Ron Paul has decided that since the Republican party won’t give him the light of day, he’s going to hold his own little party in St. Paul coinciding with the Republican National Convention. The idea would be to showcase that there are Republicans sick of the GOP and it’s straying away from small government (which is doubtlessly true) and that these people would rather see someone like Ron Paul in the White House (which is highly unlikely).

(more…)

Dick Morris, in today’s Washington Post: Obama Has the Upper Hand. But McCain Can Still Take Him.

To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat.In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center.

(more…)

Andrew Malcom says that Ron Paul’s supporters are planning a rebellion against the mainstream Republican powers who are essentially lined up behind John McCain.  While everyone has been watching the Obama-Clinton brawl,

quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep.Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.

(via memeorandum)

(more…)

Sununu for Veep?

Via Maria, Obama’s biggest general election liability: His bitter half

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that “the bar is constantly changing for this man.” Call the waambulance, stat.

Reminds me of Teresa’s shifting bar.

Embedding with the enemy

But in fact my religious beliefs are entirely separate from my political beliefs: the only connection is that I’m willing to buck the trend in both arenas.

Two posts on Israel at 60:
Via the Astute Bloggers, Israel at 60: The Hope,
After 60 Years, The ‘Lamp Unto The Nations’ Flourishes

Two suspicious Seattle ferry riders were “just businessmen”

Vote for Mamacita.

Japan has no kids

From the Terror Finance Blog-A PDF of the Comprehensive Survey of U.S. Efforts Against Threat Financing-MUST READ

Franco had better things to do with his time.

“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind”

Platypus genetic code unravelled, which reminds me of Ogden Nash

I like the duck-billed platypus
Because it is anomalous.
I like the way it raises its family
Partly birdly, partly mammaly.
I like its independent attitude.
Let no one call it a duck-billed platitude.

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog

PBS airs an interview featuring a long-time anti-American with a long record of spewing bile towards anyone he disagrees with about anything. Infamous Rev. Jeremiah Wright was also there.

Keith Olbermann proves to be a complete ass. Yet. Again. Disgusting, but not sexism. Oh. But it’s ok. He apologized. Think he will ever apologize for his insanely long history of outrageously over-the-top BDS? Nah. Way too much to hope for. Why Olbermann went from being a second-rate sportscaster to a third-rate political commentator, we’ll never know.

The height of Democrat political humor has been acheived: “old guy” jokes.

Clinton campaign loses key fund-raiser at a crucial time. Booking limits on the Lincoln Bedroom may be to blame.

The pattern of demanding candidates apologize for what other people say seems to never die. It’s going to become impossible to ever elect anyone to anything if the standard is that they cannot have ever associated with a moron.

Fred Thompson says he would reject VP nomination. No sign that anyone was going to offer it to him.

And, of course, the empty “yay for us” story of the day.

All links via Memeorandum.

The The New York Times has an article up which claims that there might be a war going on between pragmatists and neoconservatives in the McCain camp. They don’t have whole lot of facts to back their case up, nor do they have a good basis to argue that McCain is attracted to the neoconservative point of view all of a sudden. Kevin Sullivan responds: ‘The obvious assumption made throughout the article is that there are two camps in conservative circles; those who mistrust the world, and those who wish to blow it up.  I expect such silly distinctions from the far, far Left, but it would be nice if the Paper of Record could do as Mario Cuomo once advised, and write in fine-quill pens rather than broad strokes that insult their readership.’

In 2004, Nader got on the ballot in many states thanks to the help of Republicans, that collected signatures to get him on the ballot. This of course was not because they had found their inner liberal, but a tactic to attempt to leech votes from Kerry, to boost GOP chances.

