Pondering Super Tuesday

Thinking today....who's the candidate closest to Andrew Breitbart as to fighting spirit?  Who pushes back harder on the ridiculous media memes?  Who seems to be the most articulate?  Who appears as fearless?

Then I saw this..



Wow, Breitbart was there.

But wait... more thoughts.   What's the most important issue this cycle?  Is it jobs?  Yeah sorta, but the jobs will eventually come back in time even if the president takes six months off and returns to Bali to work on another book.  People eventually need new cars and washing machines and shoes for the kids and the next Apple thing.

Is it the debt?  Yes, but that's a long term prospect.  We need someone who truly believes it's an issue, but both sides have to work within Congress, even a president Ron Paul.    

Obamacare?  Bingo.  Having the government controlling health coverage and decision-making is a HUGE CHANGE, certainly part of the change Obama promised.  Once DC controls health costs they have an excuse to mandate other things to keep those costs under control.  If they can mandate insurance coverage they can mandate things to lower insurance costs.  We are losing enough freedom as it is.

Meanwhile as the press focuses on birth control pills, condoms and Rush Limbaugh, Obama just essentially compared America's problems to those faced by Ghandi and Mandela in a speech talking about how slow change can be.  Really?  Did he just use a clumsy analogy or does he actually think our problems are akin to those faced by Mandela and Ghandi?  Shouldn't someone ask, because if so we ain't seen nothing yet in the change department.

In other words, the nominee has to be someone who can best win the argument on health care and creeping statism in general.  Can Romney?  This story should do him in once and for all.  Yes, he advocated market-based solutions instead of single payer, but he advocated for government-run insurance.  Now he says he'll repeal it.  Why?  It's basically his idea.  Splitting hairs over federal versus state will be a tough sell.   And Newt has his own baggage on healthcare and kumbayaing with liberals, not nearly as much, but some is likely still rotating around the carousel at Hartsfield.  Who does that leave?

Santorum.  Rick Santorum.  Leader of the free world.  No offense, but I'm having trouble visualizing it.  And Paul?  The vision is one of mass chaos.  Besides, the lefty media hasn't even begun to vet him.  

Anyway, Super Tuesday is coming, tick tock. The decision has not been made.  Considering the options is almost painful.  There's just gotta be someone, someone else.  Can't help but look at pictures like this and wonder...

...whether the GOP really wants to beat Obama...or stop Obamacare.  

Side Tracks

"Crossroads", from an interesting short-lived combo featuring Clapton, Bruce and Winwood back in the 60s..



Parts of Mississippi probably haven't changed much since Johnson passed, as the photos attest.   

Target Limbaugh

From the saintly New York Times..

Some of the same activists that persuaded advertisers to boycott Glenn Beck’s television show on Fox News in 2009 are now mobilizing against Rush Limbaugh in the wake of his verbal attacks on a Georgetown University law school student this week. Actually, they are remobilizing. A Twitter account, “Stop Rush,” which has been dormant since late 2010, woke up on Wednesday, when Mr. Limbaugh first called the student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut.”

Did el Rushbo cross the line? Yep. The woman is not a slut or a prostitute based on anything seen in the public reports.  He likes to use sarcasm but it went too far.

But clearly what sent him over the line and what's being lost in the kerfuffle is the fact she was taken seriously at all.  Yes, someone actually came in front of Congress--a law student to boot--and complained that their recreational sex life and that of other fellow law students was not being adequately underwritten by the Jesuit University they attend (and by extension via ties to Obamacare, the public at large one day).  Outrageous! 

That itself is insane of course and deserving of some wild rhetoric, but unfortunately Rush went too wild and has uncharacteristically allowed the left to focus all the insanity on him not the subject.  Advertisers are bailing.  Obama even feels safe enough to weigh in and score some cheap points (yes, the actual president).  We have to consider what the 2012 election cycle might look like without him on the mic (and Breitbart on the web).  Surely more than a few are salivating at the thought, some of them probably in high places and near levers of power.

MORE  3/3/12

As Romney said, "it's not the language I would have used".  Rather a duh moment, eh?  In other words, he agrees but doesn't agree with calling a woman a slut and ho just for wanting some free pills.  Doing otherwise would be instant political suicide.  But talk show hosts are different.  Obviously this was classic Rush schtick plus one, but as Brown suggests, would an apology be helpful?   On the one hand it seems reasonable to think that if he went on the air Monday and apologized TO HER for calling her names, then went on to explain the madness that drove hm over the line it might deflate the lefty outrage balloon.  Then again, it might just pump more hot air into it, proving he did go overboard and fueling the call for his demise.

Well, he's been doing this over 20 years and has been down this road many times and has a lot of loyal listeners and has lost sponsors before, so we'll see how he handles it.  The main lefty goal has always been to marginalize him (as it was with Breitbart and Palin) so the real winner-loser outcome is whether his influence is changed in the coming months when things get really hot.

EVEN MORE  3/3/12

He did the right thing.  And by issuing it on Saturday it doesn't create large workweek headlines, plus it's on the record ahead of the Sunday talk shows.  Hopefully now focus can be placed where it belongs-- on people who want others to pay for their recreational sex fun.

