Thursday’s Political Cartoon

McCain’s Constitutional Eligibility for President in Question

For at least several weeks, discussions have been underway about McCain’s Constitutional eligibility for the presidency in certain circles. I was fortunate enough to listen to discussion on this topic for over an hour on local North Florida talk radio. Now, apparently the New York Times, who is obviously seeking to put an end to any hopes of a McCain presidency, is about to break a story on McCain’s Constitutional problem.

The problem is this: McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal zone to parents who are both American citizens. Naturally, by his birth to two citizens, he is a citizen at birth. However, the qualification for president states that the president must be a “natural born” Citizen, which is where the apparent problem arises. Through documents from the State Department, the Panama Canal zone in 1936 may not be considered soverign U.S. territory to the point of qualifying McCain as a “natural born” citizen.

If true, this could lead to a Constitutional debate and suit challenging McCain’s eligibility for the presidency. This suit could likely be brought by any political group, from the Democratic party to MoveOn.org. This Constitutional challenge, if brought sometime in the summer or late fall could tie up the McCain campaign in a battle that could go to the Supreme Court for a decision! Obviously, any battle of this sort would tie up the campaign so much that an effective run for the presidency would be nearly impossible.

Click here for part two (updated analysis).

Bill Clinton on a Short Leash…Finally

What has happened to Bill Clinton lately? If you watch politics much, about a month ago we were seeing daily clips of him campaigning for his wife and angrily attacking Barack Obama. Well, pretty much since Super Tuesday, we haven’t heard much from Slick Willie.

Is it possible that Hillary has accomplished something she wasn’t able to in eight years while in the White House? Does she actually have him on a short leash? Well, in terms of his speech and public appearances, it appears that she does. I doubt that leash extends to other areas though…which is a concern if Hillary wins the White House. Are the American people (and Hillary) prepared for a First Man intern scandal?

Article: A humbler Bill Clinton

Can Obama win over any Republicans?

Racism, sexism, ageism, class warfare, immigration. These are all big and very divisive issues in this country, and a recent New York Times opinion poll shows that the majority of Americans (67%) believe that Barack Obama is the best candidate to unite the country on these issues. But is he?

Barack Obama is currently larger than life and is a candidate that is larger than the race issue. He transcends race and has blacks, whites, asians, and latinos hugging and crying for joy at his campaign stops. Oh, and did I mention fainting too? Seriously though, once you get beyond the hype and the feel good music and chanting “Yes we can” and all that other pep-rally type stuff, is there any evidence that shows he can unite Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives on issues? I believe that because Obama has risen above the race issue, which is probably the most divisive issue that divides America, and has successfully united various racial groups within behind him that the majority of Americans are willing to make the leap of faith and say that “yes we can” unite the country! The problem is that he CANNOT and WILL NOT do this. Ideologically and historically through his record, Obama is at least as divisive as Hillary Clinton and possibly more so.

Obama has a distinct senatorial record of voting strictly along party lines on all major issues. The only issues where he voted in a bipartisan fashion were in the issues of nuclear proliferation and ethics reform. This clearly partisan record earned him the prestigious title of “Most Liberal Senator in 2007” by the National Journal. Obama ranked as the 16th most liberal in 2005 and the 10th most liberal in 2006. Even in the tremendously bipartisan immigration bill in the summer of 2007 that ultimately failed, Obama even then didn’t join with Republicans.

But of course, Obama isn’t running on his record. He is largely avoiding it because he and his campaign managers know that the more people know about him, the less likely they are to vote for him. It’s much easier to give people cheap phrases like “Yes we can” and promise things that are totally free, like hope and love. His wife has promised that he is the candidate that can lead us in “fixing our souls”. This type of political speech strikes dangerously close to religious language when referring to a Messiah. Other phrases like “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and “we are the change that we seek” are not only dishonest, but horribly disingenuous. The entire campaign is about Obama and how great the Obama campaign is, but it is not about the followers.

Obama can win Republican voters if he can successfully convince them that he isn’t what he really is—that he desires to raise everyone’s taxes significantly, that he desires to annually increase federal money to the U.N. (S.2433) by $65 billion a year, and that he wants drivers licenses for illegal aliens. These are just a few of the issues that will damage him that if everyone knew about.

