I have relegated Scott McLellan to the weekend because that is when most soft news stories take place. If I was not so busy at a serious policy conference discussing Islamofacism and other issues that actually matter, I would not have banged out such a quick column on pure fluff.

Scott McLellan may or may not be more relevant than Paris Hilton, who I mention solely to generate more hits for my blog. Also, some bimbo readers might accidentally stumble upon this column and learn something with substance. For that reason, Scott McLellan matters as much as Anna Nicole Smith.

I have not read his book. I will not read his book. There is no reason to do this. People who claim I am closeminded are the same people who suggest I look at books denying the Holocaust to hear other points of view. I do not need to read idiocy to know about it.

So why would Scott McLellan write a book lambasting President Bush?

He did this because he is an insignificant man desperate for some recognition. He is a failed bureaucrat looking to be liked. He suffers from Arianna Huffington Syndrome.

Huffington Syndrome is when one matters to nobody, and desperately wants to be liked. In high society, this means becoming a liberal.

Arianna Huffington was known in the 1990s as a right wing person who people knew because she was married to somebody who mattered, at least somewhat. Other than that, people knew her as somebody whose husband left her, announced he was gay, and left her to speak about elitist theories in a funny accent. This is not a criticism, just a recitation.

Some will say that McLellan is merely being “principled.”

In elite circles, being principled is code for being liberal. Another euphemism is to say that a President has “grown” in the job. Liberals praise former President Bush, forgetting how they used to excoriate him. He is simply seen as liberal compared to his son. If the current President Bush wants to be remembered fondly, he should be succeeded by somebody even more conservative than he is, so he can look good by comparison.

When Chuck Hagel, a republican, crosses party lines to condemn a war, he is seen as principled, courageous, and heroic. When Joseph Lieberman, a democrat, crosses party lines to support a war, he is lacerated.

Try finding an article in the Jayson Blair Times praising Lieberman for his war stance.

Principled people do not sit by and put their own self interest above doing what is right. If your boss asks you to do something illegal, you resign. That is called honor. Even the military, where the chain of command is sacred, values integrity more. Officers have the obligation to disobey illegal orders from their superiors.

Scott McLellan enjoyed the proximity to power, as many people do. He was somebody, almost. He was always seen as a fairly incompetent press secretary, sandwiched by far superior talent before and after him in the forms of Ari Fleischer and Dana Perino. I have met and spoken with both of them. They are competent and capable. McLellan was neither. Those who ask how I can come to that conclusion without meeting him are the same people that criticize President Bush because he fractures his syntax.

McLellan’s assertions are simply what the left wants to hear.

The left does not care about evidence. They never have. President Bush is evil, therefore any story about him that casts him in a negative light has to be true because it fits that world view.

What the left fails to grasp is that it is theoretically possible that President Bush could have done things badly in their eyes, yet not be responsible for everything from robbing Idlewild Airport to shooting the Easter Bunny.

There are two premises that liberals reject.

The first premise, is that somewhere in this world, an atrocity or evil deed is occurring that President Bush did not support, cause, or have anything to do with.

The second premise is that somewhere in this world, something overwhelmingly positive is occurring, and President Bush is responsible for it.

Both of these premises are reasonable. They offer a possibility of something less than a black and white, all or nothing world.

Liberals who wish to flip these around on me would be disappointed. I disagreed with President Bush on steel tariffs. I simply like him on more issues than I dislike him on, by a wide margin.

I am a thinking conservative, while many liberals are “reflexive” liberals.

It is reflexive to think that Libby, Rove, Cheney and Bush outed Valerie Plame when Richard Armitage said that he did it. It is reflexive to rage about a covert agent that is not covert. She was posing in Vanity Fair (while this happened after she was outed, her pattern of behavior was always public). Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were caught lying. This is factual. Yet facts do not matter to those who are reflexive.

Those who rush to now praise McLellan with the love usually reserved for a Huffington are not even contemplating that the book could be bogus. It is anti-Bush, so it must be true.

The fact that Scott McLellan put out a tell all book trashing a republican in a society where the media throws ticker tape parades for those who do so is not even concern for pause among the reflective left.

This book was written for money and fame. It was not written out of principle. It was done for pure capitalism. I am not criticizing capitalism. I am just debunking the notion that this book is altruism.

Those that will now worship McLellan are the same people that rave about Enron even though they do not know what it is. They will scream about Halliburton even though they do not know what Halliburton actually does (those who are going to the internet to learn right now are cheating).

Scott McLellan will get his brief fame in the great tradition of Andy Warhol. His fame will disappear as soon as somebody else criticizes the President more loudly.

I could write a column tomorrow blaming President Bush for the death of my pet Iguana back in the 1980s. The Daily Kos would then sing my praises and let the world know that President Bush murder innocent animals, but only after torturing them first.

This is not about McLellan. It is about a culture of stupidity that blindly follows a line of thinking without questioning it. The left will argue that this is why we went to war. No. It is the current left that cannot possible come up with a single solitary ability to analyze my the war might possibly have just been the right thing to do.

Once a liberal rejects that assertion, and declares the war illegal and immoral they can then apply those labels to President Bush.

Once a human being has been dehumanized, every shred of that person is fair game. It is acceptable to slander his wife, rip into his daughter at her wedding, and kick his dog. All is fair in war. Conservatives are waging war against terrorists. Liberals, who hate war, are waging war against President Bush.

President Bush has been dehumanized by the left. They admit this, and say it is justified.

It is that line of thinking that led to my family members being slaughtered by the Nazis.

Yes, it absolutely does apply.

Feeding frenzies draw blood, leaving innocent victims dead.

eric

The Tygrrrr Express is Santa Barbara bound, with the destination being an anti-Islamofacism weekend led by David Horowitz. Since multitasking has led me to whatever the opposite of brilliant blogging is, I shall finish my previous excursion before heading to Santa Barbara.

The aforementioned prior event was a debate about the 2008 elections at Temple Beth Haverim in Newport Beach. Larry Greenfield, the California Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, debated Andrew Lachman , the Los Angeles head of Democrats For Israel.

The attached link contains the recap of the debate itself.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/05/a-jewish-debate-about-2008/

The blogosphere has been given several days to digest the descriptive elements of this event. For the less sophisticated readers that have to work for a living, I have provided the breakdown of what the words actually mean. Translation…most analysts are gasbags, and interpreting things that are literal allows me to look like I offered effort at a column when the truth is I (e)mailed it in. For those who attend wine and cheese parties on a regular basis, this analysis will make as much sense to you as most simple concepts. Try to pretend you get it.

“It is the left that disparages the military. Dick Durbin compared our soldiers to the Khmer Rouge. John Kerry said that our troops are dumb, and that those who flunk out of school end up in Iraq.”

The above comments by Larry Greenfield may enrage liberals, but that does not diminish their veracity. What enrages liberals are words that point out truthful, yet warped, modes of thinking. What enrages conservatives are the actual comments themselves. The Senator from Illinois did not get to be know as Dick “Turban” Durbin due to his love of our military. Barack Obama is considered the more moderate of the Illinois Senators. That is frightening. As for John Kerry, he was the reason that masking tape was invented. He pretends he is a Smarty Pants, yet more Americans see him as Smarty Jones. Kerry may be qualified (thank you David Letterman) to win the 5th race at Belmont, but at this point this horse’s rumpus needs to be muzzled.

“This is not your father’s democratic party.”

