Judge Earl Richards on Monday arraigned Akeem Gayle, 24, of Harding Place, New Haven, and Anthony Johnson, 19, of Highview Terrace, Hamden, on charges of felony murder, first-degree robbery and conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery. Richards increased Gayle’s bail to $2 million.
Gayle has eight years of jail time hanging over his head from two convictions in which he received suspended sentences for drug sales and arson. Johnson, who was held in lieu of $1 million bail, has a minor criminal record.
Through an open, second-floor window on Harding Place, Gayle’s mother said, “He’s a good boy,” but declined further comment. No one answered the door Monday at Johnson’s residence.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
NEW YORK (AP) - Oil prices tumbled more than $8 a barrel Monday, dropping below the $100 level as traders bet that global demand for petroleum products will keep falling despite a planned $700 billion U.S. financial bailout.
A stronger dollar also weighed on crude prices as investors who bought oil and other commodities as a hedge against inflation sold their contracts.
Light, sweet crude for November fell $8.24, or 7.71 percent, to $98.65 a barrel in midday trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier dropping as low as $98.76.
The contract fell Friday $1.13 to settle at $106.89. Crude has now fallen 31 percent since surging to an all-time record of $147.27 on July 11.
Monday's sell-off was tied to anxiety over the pending U.S. rescue plan. Following a week of intense negotiations, lawmakers could hold a final vote on the emergency measure Wednesday. But investors are doubtful whether the plan will be enough to unfreeze global credit markets and restore calm to the financial system.
So. The traders' confidence that we'll buy expensive oil makes them invest more, and the price goes up. The traders' belief that we won't buy expensive oil makes the price go down? Then, why not just stop buying oil until it's affordable? Use as little heating oil and gas as you can, I say.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
From NationalReview.com:Joe Biden's denunciation of his own campaign's ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.
He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
As Reason's Jesse Walker footnotes it: "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, 'Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?'"
Where was Sen. Dodd?
BY AL HUBBARD AND NOAM NEUSNER
Taxpayers face a tab of $200 billion for a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the formerly semi-autonomous mortgage finance clearinghouses. And Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has the gall to ask in a Bloomberg Television interview: “I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.”
We will save Sen. Dodd some trouble. Here is what we saw firsthand at the White House from late 2002 through 2007: Starting in 2002, White House and Treasury Department economic-policy staffers, with support from then-Chief of Staff Andy Card, began to press for meaningful reforms of Fannie, Freddie and other government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
The crux of their concern: Investors believed the GSEs were government-backed, so shouldn’t the GSEs also be subject to meaningful government supervision?
This was not the first time a White House had tried to confront this issue. During the Clinton years, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Treasury official Gary Gensler spoke out on the issue of Fannie and Freddie’s investment portfolios, which had begun to resemble hedge funds with risky holdings. Nor were others silent. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan regularly warned about the risks posed by Fannie and Freddie’s holdings.
President Bush was receptive to reform. He withheld nominees for Fannie’s and Freddie’s boards, a presidential privilege. It would have been valuable politically to use such positions to reward supporters, but the president put good policy above good politics.
In subsequent years, officials at Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers (especially chairmen Greg Mankiw and Harvey Rosen) pressed to require Fannie and Freddie to submit to regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission; to adopt financial accounting standards; to follow bank standards for capital requirements; to shrink their portfolios of assets from risky levels; and to empower regulators such as the Office of Federal Housing Oversight to monitor the firms.
The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.
During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole.
Meanwhile, Dodd, who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008, actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.
The president’s budget proposals reflected the nature of the challenge.
Note the following passage from the 2005 budget: Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs “are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. ... A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy.”
That passage was published in February 2004. Sen. Dodd can find it on Page 82 of the budget’s Analytical Perspectives.
The administration not only identified the problem, it recommended a solution. In June 2004, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Samuel Bodman said: “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision.”
Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: “Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership,” he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year’s State of the Union address.
How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts.
Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. said this on Sept. 11, 2003: “We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. ... And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”
As recently as last summer, when housing prices clearly had peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to “immediately reconsider his ill-advised” reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the president’s suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was “inane.”
Sen. Dodd wonders what the Bush administration did to address the risks of Fannie and Freddie.