It is going to be a very rude awakening for Barack Obama if he wins the White House. He’s going to quickly find out that “Hope” doesn’t do squat for foreign policy, “Yes we can” doesn’t mean a thing in the Oval Office and “Change” isn’t something everybody wants. Unity is not coming to this country at the hands of Barack Obama.

Does Obama’s Record Back His Rhetoric?

Just don’t call Barack Obama liberal, okey doke?

Is Obama pulling a Vanilla Ice on us?

Here’s a funny video created by TMZ reminding us of a controversy 18 years ago. Enjoy!

Could Obama’s “Muslim” Photo derail campaign?

This morning a photo of Barack Obama surfaced on the campaign trail, apparently released by the Hillary Clinton campaign. It shows Obama dressed as a Somali elder while in Kenya in 2006.

There is no doubt that you will begin to see this image appear in emails, just fueling the underground assumption among many that Obama is a closet Muslim. Pretty dirty stuff. At least for those of us on the right, it’s pretty entertaining to watch.

Hillary rips “passing fancy” Ralph Nader

On Sunday, Hillary stated that she hoped Ralph Nader’s current run for the presidency was a “passing fancy” and that he was responsible for Al Gore losing the presidency in 2000. One has to honestly wonder if the end of the Bush presidency is going to end the left’s obsession with the 2000 election and the Florida aftermath. The only thing the Florida aftermath taught us is that Democrats like recounts as long as it gives them the result they want, but until they get that result…all the votes haven’t been counted yet.

Contrary to popular belief among the left, Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose the presidency. It was all those darn Bush voters! If Al Gore had successfully convinced voters that he was human instead of an android during the debates, he might have actually gotten a few thousand more votes in Florida and won the election outright. Hillary conveniently forgets about a miniature billionaire named Ross Perot that helped get her husband elected to his first term. It could just as easily be said that Ross Perot was responsible for George Bush Sr losing in 1992 as Nader was for Al Gore losing in 2000. Let’s be honest here…you can only speculate as to what all those Nader voters would do if Nader weren’t in the race. They might have stayed home or they might have participated in a Code Pink rally outside a Marine recruiting office. We really have no idea.

The truth is that Ralph Nader got a whopping 0.4% in his last bid for the White House in 2004, so he will likely be a huge NO FACTOR this year. However, the REAL question is whether or not he will be included in the debates. If he is, he should get a significantly larger portion of the vote….say 2%. If he isn’t, he will likely get less than 1%.

Hillary’s arrogance is dripping from her statement Sunday morning, “I remember when he did this before. It did not turn out very well for anybody, most especially our country….I hope it’s kind of a passing fancy that people don’t take too seriously.” She might as well have said, “How dare Ralph Nader slow my rise to power! It is only I, the great Hillary that can lead this country.” The Democratic party’s response to Ralph Nader running for President is anything but democratic. He appeals to a distinct type of voter and he should be allowed to run. But let’s remember, third party candidates are only a good thing when they split the Republican vote, right Hillary?

What the Heck is Huckabee Doing?

I must admit, I was at one time a Mike Huckabee fan, but my ignorance only lasted for a few weeks until I found out where he really stands on policies. He is extremely well spoken and comfortable in front of the camera, which is something that has been lacking in the White House lately. This alone fooled many conservative voters who don’t keep up with presidential politics more than watching ten minutes of a debate before casting a vote. Huckabee articulates social conservative values better than anyone in the Republican field did this year. Many “values voters” supported him simply because of his social conservative values, but there remains a small contingent of people that voted for him because of his support of the Fair Tax. However, besides witty one-liners, the Fair Tax, and his staunch support of sanctity of life issues, there is little from his record to suggest that he would govern conservatively.

Some Americans are “one issue voters”, whether it’s a stance on abortion, foreign policy, immigration, or taxes. Huckabee gained a lot of ground this year because he portrayed himself as only “Christian” candidate, while preaching the dangerous rhetoric of populism. This led many people to vote for him because of identity politics. Identity politics happens everywhere—blacks vote for Obama because he’s black, women vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, Christians vote for Huckabee because he’s a Christian. It’s a dangerous way to vote and it clearly exists.

While governor of Arkansas, Huckabee demonstrated throughout his governing that he is not a fiscal conservative by raising both government spending and taxes overall in the state. On foreign policy issues, Huckabee called the Bush administration’s foreign policy an “arrogant bunker mentality”. Much of his political speech closely mirrored John Edwards populist message. But all this is moot because he likely won’t be the nominee.