Larry is dead right about this one. Scoop Jackson, Harry Truman and JFK are forgotten memories. JFK favored supply side tax cuts, now known as Reaganomics. All of these men favored a muscular foreign policy. Joe Lieberman was kicked out of the democratic party despite voting with democrats on every issue except surrendering to the Caliphate. Zell Miller has said he is too old to switch parties, but the man who gave the keynote speech for Bill Clinton now understands that the democratic party of Kerry, Clinton (Hillary) and Obama plan to have our troops defend themselves with spitballs.

“The left wing blogs contain most of the antisemitism. Anti-zionism runs wild on college campuses.”

Larry and I are both tired of watching liberal Jews stand shoulder to shoulder with people who have hobbies that consist of hating Jews. Bush does not equal Hitler, despite scholars such as Cindy Sheehan arguing otherwise (given how dreadful our universities are, calling someone a scholar is equivalent to calling them an imbecile. They take it as a compliment, further validating the parallel.).

“We should care about the downtrodden. However, we should also ask what actually works.”

Liberals talk about compassion. Intentions matter. Conservatives care about results. The Great Society has destroyed the very people it claimed that it wanted to help. Liberals won elections, which seems to be their only goal. Now America is paying for the decades of disaster. Conservatives that actually act like conservatives focus on accomplishments, regardless of the lack of warm and fuzzy pablum that covers the actual meal.

As for Andrew Lachman, I have nothing against the man personally. However, if he were hooked up to a machine that pumped him full of electric volts every time he took something out of context, his body would be charred hotter than a perfect steak at a republican barbecue.

“Even most republicans think that President Bush botched the war.”

That is actually a complete lie. Most republicans wanted a full scale escalation and would be fine if Iran and Syria were incinerated immediately.

“President Bush was the one who came out in favor of a Palestinian state.”

This is completely misleading. The Palestinian State was based on conditions the Palestinians had to meet. Unlike liberals, who believe dialogue in itself is a victory, President Bush refused to meet with Arafat. Furthermore, President Bush gave Ariel Sharon a free hand to allow Arafat to spend his final years in a state of humiliation. Long before President Bush even mentioned a Palestinian State, Hillary Clinton expressed love for the idea. Of course that was due to the afterglow of a passionate kiss between her and Suha Arafat, seconds after Ms. Arafat acucsed Jews of blood libel by poisoning Palestinian children’s drinking water.

“Barack Obama has 20 years of experience, which is the same as what Bill Clinton had when he ran.”

To quote Ross Perot, “running the corner general store does not mean you can extrapolate that and run Walmart.”

It depends what the word “experience” means. If it means actual real accomplishments that matter, then Obama did have Bill Clinton’s experience…none of significance.

“Obama has been endorsed by Lee Rosenberg, the head of AIPAC, as well as Congressmen Henry Waxman and Howard Berman.”

Liberals support liberals. My mother supports my blog. Her support is appreciated. I endorsed John McCain. I can feel the Earth shaking. No wait, a liberal is merely moving the Earth with powerful gusts of empty words.

“Obama wants divestment from Iran, and is anti-Hamas. The current Congress is the most Pro-Israel Congress in history.”

Maybe I only imagined that Nancy Pelosi put on a Burkha and went to Damascus to have tea with that nice doctor fellow. After all, most Pro-Israel people see kindness in Bashar Assad and Evil in President Bush. Oh wait, I meant most lunatics see that.

“McCain waffles on torture, and on his description of Evangelicals.”

Yes, we have gotten to the point where a man that was subjected to torture has his motives questioned. Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother, and her positions are supposed to be absolute. Well John McCain was beaten within an inch of his life, so if anybody has moral authority on any issue, he does on torture. His critics that have never had their bones broken fighting for the land they love (That would be America, liberals) should think twice before they dare break out the waffle iron against this man. I personally disagree with his view on the issue, but absolutely subordinate my opinion to his based on who he is.

“Dialogue does not necessarily mean face to face discussions.”

Dear lord, Bill Clinton has reproduced himself, or learned how to channel himself in other bodies.

Decking an imbecile in the face for making stupid comments does not necessarily imply a violent solution.

“McCain will bring us right wing judges, and he will NAFTAize healthcare.”

Good. He should. John Roberts is one of the finest legal minds on Earth, and NAFTA has been a rousing success in areas that have low taxes. States with high tax burdens have been crippled. The answer is more free trade and lower taxes, not more regulations and protectionism. Liberals offer the feel good rhetoric that escapes conservatives, who are too busy worrying what actually makes a positive difference.

As for Larry, the following line sums it up best.

“The republican idea is the American idea, that free markets work best, and help middle Americans.”

Yes it is, and yes they do. With all due respect to the vastly improved Post Office, IRS, DMV, and city airports, I want my Government to kill terrorists and leave me the heck alone. I did not ask for their “help.” If I want to screw something up I will ask my government to do so. Otherwise, I appreciate my liberty.

Andrew offers truths, but does not know that they are truths.

“McCain has a zero percent rating from the Sierra Club.”

Yes, another reason to vote for John McCain. Members of the Sierra Club have bombed businesses, resulting in deaths. This is called terrorism, which they never officially renounced. McCain most likely also has a zero percent rating from Hezbollah, Hamas and Armageddonijad. Somehow rational people should overlook this. Maybe even liberals will dislike these terrorists once evidence turns up that their homicide bombing campaigns also kill trees.

Larry gets it on economics, which is probably because he has a Wall Street background.

“Investment funds are fungible. When people are overtaxed, they leave. America has the second highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations, ahead of Japan.”

People think that we should just soak the rich. Then rich people leave, and people blame them for having the same rational self interest that everybody else has, only with more success. Why would anybody want to go to a restaurant with higher prices, lower quality, and bad service? Corporations are not evil entities. They are run by people, and people want a positive working environment.

Andrew does not get it.

“Tax breaks have failed. Exxon is the most profitable company in the world.”

This is nonsense. Corporations should make profits. The problem behind oil prices is crooked Arab governments, not United States citizens. By blaming Exxon, we are hurting ourselves. We are Exxon!

Reasonable people should understand that if we do something that makes Mullahs happy, it is probably a bad idea. Destroying our own corporations would thrill the Mullahs. When U.S. corporations get rich, they put the money into research and development. If liberals would stop locking both, they could do more. Does anybody think Arab governments aren’t monitoring the stupidity of the anti-corporate left?

Maxine Waters wants to nationalize (she used the word socialize) the oil companies. Somebody should break into her home and steal everything she has looted from her constituents, and see how she likes it. Only a woman that has never held an actual real job could make such an asinine statement.

“Japan is beating us in the sales of hybrids.”

Hybrids are ugly. Period. They are simply hideous looking. They are all oversized hatchbacks. If somebody would have the brains to make a hybrid that looks like something a single, male, heterosexual male would actually drive, more men would drive them. Guys use Jaguars and Maseratis to get laid, not hybrids. That smug look on the face of hybrid owners (brilliantly captured by the creators of “South Park”) is the look of people that are willing to buy an ugly looking car so they can feel good about themselves. Ask these people if they paint their walls paisley, and they do not understand the analogy.

“McCain was hypocritical in how he handled Cindy McCain’s drug problem. She got treatment while others go to jail.”

