especially in Iowa, and the competition for the evangelical vote. Finally the all-stars discussed the recent issue of the CIA and the destruction of videotapes. The issue is starting to garner attention, especially by Democrats in Congress.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/huckabee_mccain_on_fox_news_su.html
Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

The Woman Who Stopped the Carnage

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/

Juan Cole on Romney Speech

You know I have a problem with people like Juan Cole. For those of you not plugged into the liberal talkosphere, Cole runs the Informed Comment website. On one of his recent intellectual meanderings he touched on the speech given by Mitt Romney regarding his religion. First off I must say that as an evangelical christian, I can hardly agree with Mormonism. But beyond that I could put that aside when looking for a qualified candidate for president. It is the so called enlightened liberal intellectuals that always focus on religion. Cole like many of his ilk seem so threatened by the mere mention of God. Contrary to Cole's statements in his article our nation was founded with a higher power in mind. Our founding fathers did realize that our rights and privileges stem from this higher power. Our history is replete with this knowledge in our buildings and founding documents. Cole seems to feel as if Republicans put to much emphasis on religion and choosing their candidates. In doing so he considers Republicans a monolith that only votes one way. The truth is that the Republican party has become more big tent, especially in this election season. The truth is that many in the Republican party value a candidate with a strong moral foundation rooted in a strong faith in God. Some may call that a litmus test. I would rather test my candidate against that position, and not one who would allow the taking of innocent life and call it right to privacy. Cole asked if a secular candidate could pass through the Republican litmus test. I would ask him in light of the left-wing take over of his party, could a religious candidate pass his party's secularized litmus test?http://www.juancole.com/2007_12_01_juancole_archive.html

Richardson's Words on Iraq, Same Old Liberal Rhetoric

Bill Richardson seems to think that Iraq is not being given the attention it should. In a recent posting on the Huffington Post, the New Mexico Governor revealed his shock at the lack of attention paid to Iraq during the recent NPR Democratic forum in Iowa. His message was not new, too many soldiers, too much money. Gov. Richardson pointed out that with the surge going on in Iraq we are stifling what reconciliation might take place, and we are also limiting our military readiness by spreading our forces too thin. Maybe the Governor would like to talk with Bill Clinton about overseeing a significant draw down in forces during the 1990's. And for the reconciliation that would take place if we were not there, are forces are what is keeping the fragile country together and away from the hands of islamofascists. Instead Richardson bemoans our spending of money in Iraq instead of providing entitlements and preventing global warming. The Governor does get one thing right in his article. He manages to point out the inconsistency of his fellow candidates' message on Iraq. The have-it-both-ways crowd was shouting down our involvement in Iraq but would keep troops until 2013. As things improve in Iraq the key will be to see how the Democrats respond. Recent comments seem to suggest a hedging of their bets to capitalize on things if they go well, a far cry from previous statements denouncing the war as a hopeless and lost cause.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/iraq-the-elephant-in-the_b_75881.html

Firedoglake Poster Calls Huckabee Candidate for Craziest Republican

Over at Firedoglake I would not expect them to show any restraint when talking about Republicans. Nor should any expect any rational thought or anything other then a double standard. Jane Hamsher posted on the site as she referred to Huckabee as leading the case for craziest Republican. Where does this label come from? Where all liberals start with conservatives, their religion. Since liberals are godless they constantly attack those who share their faith and personal relationship to him. Nevermind that when any conservative speaks calls of rascist and bigot abound. Apparently the freedom of religion gives us the right to practice our faith as long as it does not include one thing, God.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/08/huckabee-winning-the-who-is-the-craziest-republican-candidate-sweepstakes/

The Daily Drudge

The top headline from The Drudge Report

Newsweek Poll: Huckabee Doubles Romney in Iowa

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215/output/print

Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/