It seems Clinton is benefiting from her own Nader effect these days, with Republicans, already assured of who their candidate is, try to give a boost to who they think will be easier to beat in November or at the very least prolong the Democratic primary, to weaken the party. Look at the numbers of Republican votes for Clinton:

100,000 in Ohio

119,000 in Texas (Clinton won the popular vote in Texas by 101,029 voters incidentally (h/t RealClearPolitics)

38,000 in Mississippi

If Republicans are making too much of Michelle Obama’s gaffe that “for the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country” — and well they might, because it could win them the election — Democrats are making way too little of it. It could lose them the election. (more…)

Anyone else excited about watching the election returns tonight? This has been the best primary season in a generation, offering some very interesting candidates and two parties in complete flux. The Republicans thought they knew who they were but after the very curious presidency of George W. Bush, their coalition has shattered. The Democrats, meanwhile, have been in the weeds since Bill Clinton left office. Their recent takeover of Congress was as much due to Republican forfeiture as Democratic strength, so they too are struggling to define themselves.

(more…)

I think that, if the latest polls are correct, the race for the Republican nomination has now truly become a two-men race (very important: The trend is in Romney’s advantage, he’s surging, McCain going down / staying stable). Republicans have to choose between either Romney or McCain. The one is more moderate and older, but very strong on foreign policy credentials, the other is more conservative and younger, and very strong on economy credentials. (more…)

In his first post for PoliGazette, Michael Reynolds explains why he considers this the best. election. ever. It’s the Money! vs. the Bomb! vs. the Jesus! wings! (more…)

The latest Des Moines Register poll indicates that Iowa Independents prefer the Democratic candidates over the Republican ones.

“Turnout for the Democrats is projected to be higher than Republicans, perhaps double,” DRM reports.

If this is true, not just for Iowa, but also for the rest of the nation, the Republicans will have a major problem later this year. They’ll have to reach out to Independents. For the Democrats, of course, this is good news, especially if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. (more…)

For whatever it is worth, here are some endorsements on the eve of the Iowa Caucuses:

For Republicans: Fred Thompson

For Democrats: Barack Obama

(more…)

How about this idea to give third parties a chance of actually winning the presidential elections, without screwing things up: redesign the voting system by introducing two voting rounds. In the first round, it is not about electoral votes; instead, it will strictly be about the popular vote. After that first round, the number one and number two will go on to the second round which will be the same as the Presidential elections are today (with this difference that there only two candidates allowed to particiate). That way, an Independent candidate does not have to win from both the Republican and the Democratic candidate the first time around. No, beating one of them is good enough to make it a two-men (or man-woman, woman-woman) race. Once it is 1 against 1, the Independent candidate has a better chance of winning the majority of the electoral votes nationwide. On the other hand, if this third party candidate finishes third in the first round, he (or she) is out, and the ‘normal’ race is left, without him or he being able to ‘ruin’ it.

So, divide the national elections - basically - into two separate elections: one in which the popular vote is decisive and one in which state votes are decisive.

What do you think?

Pete Abel wrote a letter he will send / e-mail to Republican leaders. This is the second version of the letter, if you are a moderate Republican, Pete asks for your feedback (and whether you want to co-sign it). You can read the entire letter at Central Sanity.

Excerpt:

We, the undersigned, are Republicans.

Through separate but cooperative organizations – from the Republican Leadership Council to the Republican Main Street Partnership; from Republicans for Environmental Protection to the Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Choice – we are a growing force within the Party.

Republican candidates will be required to reckon with us in the months and years ahead, as we increasingly organize and mobilize for no purpose less dramatic than the rescue of our Party and the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government, lower taxes and free markets, a strong national defense and collaborative foreign policy.

Depending on your position and principles, this letter should be considered either a warning or an encouragement.

It is a warning to those Party leaders who continue to allow social conservatives to define the GOP by a set of stringent and divisive policy positions on sexuality and beginning-and-end-of-life issues. The days of these social conservatives’ dominance in our party are numbered. They are welcome in the Party, but their influence will progressively subside in direct proportion to the rising influence of the undersigned and tens of millions of others like us, who represent a majority of both Republicans and Americans.