This was a cheap shot, akin to Kerry and Edwards going after Mary Cheney. I spoke to Mr. Lachman after the debate and let him know. He was a nice guy, and while he initially tried to defend his remark, when I told him it was also a loser of a strategy because people would flock to Cindy McCain’s defense, he agreed. I recommended he stop using it, and he did agree. Of course, saying something is unwise is not the same as saying it is just wrong, but he was reasonable in hearing me out.

I remember when Yassir Arafat said that homicide bombs were “not helpful.” That is not the same as acknowledging that something is simply wrong. This is why Hillary Clinton can imply that Barack Obama could be murdered, rendering her the nomination. She knows that she does not need to offer an actual apology. A “statement of regret” suffices. In the case of Andrew Lachman, he accepted my argument that his cheap shot was a strategic political loser of an argument, but he rejected that it was just plain wrong.

When I inquired about why the cities, controlled by liberals are failing, Andrew blamed Ronald Reagan.

“The problem with education is not that it has been administered badly by the left. The problem is that starting with Ronald Reagan, it has been strangled financially by the right. The right has cut budgets for cities, and they have suffered. It is not the left failing. It is the right strangling things.”

If Ronald Reagan is responsible for failing cities 20 years after he left office, why not 50 years? Why not 100 years? When Detroit is a mess in 30 years, people will blame George W. Bush. Unlike the Clintons, who spend every waking minute of their baby boomer lives blaming everybody else for everything, most people understand that those directly closest to a situation bear the greatest burden.

Detroit of 2008 has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. Cities such as New York simply function properly when conservatives take over. This is because conservatives want to cut taxes, kill criminals (or at least lock them up), destroy crime, reduce welfare, and lower taxes.

Liberals do not believe in this. They want “progressive” approaches to crime, in the form of “prevention,” when the answer is harsh punishment. Liberals want higher taxes on corporations, who then move to lower tax areas. People blame President Bush for the few days after Hurricane Katrina. How about the years that Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin and Kathleen “I’m so overwhelmed” Blanco drove Louisiana into the ground.

Liberals blame the right for strangling government. Government should be strangled. Republicans were not thrown out for strangling government in 2006. They were thrown out for acting like liberals. Conservatism in its truest form gets the job done.

“When Clinton was President, Israel talked to Jordan. With Bush, the Iraq war strengthened Iran, which threatens Israel.”

When Clinton was President, Taco Bell had larger sales than Pizza Hut. When Bush was President, Pizza Hut had more sales than Taco Bell. Therefore, President Bush hates Mexicans.

Yes, that is how liberals debate. Forget the evidence. Facts, schmacts.

“The GOP has gotten away from Tikkun Olam.”

This implies that Judaism equals liberalism. It is a statement that is nothing short of ideological bigotry. It makes as much sense as telling a young black man that getting a respectable job is “selling out” or “acting white.” Judaism does not equal liberalism. Judaism teaches that the highest form of charity is helping somebody help themselves, such as going into business with them. This is a staunchly conservative message.

“This election is about tolerance vs those who believe in the private sector and leaving people behind.”

It is the government that has left people behind by destroying the attempt at wealth creation in a misguided attempt to punish existing wealth. The private sector brings the best advances in medicine, technology, and business. If you want experts in law, go to government officials, who are pretty much all lawyers. If you want to improve an economy, find business people. They work for corporations, not governments. Governments can do something right. They can get out of the way, stop impeding progress, and let the military go blow up our enemies. The last time I checked, it was not employees of Halliburton beheading American citizens.

Larry provides the perfect punctuation mark.

“This election is the American Hero versus the American Idol.”

It goes deeper than that. This election is a philosophy of liberalism that takes people, rips their insides out, destroys them, robs them of their dignity, and calls it compassion. It is also a philosophy of conservatism that preaches hard work, responsibility, and appropriate rewards for real accomplishments.

This election is about an untested rookie with few concepts of how the world actually works vs a grizzled veteran that has fought, bled, and nearly died for causes much bigger than him.

This election is about a bunch of self indulgent spoiled brats, aka baby boomers and their offspring, versus those that remember a time when merit mattered and doing what was right meant giving, not taking.

Barack Obama says the right things. His policy proposals are the same failed ideas that have ripped inner cities to shreds. He is new. His thoughts are old and tired.

John McCain does the right things. His ideas are not new either.

In McCain’s case, they don’t have to be. They were right, they are right, and they will be right.

eric

The mile a minute action that is the Tygrrrr Express is about to go into hyper drive. Yesterday I met Nevada Senator Harry Reid and actor Rob Reiner, a liberal activist. At least a couple days are necessary to give these experiences their proper due from a blogging standpoint.

On Friday, the Tygrrrr Express is headed to Santa Barbara, which is about two hours north of my home in Los Angeles. David Horowitz is holding his annual anti-Islamofacism retreat. The list of heavy hitters attending includes former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, radio host Tammy Bruce, election expert Michael Barone, the Wall STreet Journal’s John Fund, television pundit Angela McGlowan, Congressman David Dreier, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Lt. Colonel Bill Cowan, Jerusalem Post writer Caroline Glick, entertainment producer David Zucker, Douglas Feith, Ward Connerly, Congressman Ed Royce, and Dennis Prager. Also attending are television star Alan Thicke and Congressman Tom Tancredo.

That will probably be a minimum of a week’s worth of knowledge. In addition, the analysis of the Jewish 2008 debate between Larry Greenfield and Andrew Lachman needs to be covered.

As if all of that was not vital enough, a My Space dating story must be told this weekend. Trust me, it is a classic. So before sensory overload kicks in again, now for what my blog does best, that being covering the least important stories that don’t matter, but people talk about.

For those who have better things to do than spend time concerned with the irrelevant creatures that rummage across America like the Dinosaurs destroying everything in their path, I have an update on these democrats. I observe train wrecks so that you do not have to. Like 400 pound women wearing spandex, if I did not report about it, somebody else would anyway. I think I just accidentally justified the existence of MSNBC.

Either way, the dilemma on how to apportion their delegates his heating up, and both the Clinton and Obama camps are getting ready to engage in protests. For those wondering why, it is because protesting is what liberals do. It is like Governing, except it is not.

After considerable emotional wrangling in the form of a burnt out internal light bulb over a 30 second period, I have come up with a fair solution regarding the mess that the democrats have created in Michigan and Florida. We should give them to our neighbors.

Florida originally belonged to Spain, but assuming they do not want it back, we can give it to Mexico. As for Michigan, it would make a nice Christmas present for Canada.

Those who would like to sell these areas on Ebay have never been to Michigan in the winter or Florida in the Summer. People are not willing to pay for land that is only inhabitable half of the year.

There are several benefits to this plan.

With regards to Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm is a Canadian. She was born there, meaning that her blood is tainted forever. She cannot run for President, but any nation that would elect a guy named Cretin (Chretien, whatever) as Prime Minister could do worse than her. I would comment on whether or not she is a hot piece of Governess tail, but I do not know what she looks like. I suspect she looks like your average nondescript Midwestern Governor, although more feminine than John Engler.

The Detroit Red Wings are superstars, but most hockey teams are all Canadians anyway. As for the Detroit Lions, with all due respect to my friend the P*ssed Off Tree Rat, they would not be missed.

As for giving Florida to Mexico, this is because they either won or lost a coin toss with Cuba.

These are the people who supported Pat Buchanan in 2000, nearly triggering a constitutional crisis. At this rate, by 2016, the voters will be so old and blind that they will be stumbling across the border in their bathrobes trying to vote for that nice Castro boy. Then again, the Jews down there are so liberal that those votes might be intentional. As for the Cubans, they do not hate their homeland, only their government. In this sense, they are similar to American liberals.