Now, he knows. The real question is: Where was he?
Al Hubbard was director of the National Economic Council and assistant to the president from 2005-07.
Noam Neusner was a speechwriter and communications director in the Bush administration from 2002-05.
They wrote this for The Washington Post, where it first appeared.
Monday, September 22, 2008
I'm all for political humor, and I have no problem with either party's candidate getting mocked, but this was just wrong.
I would be just as outraged if the joke suggested Barack Obama has sex with his daughters.
But, you know, I don't think that ever would have been an option.
The story says that comedian-turned-politico Al Franken helped with the sketch. That's wonderful. Nice to see ahead of time that how he does politics.
As an aside, Al Franken had some funny stuff when he was a comedian, so I'm also a little disappointed that he's such a creep in real life.
So what do you think? You can contact NBC here to let them know what you think -- keep it respectful, don't be an embarrassment.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
What they're failing to mention is this: If you raise taxes on the wealthy, rather than everyone paying the same percentage of their income, then any of those people that own businesses are going to charge more for their product -- which means that, while you're taxes may not go up, the money you have will buy much less.
WASHINGTON - Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."the economic plan proposed by, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.
Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.
"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.
"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Either you have less money in your pocket or the money in your pocket is worth less.
But with Obama's plan, we get into a very bad situation where successful people have their money taken from them to support people who aren't successful. So, why bother trying to be successful if you can get the same luxuries at someone else's expense?
Typical liberal garbage. The problem with America is that too many people skate by at the expense of others. If we embraced more of a "sink or swim" mentality, then maybe people would be more likely to do for themselves, rather than leech off the rest of the country.
But, the Dems know that if they appeal to the leeches and make sure that the leeches get what they want without having to actually work for it, then the leeches will vote Democrat.
That's all they really care about, getting the votes. Obama knows he'd be continuing a class of leeches, but because he's rich he won't have to live amongst them, so it's OK.
I wouldn't mind the left's stand on this so much if they at least made the leeches behave well, but they also refuse to let the country put conditions on handouts -- like drug testing for welfare recipients -- so instead of helping people better themselves, the left just allows people to prosper when they should really be sinking.
"Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's president he'll take on — and I quote — 'the old boys network in Washington.' I'm not making this up," Obama said. "This is somebody who's been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he's the one who's going to take on the old boys network," Obama said. "The old boys network. In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting. Come on."
Um, If I'm not mistaken, Obama's VP Biden has been in Congress for more than 30 years, so does that mean he's part of the "network" as well?
Obama may not be "making this up," but he's surely not thinking it through.
I tell you this: Obama is a socialist, and if you want to see the crappiest elements of our society continue to get propped up and encouraged to continue their crappy ways, then go ahead and vote Obama in. Either way, we're screwed, but with Obama, taxpayers and society as a whole will suffer.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's New Spanish Language TV Ad Es Erróneo
September 17, 2008 5:53 PM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.
As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."
The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:
“…stupid and unskilled Mexicans”
"You shut your mouth or you get out!”
The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.”
There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.
First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.
Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.
Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.
Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.
I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.
The second quote is totally unfair. In 2006, Limbaugh was mocking Mexican law, and he wrote:
“Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:
“First: If you immigrate to our country, you have to speak the native language. You have to be a professional or an investor; no unskilled workers allowed. Also, there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws. No special ballots for elections. No government business will be conducted in your language. Foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.
“If you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies. You can come if you invest here: an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If not, stay home. But if you want to buy land, it'll be restricted. No waterfront, for instance. As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.
“And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.
“You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That' how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!
“How do you say ‘double standard’ in Spanish? How about: ‘No mas!’”
But even if one is uninclined to see Limbaugh's quotes as having been taken unfairly out of context, linking them to McCain makes as much sense as running a quote from Bill Maher and linking it to Obama.
Asked for backup as to how Obama could link McCain to Limbaugh, the campaign provided this interview with McCain refusing to condemn the Minutemen from from the Kansas City Star:
Q: ‘Are they a good thing? The Civil Defense Corps, do you think -- do they help in the immigration fight, or not?’
A: ‘I think they're citizens who are entitled to being engaged in the process. They're obviously very concerned about immigration.’