By the same token, this letter is an encouragement to Party leaders who recognize that the narrow-minded strategies of social conservatives have made the GOP a shadow of its former self; leaders who reject the social conservatives’ alienating approach and prefer what former U.S. Senator John Danforth has labeled a politics of “reconciliation,” a politics wherein we seek to emphasize what unites rather than what divides us. If you fit in this category, we encourage you to speak up and boldly state your beliefs, without equivocation. And when the social conservatives attack you for doing so, we – the real Republican base – will be there to lend our support.

After that, Pete goes on to sum up what he and other moderate Republicans believe. Be sure to read it and to give Pete some feedback.

I do not agree with Pete on everything - for one thing, I am far more conservative than he is - but he is doing something that has to be done: moderate Republicans have to organize themselves and have to object to the overwhelming influence of the far right in (the image of) their party.

Same goes for traditional conservatives: they too have to distance themselves a bit from, for instance, the religious right. They (traditional conservatives) have to focus on their ideology first, and on the Republican Party second. Partisanship can be a strength, but it can also be a weakness. For an example of the latter, look at how American conservatives have discredited themselves and their ideology by standing by Bush for far too long.

Also read today’s column by E.J. Dionne Jr.

Senator (of Massachusetts) John Kerry published a post at The Democratic Daily (where I’m helping out Pamela) about energy. Be sure to read it. I disagree with Senator Kerry on quite some issues, but energy is not one of them.

Excerpt:

It’s amazing to me that some people still refuse to see the gravity of the situation staring us in the face, with the best science telling us we may only have a decade to act before the climate crisis reaches a dangerous tipping point. But there are the same interests throwing up the same roadblocks. Take CAFE standards – I and many others are demanding that the standards be raised to 35 mpg by the end of the next decade, with light trucks and SUVs included in that and other mandatory requirements for medium and heavy trucks. And we want to close the loopholes that allow automakers to miss even those targets. But the Bush Administration has written to Congress that they are opposed to ANY numerical requirement in the statute. Think about that for a moment … they say they want fuel economy to get better, but they don’t want to put any numeric requirements about what that means. And they want medium and heavy trucks exempted from even that!

Another area where I’m pushing is to require that at least 20% of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. This has been a part of my energy plan since 2002, and I mentioned this over and over (and over) during the campaign in 2004. There has been significant support for this change now in Congress, but there are still the powerful interests arrayed against it.

Dogmatic refusal to consider new approaches to this crisis can have such enormous consequences, it boggles the mind how people can do it.

It is quite interesting to note that with a different Republican President, Kerry might accomplish quite some of his goals: Rudy Giuliani, for instance, has already said that he wants to do something about global warming (and related problems / issues) and wants to make America energy independent (as have quite some other candidates of course). It seems to me that, over time, the two parties will grow towards each other on this issue (it will be quite problematic if they don’t).

I am wondering what Senator Kerry’s thoughts are about that.

As I said, I agree with Kerry on this issue: it is about time that something is done about it.

UPDATE
Senator Kerry answered my question:

Michael

I welcome all efforts to fight global warming from anyone. My bill is a bipartisan bill (with Olympia Snowe), so I know there are some Republicans who believe in action on this, in fact Newt Gingrich seems to be moving in that direction, but they’re vast outnumbered by the flat-earth caucus on this issue.

Trust me, I’ve debated Jim Inhofe on this – the widespread denial of the science hasn’t abated. I’ll wait to see some action before I comment any further.

Even George Bush has said some things about dealing with global climate change, but then his Administration turns around and promises to veto anything that would move us forward.

A big thank you to the Senator for the (rapid) response. Let me just say: very true, some of them talk the talk every now and then, it’s time for those people to walk the walk as well.

Mike Huckabee talked to the Pew Forum about “the fate of social conservatives and how he sees religion playing out in 2008 and beyond.”

He also talked about “how he has witnessed religion impacting public affairs in his roles as a pastor and governor, and how his own faith guides his public life.”