Perhaps trades can be arranged. We could exchange Florida for Puerto Rico. However, since Puerto Rico traditionally votes with the democrats, we would need to exchange Michigan for an area that is more likely to vote republican. Perhaps Idaho can be split into North and South in the great tradition of the Dakotas.

Between 2000 and 2008, Florida is well on its way to becoming a banana republic anyway. The only downside to giving it to Mexico would be the complaints from Mexico that they would have to teach Florida about democracy from square one. Mexico is opening up, and does not wish to go back to the days when the IRP (PRI) controlled everything. For those who are unfamiliar, it was a one party rule nation, where dissenting voices mysteriously died. In that sense it is similar to Massachusetts, with Luis Donaldo Colosio playing the role of RFK, only with a much smoother and more pleasant accent.

(Memo to Hillary Clinton…it is ok to bring up the RFK assassination in some circumstances, but not the way you did. I am not trying to be the leader of Mexico.)

Perhaps we could make Florida and Michigan the showcases that are competed for during the Showcase Showdown on “The Price Is Right.” I know, it is not the same thing without Bob Barker, but Drew Carey is likable enough to pull it off. The only question would be whether the winner chooses a state or the loser is forced to just accept one. Perhaps in the spirit of the great Monty Hall, the contestans could refuse both states and opt for what is behind door number two.

I just wish Charles Nelson Reilly were alive today. He could apply the rules of the “Match Game” to this situation. He had a bias in favor of Michigan because he was a “Meshuganah,” which is Hebrew for “crazy person.”

The main issue that could hinder negotiations is whether or not the states have to be separated only legally, or physically as well. Barry Goldwater once properly observed that America would be better off if New England was cut off from America and floated out to sea. Given that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has brought back the chain gang, perhaps he could have the prisoners saw Florida away. Then again, giving prisoners access to saws might be a bad idea. As for Michigan, we could just build a fence. Alaska is separated by Canada, and for some reason we own it. It does not bother us, so I guess we should keep it. As for Michigan, it was good for awhile, but is no longer needed.

If we can only give away one of them, then the NBA should be the determinant. The Miami Heat and the Detroit Pistons played very physical and competitive series’ against each other in recent years. Regardless of who won, both cities had fans overturn cars and light stuff on fire. Therefore, in a best four out of seven series, the top five felons in each of those cities should see who can burn cars the fastest. Since Detroit is the hub of America’s auto industry, they should host the first couple games, allowing their cars to be burnt first. Since Florida has a unique insurance setup, they can sponsor the event by insuring the cars so only taxpayers get socked with the bill for the destruction. The city that has its cars burn first gets to leave America.

Again, these ideas are all in their embryonic stages. Jack Kevorkian was from Michigan. Terry Schaivo was from Florida.

I am so not going there. I am not sure where I was going, but I am not going there.

The bottom line is that the democrats would not need to be fighting over these states if they no longer existed as part of America.

For the sake of peace and harmony, the solution is simple. We shall donate Florida and Michigan to our NAFTA brethren Mexico and Canada, respectively.

Visitation rights shall be negotiated in front of Judge Judy, and custody of all pets shall be decided by Eugene Levy, since he was the star of the movie “Best in Show.” Granted Harland Pepper’s dog, the bloodhound, was the real good old American dog, but M. Levy came close.

With the money we save on Congressional salaries from those two states, we can build a road through Alabama. They have always wanted to have a road, and now they can have one (sorry, I fell into a trance and became a smug liberal for a second).

My parents currently live in Florida, and they might wish to be relocated to the Carolinas or some other bastion of America. I will have their backgrounds reviewed first for the sake of national security. Since they are republicans, they can apply for asylum.

If our trading partners cannot accept our generous gift for fear of being beholden, we can simply ask them to provide fair market value in return. Mexico shall be required to give us oil, which we shall happily reciprocate with oranges. As for Canada, they shall either provide us with Canadian bacon, or a DVD copy of the movie “Canadian Bacon” starring the late John Candy.

I would like to wish Florida and Michigan well. It was good while it lasted. So that they match up well with their new partners, the 21 gun salutes shall be accompanied with the popular wedding tune “Greensleeves” majestically playing in the background.

Fare thee well incompetent democratic maidens. Fare thee well.

eric

In a pathetic attempt at damage control after implying that she could still win the democratic nomination if Barack Obama were to be assassinated, Hillary Clinton offered a pious justification.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/25/2008-05-25_hillary_why_i_continue_to_run.html

As long as I live and breathe and blog, I will make sure that Hillary Clinton’s every statement is rebutted. In 1992, Hillary Clinton invented the “War Room.” Counterattacks were to be swift and severe. The blogosphere allows lies to be challenged. My blog is my own personal war room. Hillary will drown in an avalanche of her own lies. It is my honor to help in this version of ethical waterboarding. Below are some of Hillary’s comments, with the actual truth offered by the Tygrrrr Express.

“This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was – and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband’s primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy’s, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different – and completely unthinkable.”

Hillary, your comments were unthinkable, but you thought them, because you said them. Even if you meant no harm, which I do not believe, your conduct shows a recklessness that makes you unfit for any position of power. You are simply too vicious.

“I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful – particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week.”

Hillary, you still don’t get it. You have apologized up, down, and sideways to the Kennedys. You should be apologizing to Barack Obama, and black America in general. One of their biggest fears is that Obama will be assassinated. To even go anywhere near that powderkeg shows that you could care less about any other human being. You are simply power obsessed.

“I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.”

This is a lie for three reasons. First of all, again, you apologized to the Kennedys, not Obama. Next, a statement of “regret” is a non-apology apology. Why not simply say “I am sorry,” rather than issue these nampy pamby statements of regrets. That is pure Clintonspeak. Lastly, You did not express regret right away. You expressed regret after you were widely condemned for your remarks. You are seen as a focus group woman that uses polls to determine every aspect of your existence. You did not offer your half baked apology because it was the right thing to do. You did it because the polls went against you. Had the polls ignored this story, you would have clung to why your statement was proper.

“I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for – and everything I am fighting for in this election.”

That’s it you poor dear. You are just a misunderstood sweet girl that had her remarks taken out of context. It is everybody else’s fault that you have built your career on the personal and political destruction of others. Your comments were an accurate reflection of what you stand for. You will say and do anything for power. Human beings are rocks to be stepped on to get to the top.

“I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits.”

No, you cannot win. The merits come in the form of delegates. These are hard numbers, and you lost.

“I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination – but this race remains extraordinarily close, and hundreds of thousands of people in upcoming primaries are still waiting to vote.”

Close means nothing Hillary. You lost. This needs to be drilled into your skull. You lost.

“I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the democratic party.”

That is ludicrous. You are ripping apart the party. You and your husband have never cared about the party. You bankrupted the DNC so you and Bill could hoard all the money and get Bill reelected. You triangulated, and this worked.

“I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter – and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over. More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race – the most in presidential primary history.”

The contest is over, and your parents could not have taught you to be classless, graceless, charmless, and unable to accept defeat with dignity. Also, stop lying about having the most votes. Obama has more, unless you use the fake math that only you accept.

“As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.”