Q: ‘Are they helpful?’
A: ‘I think that's up to others to judge. I don't agree with them, but they certainly are exercising their legal rights as citizens.’
Asked about the “lies” they’re accusing McCain of telling, the Obama campaign provided evidence that McCain in July 2008 told La Raza that he would have voted for the DREAM act, a bill that provides scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, even thought he earlier in the campaign season said he would have voted against the bill.
Let’s delver further into this.
In the November 2007, Myrtle Beach Sun-News, McCain said of the DREAM Act, which he had cosponsored in the past, "I think it has certain virtues associated with it. And I think other things have virtues associated with it. But the message is they want the borders secured first."
The newspaper noted that McCain said he’d vote against a temporary worker program, even though he supports the idea. "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders," he said. "There is no way we're going to enact piecemeal immigration reform."
Before La Raza, McCain was asked by a young Latina if he’d support the DREAM Act, and he said, “Yes. Yes.”
The full exchange, however, goes like this:
QUESTIONER: Hi. I’m a part of One Dream 2009 and I am one of the 6 million who either have an undocumented parent or is undocumented and I wanted to know if you would support humanity all around the world and support our Dream Act that we are trying to pass.
MCCAIN: Yes. Yes. Thank you. But I will also enforce the existing laws of a country. And a nation’s first requirement is the nation’s security, and that’s why we have to have our borders secured. But, we can have a way and a process of people obtaining citizenship in this country. And, we cannot penalize people who come here legally and people who wait legally. And so, that’s a fundamental principle on which we have to operate. Thank you.
The Obama campaign also provided a number of seemingly conflicting comments McCain has made about offering greater funding for education programs in the No Child Left Behind act -- telling the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in June that he “would fully fund those programs that have never been fully funded,” while not suggesting any greater funding for the bill when he’s talked about education in front of whiter audiences.
That ignores the fact that McCain has suggested reallocating the way the $23 billion for NCLB is spent.
McCain has changed his rhetoric and his emphasis when discussing immigration after almost losing the GOP presidential nomination because of it.
He now says the borders must be secured before anything else happens. And in that, he’s opened himself up to charges of flip-flopping, though the Obama campaign is quoting him selectively and unfairly to make their points.
The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.
Here's the story.
The only part I really don't like would be alienating Russia and China. Other than that, yeah, that would be great. America could take care of itself, and then worry about the rest of the world later -- while, of course, keeping our eyes on them so they don't start anything behind our back.WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
My Fellow Americans:
As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.
Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days.
It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that, effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.
Then, every year after that, it'll go to our Social Security system so it won't go broke in 20 years.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third-world hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.
Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the Earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or China.
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.
I have instructed the mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets, to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York
A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.
Mexico is also on List 2. Its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple of extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.
Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'Darn tootin.'
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America . It is time to eliminate homelessness in America .
To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you, and we won't forget.
To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America .. Thank you and good night."
p.s. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.
The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.
But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.
Also, I do think that the story would have been reported the same way if it was a McCain story -- it's not a matter of a biased press here, it's a matter of a media pressed for material to fill the 24-hour cycle.
Yes, I think we are in a race war with this presidential race, and I think it was created by the Democrats.
They and Obama have set the stage for a win-win situation: If Obama wins, he wins; if he loses, then the left will simply say it was because of racism, not because more Americans agreed with the policies of his opponent.
And that, my friends, will be the beginning of a whole lot of hostility.
If the left tells blacks that their big chance was quashed by racism, no one is going to look at Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice or Colin Powell as examples of how blacks can achieve, it's going to be "whitey got us down" all over again, and the streets will be chaotic.
Don't believe me? Just wait. Hell, even I hope I'm wrong, because I live in an area where too many politicians and officials rely on the "racism" card to explain the lack of motivation and effort on the part of many minorities. Which is odd, considering that in many of Connecticut's worst cities -- New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford -- the "minorities" are actually in the majority, so logic would have it that those groups should be in control. Check out city-data.com for some interesting racial breakdowns of area municipalities, you might be surprised.
by John McCormick and Steven Schmadeke, updated
Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.
It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat.
Monday night's target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time.