And note to liberals-- the preceding statement does not mean 1) Fore Left is at war with women, 2) Fore Left is run by a misogynist, 3) Fore Left is against birth control, 4) Fore Left is against sex, or 5) Fore Left is a religious nut.  It means Fore Left is against the government forcing entities or private citizens to pay for other peoples' recreational sex if they object on First Amendment grounds or even on general principle.  We are not talking about medical treatments to save lives and promote health here.  If you want to shag, do it, enjoy it!  Just don't ask me to pay for it.

And that's the crux of the entire issue and the danger of Obamacare in general, and why it's perfectly reasonable to be having this debate before the election. If Obama is reelected this kind of mandate will be a done deal. Remember--Obama doesn't bluff, he wasn't bluffing when he said he wanted 'change' and mandates are a big part of it.

Losing a Big Voice

What a loss of energy for the conservative movement.  No, he wasn't always pristine as a journalist and sometimes went too far in the pushback (only saying what most wouldn't) but his energy will be missed the most.   He was a true idea man, a classic entrepreneur, a freewheel thinker creating websites and ventures around his passion while stepping out of the box to do it, without fear. He reveled in the "back and forth".   Like Palin, who also collected a lot of enemies for speaking freely, people listened to Breitbart.  

As to the inevitable conspiracy questions, well the timing does seem questionable but there hasn't even been an autopsy report yet. He obviously rattled cages, producing an impressive enemies list, and he had promised a video of Obama from his college days along with a new website coming about this weekend, plus had some recent in-your-face encounters with the Occupy crowd.  And yes, the Sheriff Joe presser today featured a suggestion about Ayers's mother--while Breitbart himself shared the Cashill theory about Ayers. But it's a serious, serious charge to say he was bumped off and one not to be flung around without hard evidence.  Breitbart certainly wouldn't have done it. 

Well Of Course They Knew

Is it really supposed to be shocking that Stratfor allegedly reported that the ISI allegedly knew of UBL's arrangement in Abbotabad?   Who doesn't think that elements in official Pakistan had set up the bearded one in a nice safe house (even importing his wives and kids)?  Yeah, a lot of 'allegeds' in the above but just from a commoner perspective the building of the complex alone should have been enough to spark rumors and inquiries in a garrison town.

Wildly assuming the emails are true, a slightly touchy question arises... if the ISI knew, when did they know?  Clearly if they set up binny they knew from the beginning, meaning they might have known UBL's whereabouts as early as when he left Tora Bora.  Or maybe before.     

But the bigger question is a lot touchier...when did the US or western nations first know?  Short of "they didn't know for sure until the raid" (gutsy call, standard line), any other answer could be a bit problematic--and not just for the present president.  Reports are now saying the USG has decided to go after Assange, for what it's worth.  Not that he doesn't deserve it--he does--but when he was leaking Bush-era secrets the intensity didn't seem to be there.

Why Bother Voting then..

Interesting.  In the past week we've seen the following in regards to the upcoming election..

Obama:

"My presidency is not over," Obama told Univision's Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo. "I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done."

Hillary Clinton:

"He will be re-elected president," Clinton said. "I think that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our president believes." Clinton responded to a question from the audience about the pro-Israel stance from most political candidates of both parties.

And Chris Christie:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was very blunt in his assessment of the Republican presidential nominating contest: "Rick Santorum will not be the nominee." On CBS News' "Face the Nation,"

Everyone seems pretty sure, don't they?   Meanwhile here's what Indy 500 pole sitter Danica Patrick said when asked about the Catholic contraception question:

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans,” Patrick, a Roman Catholic, told The Daily Caller Tuesday when asked about the controversy.

Yeah, a shameless attempt to mention her today while pointing out that not everyone wants to take a stand, well, on politics at least.  Oh well, Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines....

19 Years Ago Today..

For all intents and purposes the war on terrorism (or whatever it's called) began on this day in 1993.  Of the rag-tag group who constructed and transported the massive bomb (laced with cyanide) to the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center, only one was said to be a real player.  His arrival occurred in late 1992 at JFK with entrance based on an Iraqi passport. As reported by Laurie Mylroie in "The War Against America", the passport signature page ironically had a familiar date...

Think what you will about Mylroie (and many conservatives don't buy what she's selling) but that date is certainly a weird coincidence.  Or was it?  A symbolic speech was given on September 11, 1990--the same day--announcing that Saddam's aggression towards Kuwait and beyond "would not stand" and contemplating a "new world order" where countries would live in peace free of terrorism, etc.  And irony of ironies, today is the day Kuwait celebrates its freedom from Iraq after we liberated them in the Gulf War that followed the speech.   We know terrorists love anniversaries.  The passport was Iraqi.    

Weird wild stuff.  By the way, Iraqi complicity is not the only nefarious explanation aside from mere chance but since a public investigation never occurred there weren't many in-depth stories in the press, leaving only weak conspiracy theories (feel free to send the tinfoil). Looking back, only two days after the attack the Branch Davidian Waco standoff began and lingered for 50 days, taking over most of the subsequent headlines. 

Anyway, after the bombing a law enforcement approach was taken; Yousef was later captured in Pakistan (our great ally) in 1995 and voluntarily gave up some information about his goals on the flight back to America.  It's anyone's guess as to whether he was ever aggressively interrogated by the government as to his knowledge of the entire AQ network or any state sponsors.  The presiding judge in his case wasn't even sure of his actual identity at the end of his trial.  In other words, the same kind of confusion, obfuscation and mystery still present in our understanding of terrorism now.  And it all began 19 years ago today.