This is not about all women Hillary. You are no feminist. You used private detectives to intimidate and harass other women from truthfully testifying to abusive predatory behavior at the hands of your husband.
Stop trying to pretend that a criticism of you is a criticism of all women. America should have a woman President one day. It should never be you.

“I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week – despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over – because I’m standing up for them.”

This is irrelevant. Again, you have lost. Apparently large wins only count when you win them. The people in Maryland, South Carolina, and many other states soundly rejected you. Congratulations on having two smal states like you. Most of the states rejected you.

“Finally, I am running because I believe I’m the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain.”

This is as irrelevant as your tired excuses. The democrats made their choice.

“Delegate math might be complicated – but electoral math is not.”

Then run as an independent and finally let the democrats know that you never cared about them from the beginning. The political road is littered with candidates that could have won general elections had they gotten through the primaries. Most republican strategists felt that you and Obama were both the weakest candidates, and that your other opponents were much more electable.

“No matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party.”

No, Hillary, you are committed to a scorched Earth strategy, You could barely contain your glee in 2004 when John Kerry lost, and you will undermine Obama at every turn through your surrogates.

Hillary, the reason you keep running is because you are an egomaniac that believes you are entitled to be President, because your husband squandered eight years on nonsense. He broke his marriage vows, and you want a consolation prize. Despite pretending to be the second coming of Helen Reddy singing “I am woman, hear me roar,” you have been a lifelong Stepford Wife, only with a nasty disposition. You have achieved nothing without your husband.

Hillary, you and your husband are both narcissistic, self indulgent, spoiled brats. Yet he, for all his flaws, got to be President. You did not. The reason is simple.

People vote for people in the same way they choose business partners. People support those that they like, and those they trust.

You are unlikable, and the foundation of your existence is based on lies.

America is looking for a few good men. It may even be open to a good woman. You are a woman, but are no good. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson…”You can’t handle the truth.” You cannot handle seeing it, or saying it.

Keep running Hillary. You are running in quicksand, and I am enjoying watching you get swallowed up.

You have bullied people for 16 years…Payback is a …well…you.

eric

I had the pleasure recently of attending a political debate at Beth Haverim Synagogue in Agoura Hills, a city located within an hour’s drive of my home in Los Angeles. I have never been to this city, but the debate made the trip worth it.

The Synagogue wanted their congregants to see the liberal and conservative perspectives with regards to the 2008 election. I give this particular temple credit for even acknowledging that a perspective that is not liberal actually exists. Many synagogues in Los Angeles have yet to discover this. Perhaps because I was technically outside the heart of Los Angeles, open-mindedness was found.

Representing the liberal perspective was Andrew Lachman, who is affiliated with the Los Angeles Chapter of Democrats For Israel. The conservative viewpoint was presented by Larry Greenfield, who is the Executive Director of the California Region of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

For the sake of full disclosure, Larry is a dear friend of mine. For those that wish to accuse me of bias, I am a conservative blogger. Fairness does not mean neutral. I am supposed to be biased.

Rather than provide analysis, I shall allow the descriptive nature of the debate speak for itself.

LG Opening Statement:

“Happy Lag B’omer, and Happy Memorial Day.”

“600,000 Jews fought in World War II.”

“Islamic Jihad is about financial Jihad and religious Jihad.”

“It is the left that disparages the military. Dick Durbin compared our soldiers to the Khmer Rouge. John Kerry said that our troops are dumb, and that those who flunk out of school end up in Iraq.”

“This is not your father’s democratic party.”

“The left wing blogs contain most of the antisemitism. Anti-zionism runs wild on college campuses.”

“We should care about the downtrodden. However, we should also ask what actually works.”

“30% of Jews are prepared to vote republican in 2008, and we could even get 40%.”

“Republicans have a tested Pro-Israel veteran. Democrats have a rookie who brings concerns.”

AL Opening Statement:

“Even most republicans think that President Bush botched the war.”

“President Bush was the one who came out in favor of a Palestinian state.”

“Our current policies have made Israel less safe.”

“Barack Obama has 20 years of experience, which is the same as what Bill Clinton had when he ran.”

“The experience level of military service is not equal to how great a President will be.”

“Obama has been endorsed by Lee Rosenberg, the head of AIPAC, as well as Congressmen Henry Waxman and Howard Berman.”

“Obama wants divestment from Iran, and is anti-Hamas. The current Congress is the most Pro-Israel Congress in history.”

LG: “The democrats in the 1970s defunded human intelligence. They were wrong on missile defense.”

“Obama is against the Israeli security fence. He has a naive and left wing world view.”

“Obama would not name the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.”

“He has had bad judgment regarding Pastor Wright. He has surrounded himself by people who are left wing and anti-Israel. Until she was forced out due to media pressure, he was advised by Samantha Power.”

“Things will be worse for Jews than the entire Carter period if Obama is elected.”

AL: John McCain initially said that he would appoint James Baker to negotiate, and we all remember what James Baker had to say about Jews.”

“Obama listens to people. McCain is supported by Pastor Hagee. Pastor Hagee is one of many Christians who support Israel because they want to convert us all.”

“McCain is against all earmarks. Aid to Israel is an earmark.”

“McCain waffles on torture, and on his description of Evangelicals.”

“Dialogue does not necessarily mean face to face discussions.”

“McCain will bring us right wing judges, and he will NAFTAize healthcare.”

LG: “Obama has also spoken warmly about James Baker.”

The republican idea is the American idea, that free markets work best, and help middle Americans.”

“People in Canada, England, and Germany die waiting for coverage.”

“Republicans stand for tort reform and medical liability reform. Lawsuits are the problem. OBGYNs have been driven out of Arkansas.”

“We spent 30 billion on oil in the 1970s, and were spending 100 billion on oil by 9/11. We are approaching spending 300 billion on oil.”

“We could drill in Alaska. It would take three planes and a snowmobile to get there. There are no birds there. There is no wildlife.”

“Obama’s campaign is about taxes on everybody, because liberals know what is best for everybody.”

“Investment funds are fungible. When people are overtaxed, they leave. America has the second highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations, ahead of Japan.”

AL “Tax breaks have failed. Exxon is the most profitable company in the world.”

“Japan is beating us in the sales of hybrids.”

“McCain has a zero percent rating from the Sierra Club.”

“McCain was hypocritical in how he handled Cindy McCain’s drug problem. She got treatment while others go to jail.”

(This was a cheap shot, akin to Kerry and Edwards going after Mary Cheney. I spoke to Mr. Lachman after the debate and let him know. He was a nice guy, and while he initially tried to defend his remark, when I told him it was also a loser of a strategy because people would flock to Cindy McCain’s defense, he agreed. I recommended he stop using it, and he did agree. Of course, saying somehting is unwise is not the same as saying it is just wrong, but he was reasonable in hearing me out.)

“Most faith based money goes to Christians, because they put Bush in office. Only one percent of that money goes to Jewish groups.”

LG: “Democrats and republicans spend too much. When republicans try to cut spending, interest groups complain.”

“As for faith based programs, Jewish liberals simply do not apply for faith based money. They should ask for it, but it runs counter to their beliefs.”

“70% of our budget goes towards Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 4% goes towards the war. It is entitlements, not the war, that is bankrupting our country.”

Questions were asked, and I decided to ask my question in a way that would catch Mr. Lachman off guard.

“How much money is too much to spend on a war that is completely lost, with people dying every day, with drugs and guns destroying things? At what point do we say that we have failed, and not give one more penny to Chicago, Detroit, other inner cities, and every public school, all of which have been run into the ground by liberals? How much is too much money to be spent on these failed war zones?”