"The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don't gain credibility," an e-mail sent Monday evening to Obama supporters reads.
"David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering," the message said. "And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama -- on the public airwaves."
The Tribune-owned station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama's ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers.
A WGN producer said Monday night's response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.
Very interesting indeed. I know that there are going to be some lefties who automatically look for ties between the radio station and the GOP (I believe the station is owned by Tribune) -- but that doesn't matter.
This is very simple: The Obama campaign is trying to control what the American public is allowed to listen to because they do not agree with it.
I've said it before -- the left loves free speech, as long as it's speech that supports the left. Dissent should be quashed, lest the public be allowed to listen to all sides and form their own opinion.
If there are inaccuracies in the author's work, then those inaccuracies should be confronted one by one to inform the people. But labeling his work "dishonest, extreme hate mongering" without saying what it is that's dishonest, or how it would incite "hate" is just silly.
And, while I'm at it, why is it that when a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they're offering "truth," but when a conservative disagrees with a liberal, it's "hate"? I'm pretty sick of the left using the word "hate" like they use the word "racism" -- to automatically get the ignorant public to shudder and ignore the dissenting opinion. Think homosexuality is weird? You're full of hate. Think illegal aliens should be deported? You must hate immigrants. Think sticking a fork in the brain of a baby 2 months before it's born is wrong? You must hate women.
When it comes down to it, the liberals are the ones who are intolerant haters.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.
In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.
Read the rest HERE.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
BUSH 7, TERRORISTS 0
September 10, 2008
Morose that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week. The networks gave the hurricane plenty of breaking-news coverage -- but unfortunately it was Hurricane Katrina from 2005 they were covering.
On Keith Olbermann's Aug. 29 show on MSNBC, Michael Moore said the possibility of a Category 3 hurricane hitting the United States "is proof that there is a God in heaven." Olbermann responded: "A supremely good point."
Actually, Olbermann said that a few minutes later to some other idiotic point Moore had made, but that's how Moore would have edited the interview for one of his "documentaries," so I will, too. I would only add that Michael Moore's morbid obesity is proof that there is a Buddha.
Hurricane Gustav came and went without a hitch. What a difference a Republican governor makes!
As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure projects, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can't even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself -- it just looks too silly. But everyone's taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements.
Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.
If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings, like a certain impeached president I could name, he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year. By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.
A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003, which -- according to Rich -- would have been on al-Qaida's normal schedule.
Rich wrote: "Since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough." ("Never Forget What?" New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002.)
There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.
As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.
For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies -- the sort of invective liberals usually reserve for seniors who don't separate their recyclables properly. Compared to liberals' anger at Bush, there has always been something vaguely impersonal about their "anger" toward the terrorists.
By my count, roughly one in four books in print in the world at this very moment have the words "Bush" and "Lie" in their title. Barnes & Noble has been forced to add an "I Hate Bush" section. I don't believe there are as many anti-Hitler books.
Despite the fact that Hitler brought "change," promoted clean, energy-efficient mass transit by making the trains run on time, supported abortion for the non-master races, vastly expanded the power of the national government and was uniformly adored by college students and their professors, I gather that liberals don't like Hitler because they're constantly comparing him to Bush.
The ferocity of the left's attacks on Bush even scared many of his conservative allies into turning on him over the war in Iraq.
George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.
That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.
OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
I had no idea that Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian. Turns out she's going to marry her girlfriend.
I don't have a problem with lesbians, truly, I'm just wondering what's up with the whole "one has to look like a man" thing I see so often.
It confuses me. I mean, I'm ignorant about the preference thing -- if a woman likes other women, wouldn't she want one that looks like a woman? This one looks like an angst-ridden adolescent boy.
But, hey, ultimately she'll have to deal with Lindsay, who's one messed-up individual, so good luck to her!
Well! I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Now all we need is to find out what Britney Spears thinks of the election, and then we can make a truly informed decision.
Really, how ridiculous is this?
Matt Damon, George Clooney, Sean Penn ... it's bad enough when half-wit actors and singers think they're political scientists (which they could have accomplished if they made it through high school), but Pam Anderson's only claim to fame is that she had HUGE fake boobs installed on her body, then made some movies of her having sex.