No, he did not just talk about religion: he also talked about other issues such as the nature of the political debate in America, foreign policy, health care, etc.

I encourage all of you to read the transcript. It provides for quite an interesting read. The moderator of the discussion: EJ Dionne Jr.

When reading the transcript I concluded a couple of things: he knows what he’s talking about, he’s serious, but he also has a good sense of humor. For instance:

There are some interesting points of opposition that I faced along the way. I love to tell the story of the lady who asked me in my early political life if it was true that I was a Baptist minister, and I said, “Yes, ma’am, that is true.” She said, “Well, let me ask you, are you one of those narrow-minded Baptists who think only Baptists go to heaven?” I said, “No, ma’am, actually I’m more narrow than that; I don’t think all of the Baptists are going to make it.”

He said something quite interesting about Republicans and African-Americans:

I think one of the milestones that I celebrate, not so much in terms of programs – perhaps we’ll talk about that later – but politically, was that in 1998, I received 49 percent of the African-American vote. It’s one of the things for which I am most grateful because I think sometimes people assume that Republicans can’t win that vote. I have said for a long time that Republicans have made a huge mistake by not understanding that they can win African-American votes, and they should do everything possible to try. I also believe that we Republicans have to make sure that we communicate the message that resonates down to people of all levels of the economic spectrum. Frankly, we have not done that very well, and as a result, we have had some struggles. I think part of the reason for the 2006 disasters was that we didn’t do that.

I agree completely with that. The Republicans have just about handed over the African-American vote to the Democrats. The Democrats believe that there is not much they can do wrong in this regard - as far as I can tell, they consider the support of African-Americans to be logical, unquestionnable. If the Republican Party, however, would court African-Americans more actively, I am quite sure that it can win quite some of them over. Doing so, will, of course, be good for the African-American community in the US: if Republicans try to persuade African-Americans to vote for them, Democrats have to work harder to get the votes they’d normally get and that means that they’ll be willing to do more for this ‘group.’

About the debates Huckabee said:

A frustration of the debate process was that in three debates – California, South California and last night in New Hampshire – In those three debates with the Republican candidates, there was not a question about education, which I thought was unfortunate. There was only one question last night about health care. Very few questions – no questions last night – Think about this: Republicans were on a stage for two hours and not one question was asked about the tax system, taxes or economic development, which are typically cornerstones of Republican politics.

It was an unusual format and one that I think left many of us saying, my gosh, are we going to talk about some of the issues that people talk about at their dinner tables at night? Somebody asked me after the debate what I thought about the question I got on evolution. I said it was OK, but the truth is, I have been out there campaigning every day for quite some time and here is a reality: Not one person in America has asked me about evolution at a forum or town-hall discussion – nobody, not one. I get on national television twice, and I’m asked about it in California and I’m asked about it in New Hampshire. I’m happy to give my answer; it’s not that I’m ashamed or afraid to speak of it. But I’m thinking that all over America there were families sitting down to have dinner, and I doubt that any of them said, I wonder what the next president will think about evolution. I just don’t think that came out of the conversation.

I agree completely with that. When watching the debates, I found it to be quite frustrating to see that they did not spend a lot of time on issues such as health care, education, taxes, etc. as well (purely speaking as an observer here). It seems to me that these issues are far more important than whether the candidate believes in evolution, if so to what degree, etc.
(more…)

An interesting article at NRO by Jonah Goldberg. Jonah starts off by quoting some posts at LMAO about Thompson (jokes). For instance:

Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.

Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn’t stopped wetting his pants.

Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a senator’s heart and showing it to him before he died.

Jonah comments:

As the old proverb goes, there’s truth in jest. Obviously, I don’t mean to say that it’s possible for anyone to open clamshell packaging easily. I nearly lost a thumb recently while trying to extricate a cowgirl doll for my daughter from its plastic cocoon.