(I love it when liberals think my question is about Iraq, and they prepare to agree with me, until I throw my curveball)

AL: “The problem with education is not that it has been administered badly by the left. The problem is that starting with Ronald Reagan, it has been strangled financially by the right. The right has cut budgets for cities, and they have suffered. It is not the left failing. It is the right strangling things.

LG: Ronald Reagan followed the example of JFK and cut taxes. Democrats today raise taxes, and people simply leave. Democrats want to tax the internet.”

“With regards to the war, Saddam Hussein is gone. The man who paid $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber is now dead thanks to this war.”

AL: When Clinton was President, Israel talked to Jordan. With Bush, the Iraq war strengthened Iran, which threatens Israel.”

“Democrats For Israel believe in clemency for Jonathan Pollard. He has served long enough.”

“We have to change the tone, and end the noise about such things such as Pastors. Obama can change the tone.”

LG Closing Statement:

“This election is the American Hero versus the American Idol.”

“When Kennedy talked with Kruschev, and Reagan talked with Gorbachev, there were tough stances taken before talks commenced. When Gorbachev acknowledged that Reagan would outspend him and bankrupt the USSR, only then did Reagan agree to talk.”

“The Chablis and Brie crowd continues to be rejected by Reagan Democrats.”

“McCain went to Sderot. He made it clear that if there were ever attacks at America coming from the U.S. Southern border, he would immediately stop them. I sreal has the right to do the same.”

“Talk to Colonel Bud Day. When he was captured and tortured, his arms were out of place. He told John McCain to break his arms so that could be reattached and grow back properly. McCain did not want to break his friend’s arms, but he did, and then reattached them properly. Today Colonel Bud Day is 84. He has the use of his arms, and he still flies. This is the kind of man John McCain is. He does not publicly talk about these episodes in his life because that is the man he is. He is the opposite of an arrogant upstart from Harvard Law.”

AL Closing Statement:

“There is a new way of doing things.”

“This is a choice between the far right and the American people. This is about which party meddled in the Terry Schaivo matter.”

“This is about corruption and the politics of the 1900s vs the future.”

“The GOP has gotten away from Tikkun Olam.”

“This election is about tolerance vs those who believe in the private sector and leaving people behind.”

Despite the fact that Mr. Lachman is smart, the issue still remains that democrats have no credibility on how they would handle Iraq when they cannot even handle an American city.

Blaming George W. Bush is typical, but blaming Ronald Reagan is a stretch. Liberals are failing 25 years later because of Reagan? Yeah, that is a great way to be held accountable.

Detroit is run by liberals. It has been run into the ground. New York City was dying until Rudy Giuliani took over for David Dinkins. Kathleen Blanco cried, Ray Nagin blamed white racism, and Haley Barbour rolled up his sleeves, and got the job done. San Francisco is so far gone that more people live now in San Jose.

People are fleeing Massachusetts for New Hampshire, and escaping New York for Florida, Arizona and Nevada. These are red states.

Some will say it has nothing to do with republicans. People move there because taxes are low. That is precisely what happens when republicans run things!

The debate between Mr. Lachman and Mr. Greenfield was civilized. They are friends, and have debated many times before.

Larry Greenfield is a former Naval Soldier. Mr. Lachman is a lawyer. They are both shaped by their experiences.

Minds were not changed publicly in the synagogue. My views were only reinforced.

eric

On May 25, 2007 at 1:53 pm, I published the column “Memorial Day–an appropriate time for silence.” I have added some 2008 updates, but my feelings a year later remain unchanged. While people have the freedom to protest on Memorial Day, having the legal right to do so does not make it morally decent. For 24 hours, protesters should have the courage and humanity to just shut up. They can go back to being crazy as soon as Memorial Day ends. Below is why I believe in, as the song says, the sounds of silence.

Lady Macbeth, aka Hillary Rodham Clinton, has finally come unglued for all to see.

Although she will deny it for the rest of her remaining hate filled days, she implied today that she could still win the democratic nomination for President, if only her opponent Barack Obama would follow the example of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, and get shot to death.

She claimed that she was merely pointing out that the 1968 and 1992 democratic races were not decided until June. This is a lie.

While Bill Clinton technically did not reach the delegate threshold until June, he pretty much had the nomination wrapped up after Super Tuesday in March. Paul Tsongas dropped out because he ran out of money. While it was very impressive that he scored 20% of the vote in New York after dropping out, he remained on the sidelines. Jerry Brown was only token opposition. The last three months were a coronation.

So the only June shocker was 1968. RFK was murdered in cold blood. The democratic party was ripped asunder.

While I am not implying that Hillary wants Obama to die, I will be the first to say that this would not cause her to lose an ounce of sleep.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/hillarys-foot-in-mouth-moment-will-bobby-kennedy-assassination-remarks-be-the-final-nail/#comments

It will take a republican to explain to this vile woman why her comments were even chillier than her.

Less than 100 years ago, black people were set on fire. They were hung from trees. This was called lynching. Black people today, despite significant progress, still live in fear in some ways. James Byrd was slaughtered like an animal less than 10 years ago simply for being black.

I say there has been significant progress because in 1996, General Colin Powell was seriously considered as a candidate for the White House. He decided not to run mainly because his wife Alma was worried that he would be murdered. Yitzchak Rabin had just been murdered, and Israel was supposed to have the best security in the world. If the Prime Minister of Israel was at risk, so was Alma Powell’s husband.

I disagree almost 100% with Barack Obama’s political views. I also do not want him to be assassinated for two reasons, one of them completely selfish. The selfless and obvious reason I want him to live is because he is a human being, a husband, and a father. That needs no elaboration.

The other selfish reason I do not want anything bad to happen to Obama is because it will destroy the republican party. It could be a liberal democrat or a completely apolitical person that murders Mr. Obama. Somehow, republicans will get blamed. The democrats have milked the assassination of JFK for 45 years. LBJ used the grief America felt to ram through some awful legislation in the form of the Great Society.

Some may ask why I always ascribe the absolute worst, most sinister motives to Hillary Clinton. Maybe she honestly did misspeak.

I ascribe the worst motives to Hillary because she is a cold, calculating woman that chooses every word with breathtaking care. She leaves nothing to chance. If she misspoke, her statement was idiotic. She is no fool. She could blame fatigue, but the bottom line is that she has a history of viciousness.

This viciousness means blind ambition, regardless of who else gets hurt.

Bill Clinton desperately wanted to be JFK. He wanted to be Camelot. His wife understands that Jackie Onassis is revered for some reason, mainly for being dignified in the face of intense scrutiny.

Yet Hillary keeps forgetting that Ms. Onassis was seen as dignified because she acted dignified. The Clintons are not Camelot. They are not even the Beverly Hillbillies, since Hillary despises big oil.

Hillary may be a better speller than most Americans, but she seems to mistake “crass” for “class.”

Only a crass woman would compare her struggle to steal the democratic nomination with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Hillary is a wealthy, white woman. On her toughest days she could not understand that the civil rights pioneers were spilling blood and giving their lives so that their children would be acknowledged as more than 60% of a human being.

Only a crass woman would dare to compare her struggle to the struggle for freedom for the people of Zimbabwe.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has been fighting for black people her whole life, while rooting for the New York Yankees and listening to Kentucky Bluegrass.