Someone needs to tell Pam that being an expert on foreign objects isn't the same as foreign policy.
DC Comics is asking stores around the country to destroy tens of thousands of copies of a new Batman comic book because of a printing error that revealed a slew of obscenities.
"Text every friend you've got, s- - -heads," Batgirl tells a group of incredibly foulmouthed, drug-dealing thugs in "All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder" No. 10.
"Sell your poison somewhere else. This here arcade belongs to the f- - -ing Batgirl."
The S- and F-words were supposed to be blacked out, but two shades of black were used, and the expletives are clearly legible, as are the thugs' A- and F-words - and even a number of C-bombs.
While "All-Star Batman & Robin" isn't aimed at kids, it also doesn't have a "mature readers" warning on the cover.
DC caught the error earlier this week as the comic was heading to stores. They were able to stop some shipments, and asked retailers who got copies to destroy them.
DC said "a printing gaffe" caused "a problem with All-Star Batman. As soon as the problem was discovered, we quickly asked retailers to pull the issue. We apologize to our retailers and fans for any offense or inconvenience."
Several city comic-book stores said they had complied, but the book was sitting on the rack at St. Mark's Comics in the East Village yesterday.
"We've sold a lot," said store owner Mitch Cutler.
"We didn't destroy it because we couldn't know everyone would destroy it," Cutler said.
The comic is currently doing "Dark Knight"-like business on eBay, with copies selling for between $20 and $250.
Cutler was selling copies at his store for cover price, $2.99. "There's no need to inflate the price," he said. "It's wrong and evil and slimy."
Cutler said he hadn't sold any copies of the issue - or the entire series - to kids.
The title "has been full of adult content since the minute it was published. We'd never sell it to minors. The curse words make no difference."
Monday, September 8, 2008
-- Brit "comedian" calls America's president "a retard" and supports Obama. This, coming from a country that still bows to a queen.
-- Columnist says Democrats need to learn how to respect average Americans if they want their votes. Hey, vote Democrat, because we're here to help you, you backward redneck idiot with your flag and your gun.
-- Tammy Bruce talks about the election from a feminist perspective. Don't vote for a party platform, look at the bigger picture.
-- New al-Qaida video slams Iran for not being mean enough. We know you already kill gays and people who dance, but you're not killing enough fellow Muslims.
-- MSNBC puts political analysts Olbermann and Matthews back on analysis so they won't keep slanting the news. People complain about FOX's O'Reilly and Hannity, but those shows are labeled as 'analysis' and are not part of the 'news' presentation.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Sen. Christopher Dodd spoke at a rally in Connecticut Saturday, and he told people this:
Looking out into the diverse crowd at Saturday’s rally, Dodd said the view reminded him of the crowd at the Democratic convention in Denver last month. Watching the Republican convention on TV, he said the crowd looked “monochromatic.”
“I kept looking and it looked like the same person. ... It didn’t look like America at all. This looks like America,” he said, drawing wild applause.
What a wonderfully divisive and hateful thing to say.
This comes on the heels of maniac Howard Dean "accidentally" calling the Republican Party the "white" party.
And, Obama keeps telling us over and over again how the Republicans are going to talk about that fact that he's black.
But, the thing is, they haven't. And the liberals can't stand it.
They're trying like hell to make people think that the GOP is some racist hate group, and in the process they're showing that they're the only ones who seem to care about the color of someone's skin.
As for Dodd's silly remarks, I need to address several things about this irresponsible and divisive "speech":
-- People of all colors make up the Republican Party, and people of any color can be conservative.
-- I watched the RNC, too, and yes, there were lots of white people there. They didn't all look like the same person, though, Senator. What a stupid thing to say. A lot of your constituents are white, do you treat them differently because of it? Why does a person's color matter? So, because there may have been more varied ethnicities represented at your event Saturday, or at the DNC, does that somehow automatically make it better?
-- Dodd's comment would not be tolerated if he said it about any other group. If Dodd walked into an NAACP meeting and said, "Gee, it's dark in here. What am I, in Africa? You all look like the same person," can you even imagine the fallout? But as usual, the left is allowed to pick on whites and white Christians as much as they want.