But there’s no denying that Fred Thompson has one of the most profound personality cults we’ve seen in politics for a long time. While traveling around the country in recent months, I’ve been amazed at how many rank-and-file Republicans see Thompson as a secular savior, as if Thompson were designed by GOP-friendly alien scientists as some sort of Super Candidate.

Some people, like Jason Zengerle, compare Fred Thompson to Wesley Clark. Jonah agrees… but only to a degree:

On the surface, there’s merit to the comparison. Wes Clark, as I wrote in ’04, was the “Johnny Bravo” candidate. That’s a reference to the Brady Bunch episode where Greg Brady is picked to be a rock star, not because of his musical talent but because he fit into the glitzy costume that rock promoters had already created. Clark, with his admirable military record and perceived “toughness” in foreign policy, seemed like the ideal candidate to beat Bush in ’04.

Similarly, Thompson seems to be what Republicans are yearning for. But there’s a key distinction. Wes Clark was a candidate for Democrats who wanted to beat Bush. Thompson’s appeal is based partly on a desire for victory, but there’s also a desire to get beyond Bush.

First and foremost, Thompson’s articulateness shouldn’t be underestimated. He shares with Ronald Reagan — another actor-politician — an ability to communicate ideas in folksy, almost conversational ways without losing important nuance or meaning…

There are other important differences between Clark and Thompson. As a candidate, Clark was a dud. He couldn’t explain the necessary flip-flops and contortions required to fit his record with the demands of the Democratic party’s base, and the more he talked, the less likable and presidential he seemed. Thompson’s record isn’t a perfect fit for the GOP base either, but Thompson, unlike Clark, is a very capable politician who won his senate seat by the largest margin in Tennessee history. And the more he talks, the more likable and presidential he appears.

I find it fascinating to see how quite some social conservatives are rallying behind Thompson (even though he has yet to officially announce his candidacy). He certainly has his strengths, and I think that he has a lot of potential, but I do not quite understand why people are so incredibly positive about him… suddenly.

I have been following American politics for quite a while, and the name Fred Thompson truly never came up for a long, long time. Suddenly, however, Thompson is labeled the new Reagan and many, many conservatives express support for him.

The problem? Well, there is not really a problem, but one could say that Thompson did not have a stellar political career. If one would, for instance, compare Thompson’s career to that of, say, Bill Richardson, one cannot help but notice that Richardson’s resumé is much more impressive. Among Republicans there are also more people with far more impressing CV’s. For instance: Mitt Romney, but also John McCain.

Now, this post is not meant to attack Fred Thompson. I think quite highly of him myself. However, I do think that it is important to understand that Thompson might be a good politician, a good conservative, but that he also has his weaknesses.

Patrick O’Connor reports for The Politico:

House Republicans have a fairly simple plan to reclaim the majority: Blame Nancy.

The National Republican Congressional Committee launches its first national advertising blitz Thursday with a drive to tie freshmen Democrats to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The GOP’s cash-strapped campaign arm will launch a mix of radio ads and automated phone calls targeting 18 freshman Democrats for allegedly marching in lockstep with the speaker, a California Democrat who is regularly depicted by Republicans as an out-of-touch liberal.

This modest campaign comes 17 months before the next election and signals the seats that Republicans are targeting in 2008. But it also marks an ambitious decision by the campaign committee to go after the speaker in an effort to unseat her most vulnerable members.

Lorie Byrd writes at Wizbang: “Democrats are fond of claiming a mandate as a result of the 2006 elections, but in reality they would not have won if not for recruiting moderate and semi-conservative Democrats to run in key districts. Those freshmen moderates did not run on the liberal agenda Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are now trying to push through Congress and this is one way to let voters know what their representatives are doing in Washington.”

Those Democrats would be wise to be, act and vote a bit independent-minded. If they want to keep their jobs, they’d better reach across the aisle, and, yes, even vote against legislation supported by Pelosi et al. They are Democrats, yes, but they are representing their constituents, not Pelosi.

On the other hand, Democrats shouldn’t be too afraid of the GOP either. The Republicans have their own weaknesses that can be exploited.