Oh no, wait a minute. She was a Goldwater girl.

Further proof that this woman has no shame was her attempt at an apology. She did not even apologize to Barack Obama. She apologized to the Kennedy family, with special sweetness for Ted Kennedy.

Some would say she is the Wicked Witch of the West. While that might be ever so slightly overstating her mean streak, the Wizard of Oz does play a very peripheral role in this aspect of her character.

The dog in the Wizard of Oz was named Toto. Toto was a rock band that had a song called Africa. Zimbabwe is located in Africa.

This might be the evidence that Hillary needs to prove that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy made her do it. For those who have forgotten, the VRWC started in 1998 when Newt Gingrich put a gun to Bill Clinton’s head and forced him to sexually submit to the whims of an all powerful 22 year old intern.

Hillary is a creature of polling. Had her remarks been seen as positive, there would have been no retraction. Thankfully, even liberals are willing to condemn the talk of murdering an innocent man provided that the man is not a republican. Liberals howled, and for once, they were right. Hillary quickly backtracked.

Perhaps Hillary is not Lady Macbeth. Maybe Shakepeare’s “Othello” would be more appropriate with Hillary playing Iago. After all, how dare Iago not have complete power. He hated the Moor, whose only flaw was being a decent guy that was likable.

As a republican, I should be delighted that Hillary’s bloodlust for power solely for the sake of power itself is ripping democrats in half. Since I put principles above politics, I want her to stop.

She will never stop. Sure, she might appear to give up after failing to blackmail Obama into giving her the Vice Presidential slot. As for Obama, he will never stand up to terrorists worldwide if he cannot even stand up to Hillary.

Make no mistake about it. Once Obama officially wins the nomination, Hillary will quietly sabotage him so she can run again when he loses. She could barely contain her glee when John Kerry lost in 2004. She will look forward to debating John McCain, whether now or later.

Some say that Obama is the nominee. Hillary is too far behind.

That scenario only works if Obama lives. Lady Macbeth was ruthless. Hillary may not be at the level of trying to murder somebody, but she certainly would be ok with capitalizing on such a tragedy to heal America.

Lady Macbeth, Camelot, and the Wizard of Oz were all fictional. They were powerful, occasionally beautiful, but always illusory.

If only that were the case with Hillary. Perhaps one day soon, she will be a distant awful memory.

eric

Sometimes it is positive to have a noun become a verb. When somebody at work is told to Fedex, Xerox, or Google something, it is a validation of the success of these firms. Becoming a verb puts them into the lexicon of American culture forever.

Sometimes turning someone into a verb is meant as an insult. In our political culture, the trendy way of claiming one is being attacked is to say that they are “Swift-boated.”

Yes, liberals love to get self righteous and indignant over the Swift Boat Veterans. One reason for this is because liberals get self righteous and indignant over everything. Nevertheless, the Swift Boats Veterans get considerable scorn.

Before going any further, it is important to dispel some myths about the SBVs.

The SBVs were not republicans. The most notable SBV, John O’Neill, was a lifelong democrat. Their gripe with John Kerry was not political. It was personal. They hated his guts. I personally find it troubling when anybody bases their campaign on hatred of another, whether it be the SBVs or Ross Perot. Nevertheless, this was not a right wing conspiracy.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the democrats are now officially the Sorosites. The entire party has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by one meglomaniacal financial criminal, George Soros. He spent millions. The SBVs spent thousands. More people believed them.

Lastly. it was John Kerry that made Vietnam an issue in the 2004 campaign, not his opponents. It was John Kerry that attacked the patriotism of George W. Bush, not the other way around. It was John Kerry that dismissed George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard. It was John Kerry, through his campaign staff, in careful coordination with Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and the Jayson Blair Times, that tried to use “fake but accurate” memos to steal an election.

Nevertheless, to Swiftboat somebody now refers to any situation where a conservative criticizes or disagrees with a liberal. Question why Barack Obama would associate with a hatemonger like Jeremiah Wright or a terrorist like William Ayers, and the response is that he will not be Swiftboated.

Barack Obama’s people keep insisting that this election must be about health care and the economy. These are areas where the democrats are strong. I can only imagine the outcry if republicans were told that the only allowable issues were crime and welfare.

Mr. Obama’s wife makes ill conceived and venomous statements, and those that criticize her are attacking a poor innocent man’s wife. The reason why nobody criticized Laura Bush is because she behaved herself. A woman can be strong and independent without being off putting and obnoxious.

It is not that republicans try to Swiftboat democrats. It is that liberals and left leaning democrats feel the need to Sharpton anybody that disagrees with them.

Al Sharpton was once a large man, and nothing more. He is now a larger than life verb. If he was caucasian, he would simply be called a racist. Since he is black, even his critics use softer words, like agitator. Others still call him a Civil Rights leader, as if being a racist and a thug qualifies one for a Nobel Peace Prize. Actually, Yassir Arafat won, so I guess it does.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/08/al-sharpton-colon-cancer-and-other-pains-in-the-rumpus/

Al Sharpton makes Al Gore and Hillary Clinton look like people of integrity (barely). From Tawana Brawley and Steven Pagones to antisemitic remarks that led to Jewish stores being burned, Al Sharpton has trafficked in hate speech.

It was bad enough when this boil on the rumpus of decency was outside of the mainstream. It is now appalling that the democratic party has become a full time group of splicers. By Sharptoning people, liberals attempt to silence all debate. This is what the 2008 election is now about.

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that sexism doomed her campaign. The fact that she is a lying, scheming, soulless, nasty, vicious, spiteful woman could not have possibly had anything to do with her loss. The fact that many people stood up and said that they would support a woman, but not her in particular, was deemed irrelevant.

Hillary’s constituency is basically hags and harpies. For those wanting to know the difference between a hag and a harpie, it is subtle. The bottom line is a dirty little secret that many women privately admit but publicly disavow…that they are the far more disliked sex for good reason. Men have issues with women, and women have issues with women. Everybody has issues with women.

Some women go out of their way to say things like, “I am a woman, but I am not a feminist. I am not one of those women. I do not nag. Watch your ball game. Treat me with respect, and I will do likewise.”

My grandmothers were not hags. My mother did not nag. My girlfriend is not a basket case crying victimhood. Plenty of normal women exist. Hillary prefers the low road of blame. Nothing is ever her fault. She wants to lob verbal grenades indicting anybody who dares to disagree with her, and then play the sexism victim card when those being attacked dare to defend themselves.

She Sharptons people, and thankfully, people are finally seeing through that.

Barack Obama’s people are starting to Sharpton people, despite the fact that Obama himself claims to want to move past that. He made a powerful statement the other day. He said, “If I lose this election, it will not because of racism. It will be because I did not articulate my ideas effectively enough.”

I give Mr. Obama all the credit in the world for that statement. My only concern is that he is simply going to let his surrogates to the racial dirty work of Sharptoning John McCain. Obama will say that he cannot be held responsible for what his supporters say and do, but if there is tacit encouragement, it must be exposed.

Liberals will claim that racism will prevent Obama from winning the election. This is a preemptive strike that creates a disgusting narrative about America. Obama must win, because otherwise, America is racist.

If John McCain wins, does that make America racist? Does that make McCain’s supporters racists?

Yes, if one is a liberal looking for excuses.

I will not be Sharptoned. I will repeatedly state my views and beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.

I think Barack Obama is a good, decent man. I simply disagree with him on issues that matter most to me.