-- Enough with the white guilt, Senator. You and your party have been at it for too long, trying to attach some sense of shame to being white, as if I personally cracked the whip in the cotton fields. If the majority of the GOP is white, so what? Anyone is allowed in, whether or not they join is up to them. The GOP doesn't count how many people are what color, because conservatives are more concerned with how people behave and contribute to society than they are about what color the person is.
-- Maybe part of the reason that the left has more "diversity" in its ranks is because it tries to manipulate blacks and Latinos by promising them victim status and handouts in exchange for votes. Look at it this way -- how much do you see liberals court blacks and Latinos? Now, how much do you see liberals court Asians? Not a whole lot of love for the Asians, there, and it's because Asians, for the most part, don't need the government and therefore the liberals don't need them. Anything the libs could promise Asians, Asians are already getting for themselves.
In the end, it's just another example of the Democrats' useless arguments and flawed thinking. They call other people racists, but they're the only ones basing anything on race.
As for Dodd ... well, I'm white, and I'm a conservative, so as far as I can tell, Dodd isn't planning on doing much for me, so I certainly won't give him my vote when runs for re-election.
Palin supported abstinence-only education, makes her daughter's pregnancy ironic (and pretty funny, truthfully), but not an uncommon thing.
So common is it, in fact, that Barack Obama's mother had him when she was 18, and it's uncertain if she and the father were married.
Here's a link to some information about Barack's mother and his "upbringing" from Snopes. (NOTE: Snopes is still in the process of identifying the origin of the information in order to verify its accuracy; I'm fairly comfortable with the dates, and that's the only info I'm really concerned with, I don't care much about his mom's political activities after she left him.)
So, aside from the amusing contradiction of the pregnancy and Palin's educational philosophy, how can liberals bring this up?
But they do, and that's just plain funny.
If they're going to mock Palin's daughter, they should mock Barack's mom, too, because they pretty much did the same thing -- met a guy, had sex and got pregnant. The only real difference is that if the Snopes article turns out to be true all the way through, then it seems Bristol Palin's kid will have a much different upbringing.
My post mocking the Herald for running they article, they said, was hypocritical because I had previously made fun of John Edwards' hair -- he totally reminds me of John Ritter back in the "Three's Company" days -- and also had mocked Edwards for spending $300+ on a haircut.
They asked, so it was OK for me to mock Edwards for his hair, but not for the Herald to talk about Palin's hair?
There's some very important differences:
- I said Edwards looked like John Ritter, but I didn't say he looked bad. Heck, I wanted hair like Jack Tripper, too, but it was the '70s and I was 12.
- Yes, I criticized Edwards' spending that much on a haircut. If it turns out Palin spends that much on her hair, then I'll call her an idiot, too.
- I ranked on Edwards to a couple of people I work with -- I didn't write an article in the paper about it. If the Herald's story was just water cooler talk, it'd be different. But it wasn't water cooler gossip, it was a story by a major news outlet with a global audience.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The McCain campaign says someone came across dozens of bags of miniature American flags left in and near trash bins following the Democratic National Convention in Colorado.
The McCain campaign says it took the flags and redistributed them at to people at a McCain rally Saturday.
The Obama campaign says that the flags were actually not discarded, but rather were taken by the McCain people as a publicity stunt.
The whole thing is just ridiculous. Either way, I don't know that it would show anything, other than perhaps people not putting their trash in the proper place, or not paying enough attention to discard unneeded flags elsewhere.
But, what makes it funnier to me is this:
"Damon Jones, spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, released a statement saying McCain should applaud the fact that thousands of American flags were 'proudly waved' at their convention. 'But instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play out a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism,' he said."
I'd applaud them if they stopped trying to enlarge the nanny state we already have. I'd applaud them if they didn't constantly encourage poor behavior through their social policies.
But, to me, it's as if they're saying people should congratulate Democrats for being patriotic enough to have -- gasp -- American flags at their convention.
To be fair, seeing as that was paraphrased, I don't know what the full quote from the spokesman was, so what he said may have been twisted around to make it sound like it sounded. I'll try to find it online.
But, for now, it's funny.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
I got it from the New York Times' Election 2008 section.