H/t Memeorandum.

Chuck Adkins, at The Populist, certainly thinks so:

My friends, it appears that we have been duped. Duped by slick talking politicians, who talk a mean game, but could not, quite honestly, give a damn about the people that they were chosen by, to do the job. This week an immigration bill was passed that would endanger the Nation’s sovereignty. In addition, by most accounts, even the most hardened liberal thought that it was a pure pile of garbage. Not to mention the Conservatives that have denounced it as outright amnesty.

My question to my readers is this, Are all the answers to our nations problems found in the hallowed halls of the National Republican Party or the National Democratic Party? Are these parties still representing the will of the American people or have they succumbed to the most horrific disease of all, Special interest?

Further more, Have we as a society, become so lackadaisical, that we just do not care anymore what our Government does? For us to sit by idle, and allow our elected officials to pursue their special interest agendas, all the while ignoring the will of the common people, is to commit one of the worse atrocities ever known to mankind.

The editorial is a bit dramatic perhaps, but I can understand Chuck’s complaint: I agree with him, generally, both parties only seem to listen to special interest groups. They listen to the American people only if the American people truly raises its voice and says “enough is enough.” With immigration, for instance, the Republican Party knows very well that a significant part of their party(’s base) does not agree with the plan currently on the table. But, they don’t care. Why not? Because they think that they will get away with it. Now, if Republican voters organize and object, you will see that Republicans will suddenly start backing away from the plan.

The AP is circulating a story that “the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.”

Incredible news of course. If true, I am sure that the GOP will lose a lot of support from moderate Republicans, libertarian Republicans, Republican leaning independents, etc. That’s why it’s necessary, it seems to me, to check whether the story is true. The Populist did just that:

It’s a great story and all. But there’s one little catch. The story is a hoax. I called the National G.O.P. Office in Washington DC and kindly informed them that I was highly opposed to this. First, he gave the number of the Michigan Republican Party, Then he proceeded to let me know that the National Party could not do anything of this Nature.

So, I called the Michigan Republican Party’s Office. And I was told the following. There is NO PLAN by the Michigan Republican Party to circulate a Petition to get Rep. Ron Paul out of the debates. The Chairman has never spoken about it or mentioned it. At all.

That’s amazing, isn’t it? The AP just makes a story up. Well, luckily for me, I waited a little while before writing and publishing this post: the Populist updated his post:

Story from Michigan G.O.P’s Chairman’s Blog

“Congressman Ron Paul does not represent the majority of the Republican Party on foreign policy and his participation in the debate is little more than a distraction.”

and…

I urge my fellow RNC members to categorically say “no” to Congressman Paul’s participation and ill-fated attempt to somehow represent “any” wing of the Republican Party. His campaign is all but over.

Boy… Try and stick up for a G.O.P. candidate and look what it gets me! Sheesh!

I am sure that some people will blame The Populist for his post, but I don’t: he did good work. This was not his mistake, the people he spoke to made a mistake.

More importantly though: it seems that the chairman of Michigan’s GOP is actively campaigning against Paul for what the latter said about Iraq / foreign policy. That is, in my opinion, unacceptable. He may not agree with Paul’s words / views, but to act like this is beyond words. He should be ashamed of himself. Paul does represent a ‘wing’ of the Republican Party, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be elected into office. Also, after the debate he received a lot of positive attention. I, for one, do not agree with Paul on everything, not on Iraq either, but I do respect him very much and he did and does say some things that have to be said.

The GOP is taken hostage by the Religious Right / Social Conservatives, it’s time for those who are not to fight back. Dissent is, seemingly, not allowed anymore within the GOP. This makes the entire Republican Party look bad. The majority of Americans does not agree with Bush’s Iraq policy: does the RR want to be the party of the majority or not?

To exclude Paul from the debates will make the entire Republican Party look silly.

It would be a good thing if other candidates come out and defend Ron Paul, even though they might not agree with what he said about Iraq and 9/11.