Obama is wrong on taxes. He wants to raise them, and I want to lower them.

Obama is wrong on trade. I want as many new free trade deals as possible, especially with Latin American Nations such as Peru and Colombia. Protectionism is simply bad policy in a global world.

Obama is wrong on guns and the Second Amendment. More gun control is bad policy. One can argue the constitutional aspects of it, but what is not arguable is that areas with tougher gun control laws have more crime.

Obama is wrong on Israel. He says the right platitudes, but he genuinely does not understand the issue of Israel, or the depth of the hatred the Arabs feel for Israel. This does not make him a bad guy. It just makes him unsophisticated on the issue.

All of these issues are policy. They are not personal.

Some liberals will point to the fact that West Virginia and Kentucky went overwhelmingly against Obama. Some statistics say that one in five of them will not vote for him.

Democrats then claim racism. The problem is even if these people are racists, they are democrats!

So democrats hold racist views, and yet republicans are supposedly racists. Robert Byrd is a former Klansman, yet the late Lee Atwater is blamed for every republican ill gotten victory in the last 20 years.

When asked if they would vote for a black person, republicans cite people such as Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Armstrong Williams, Condoleeza Rice (who Obama’s Pastor called “Condoskeeza”), Michael Steele, and many others. The liberals respond by saying that those people are not authentically black. This is racism at its most poisonous.

As much as it pains me to admit, Hillary Clinton is not a man, and John Edwards is not a woman. Therefore, by that same token, Michael Steele is black, and guilty white liberals are by definition white.

To vote against Barack Obama specifically because he is partially black is disgusting. I have repeatedly condemned those that refer to him as “B. Hussein Obama.” It is wrong.

However, it is equally wrong for the man that many Clintonites dubbed “Obambi” to have the audacity of trying to stifle debate.

He does not get to decide what the issues are. He does not have the right to excoriate John McCain on a daily basis, and then claim that we have to move past such behavior when McCain’s supporters defend him. This is what supporters do.

I will not be labeled a bigot because I am voting for a man that happens to be a white male. I will not be Sharptoned because I am voting for a true American hero.

I will not be Sharptoned by people who practice the politics of division because their very political survival and relevance depends on it. I will not be intimidated by people who say that we must come together, and choose liberalism over bigotry.

There is no place for bigotry in American society, and that means choosing the best person for the job of our next President.

I believe in John McCain.

If those that want to disagree on policy want to discuss that, a healthy and vital debate can occur.

For those on the left that want to hurl slurs in an attempt to force people into voting for Barack Obama, lest they be attacked with the stigma of racism, I say “bring it on.”

I respect Barack Obama. I support John McCain.

I will not back down.

I will not use kid gloves when the other side uses a wrecking ball.

I will not be bullied by the worshipers of the tactics of Sharpton the Charlatan.

I will not be Sharptoned.

eric

At the Republican Jewish Coalition Leadership meeting in Washington, DC, I had the pleasure of listening to and then meeting Bill Kristol. He was the Chief of Staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle. He was also one of the first strategists to issue public “private” strategy memos. His daily faxes helped defeat Hillarycare in 1993 and 1994. He is currently part of a political panel on Fox News. Below are his comments regarding the 2008 Presidential election.

“First the bad news. The democratic party will be united. Don’t kid ourselves otherwise.”

“It is tough to win three straight elections. Four out of the five Presidents since World War II failed to extend their party to a third victory. Dwight Eisenhower did not deliver Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton did not deliver Al Gore. Kennedy and Johnson only had 8 years. Nixon and Ford only had 8 years. The only President to deliver a third term was Ronald Reagan, whose popularity helped deliver President George Herbert Walker Bush.”

“75% of the country thinks that America is on the wrong track. The republican party in general is not as strong.”

“Recent special elections in Illinois and Louisiana ended 30 years of republican rule. Dennis Hastert retired, and a safe republican seat went democratic.”

“Now for some good news. Liberals lose elections. Obama is a liberal.”

“Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and Dick Gephardt would have all been tougher candidates.”

“During war, Americans prefer hawkishness. They want someone tougher on National Security.”

“In losing an off year election, like we did in 2006, voters feel that the party in power has already been punished.”

Although Mr. Kristol did not explicitly state this, a good parallel would be the Gingrich revolution of 1994. Despite one of the biggest electoral landslides in American history, Bob Dole did not win the White House in 1996.

“Even many who disagree with the war feel that John McCain balances Nancy Pelosi.”

“1928 was the last election with no incumbent President or Vice President running. The Vice Presidential picks will be important, and the debates will be vital.”

When asked about the Jewish vote, Mr. Kristol pulled no punches and offered no olive branches.

“The Israel-America relationship matters. I have given up hope on getting liberal Jews to vote intelligently. I am tired of the political stupidity of the Jews.”

“Having Obama, Pelosi and Reid running the country for two years is much more serious than the last two years of Pelosi, who was stopped by President Bush.”

“Democrats want change merely for the sake of change. Keep in mind, for many democrats, Obama was not their first choice.”

In discussing the mortgage crisis,  I will now from now on call it the mortgage inconvenience. With liberals, everything is a crisis. It was Bill Kristol in 1993 who ordered republicans to grow spines, boldly declaring that, “There is no health care crisis.” Phil Gramm was the one who picked up on this theme, and declared that the Clinton health care plan “would become law over his cold, dead political body.” After he successfully killed it, he announced that the bill “was deader than Elvis, and it isn’t coming back.” He did come back himself for several more years.

The irony of this is that Former Senator Gramm himself agrees with me that irresponsible borrowers need to grow a pair. Yet Bill Kristol will not hop on board this line of thought publicly. Mr. Kristol is a political strategist, and for strategists, it is about winning. I am more interested in principles. In 1993, defeating Hillarycare was good policy and good politics. This is not the case in 2008 with the mortgage crisis.

“The Phill Gramm ‘suck it up’ economic message is a loser message.”

He meant from a political standpoint. It was not a personal attack against Mr. Gramm.

“We did well in 2004 before because 2004 was a ‘mobilization election.’ 2008 will be tougher for us because it will be an ‘imagination election.'”

The discussion then turned to potential Vice Presidential picks.

“If Hillary becomes the Vice President, Obama will need a food taster at the White House.”

“George Mitchell or Bob Kerrey would be good, safe, conventional choices as Vice President.”

“The democrats should go safe and conventional. The republicans should not. Mitt Romney is too conventional a choice to be Vice President.”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal would be a bold choice for Vice President. He is a conservative, and a fresh face. His lack of experience will not hurt him, since he can simply remind everyone about Obama’s lack of experience.”

I did have a chance to meet Bill Kristol afterwards. His manner is easy going, and his analysis is solid.

The GOP has tough challenges ahead in 2008, but 1988 makes for a great parallel. Yes, Barack Obama is significantly more inspiring than Michael Dukakis. However, John McCain is more inspiring than  President George HW Bush. Ideology defeats competence in terms of arguments every time. George HW Bush was not particularly ideological, but he ran on the Reagan ideology. Michael Dukakis was ideological, but ran away from his liberal label.

Barack Obama is a clear ideological liberal. Yet he might choose to run away from that ideology, and hope that his platitudes do not grow stale. John McCain is not seen as an ideologue, but his voting record on conservative issues is down the line ideological. He should embrace this, rather than run in fear from it.

According to the Bill Kristol strategy, republican can win this election. I believe he is right.

eric