Palin’s Speech at the Republican National ConventionSeptember 3, 2008
The following is a transcript of Gov. Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.
PALIN: Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens, I will be honored to accept your nomination for vice president of the United States.
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America. And I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election against confident opponents at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions, and met far graver challenges, and knows how tough fights are won, the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost, there was no hope for this candidate, who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. But the pollsters...
The pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain.
The voters knew better, and maybe that's because they realized there's a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by. He's a man who wore the uniform of his country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who now have brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander-in-chief.
PALIN: I'm just one of many moms who will say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way. Our son, Track, is 19. And one week from tomorrow, September 11th, he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew, Casey (ph), also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is so proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
PALIN: So Track is the eldest of our five children. In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between, my strong and kind- hearted daughters, Bristol, and Willow, and Piper.
And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig.
You know, from the inside, no family ever seems typical, and that's how it is with us. Our family has the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge. And children with special needs inspire a very, very special love. To the families of special-needs...
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message for you: For years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.
And Todd is a story all by himself. He's a lifelong commercial fisherman and a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope, and a proud member of the United Steelworkers union. And Todd is a world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package. And we met in high school. And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy.
My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town. And among the many things I owe them is a simple lesson that I've learned, that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
And my parents are here tonight.
PALIN: I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath (ph).
Long ago, a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri, he followed an unlikely path -- he followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency. And a writer observed, "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity," and I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America.
I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA.
I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.
So I signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education even better. And when I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and I knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska...
... I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involved.
I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.
I might add that, in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they're listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
No, we tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes and whoever is listening John McCain is the same man.
Well, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And...
... I've learned quickly these last few days that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
PALIN: But -- now, here's a little newsflash. Here's a little newsflash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.
Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reason and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests. The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us all to agree on everything, but we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant's heart.
And I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE) This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau, when I stood up to the special interests, and the lobbyists, and the Big Oil companies, and the good-old boys.
Suddenly, I realized that sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power-brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up. And in short order, we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is a law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over-the-top.
I put it on eBay.
I love to drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef, although I got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her.
I came to office promising to control spending, by request if possible, but by veto, if necessary.
Senator McCain also -- he promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest. And as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending, nearly $500 million in vetoes.
PALIN: We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves.
When oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged: directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way that they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are open, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we're forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world's energy supplies, or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, or that Venezuela might shut off its oil discoveries and its deliveries of that source, Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And...
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.
Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems, as if we didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need...
We need American sources of resources. We need American energy brought to you by American ingenuity and produced by American workers.
And now, I've noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.
PALIN: This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory," except when he's talking about his own campaign.
But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot...
... when that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?
The answer -- the answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.
America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
Government is too big; he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan.
And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
My sister, Heather, and her husband, they just built a service station that's now open for business, like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they...
How are they going to be better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you are trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or in Ohio...
... or you're trying -- you're trying to create jobs from clean coal, from Pennsylvania or West Virginia.
You're trying to keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you -- how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election: In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
PALIN: They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speech- making, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things, and then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things.
They're the ones who are good for more than talk, the ones that we've always been able to count on to serve and to defend America.
Senator McCain's record of actual achievements and reform helps explain why so many special interests, and lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's a man who's there to serve his country and not just his party, a leader who's not looking for a fight, but sure isn't afraid of one, either.
Harry Reid, the majority of the current do-nothing Senate...
... he not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain."
Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man.
Clearly, what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain and that is only...
... that's only one more reason to take the maverick out of the Senate, put him in the White House.
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.
This world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death. And that man is John McCain.
You know, in our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world, the nightmare world in which this man and others equally brave served and suffered for their country.
And it's a long way from the fear, and pain, and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
PALIN: But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made. It's the journey of an upright and honorable man, the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this great country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on Earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless, the wisdom that comes even to the captives by the grace of God, the special confidence of those who have seen evil and have seen how evil is overcome. A fellow...
A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio...
... Tom Moe recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway by the guards, day after day.
And the story is told, when McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn towards Moe's door, and he'd flash a grin and a thumbs up, as if to say, "We're going to pull through this."
My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through the next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. But for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election, and hope the theme, and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you, and God bless America. Thank you.