So back to my original question…what the heck is he doing? According to an article posted just yesterday by Jim Forsyth, Huckabee is shooting for a brokered convention. In other words, he’s hoping that John McCain doesn’t get the required number of delegates needed by September, leading to a debate and vote at the convention as to who wins the nomination. This same interesting scenario is also playing out among the Democrats between Hillary and Obama.

Others have speculated that Huckabee is shooting for a Vice Presidential spot, but it appears that won’t happen since he’s attempting to spoil McCain’s nomination process. But what definitely appears obvious is that Huckabee is building himself up for a run at the presidency in 2012. By hanging around and garnering more support now while he can, perhaps people will remember him in 4 years when either Hillary or Obama occupies the White House. But is his staying in the race now actually building up more support for him or is it just demonstrating the conservative distaste for John McCain? Huckabee is more of a social conservative than McCain, but it’s laughable when either claims to be carrying the banner of conservatism.

Huckabee’s mantra in this campaign of “I’m the candidate of miracles” is getting old. He has overstayed his welcome and has become annoyingly optimistic. Even though many conservatives don’t care for John McCain and probably never will, Huckabee drawing this out is just leaving everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. While his presence has contributed to an interesting and ultimately disappointing 2008 Republican nomination process, hopefully the Republicans can find a genuine conservative candidate in 2012.

Article: Is Huck Still Running for ’08 or ’12?

Claim: Secret Service Relaxed Security at Obama Rally

As reported today by the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram, yesterday at a Barack Obama rally in Dallas, Texas, Dallas police officers say they were told by (apparently) Secret Service to stop screening for weapons while admitting the 17,000 patrons to the rally. Doors opened around 10 a.m. and about an hour later an order came to relax security in order to get everyone into the rally. The relaxing of security by Dallas Police was to allow people into the rally without having to go through a metal detector. Secret Service states that having metal detectors wasn’t part of the security plans for the event.

The fact that security was relaxed in Dallas, the same location that John F. Kennedy was assassinated forty-five years ago has some people worried. What is even more unusual is that some people in the media compare Obama to JFK in style and substance. Some have fantasized that Obama is the next Camelot. This only serves to further fuel conspiracy theorists.

 

These types of assassination rumors have been floating around on the internet for some time now. The UK Telegraph reported six weeks ago that if Obama was elected president, a “southern racist might shoot him.” A Hillary Clinton supporter named Marvin Henderson in New Hampshire said, “Even before he got elected, I think some redneck or the Ku Klux Klan would try to do something about it.” Wow Marvin, it sounds more like it’s your people who are spreading this rumor. Of course it’s always the fault of us suthern red-neks fer awl tha prawblims in dis cuntry.

 

What should we make of this report by the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram? Probably not much other than you can rest assured that this kind of “relaxing” of security won’t likely happen again with Obama. There is no telling how many times something like this has happened in the past with Secret Service protecting candidates running for President and with the real President. It has probably happened numerous times and hasn’t been news worthy before. The Secret Service plans one way and the local police gear up as if it’s a real life scenario of The Sum of All Fears. If Secret Service’s plans don’t call for metal detectors and the local police bring theirs, then is it really a story if the Secret Service tells the local police that they don’t need to use them? Well, in the case of Obama it is.

 

This is just a taste of how things will be for at least the next 8 months and potentially the next term of the presidency. Get used to it.

 

Here are links to the stories:

Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally

Many Blacks Worry About Obama’s Safety

Assassination fears follow Barack Obama

Shocker: Love affair between McCain and NYT is over!

 

Literally only weeks after the New York Times “endorses” John McCain for president on the Republican side (Hillary was the Times Democratic pick), they publish an article this morning that alleges ethical misconduct by McCain throughout his career. Along with inappropriate ties to lobbyists, the Times article leaves you with the distinct impression that McCain had a secret affair with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman who is 31 years his junior. The Times sources? They conveniently don’t have one. The parts of the story about Ms. Iseman are surprisingly devoid of substance other than a few McCain campaign workers apparently felt Ms. Iseman was hanging around too much back in 1999. All parties affiliated with this “alleged affair” deny that there was an affair. John McCain denies it, Ms. Iseman denies it, and all of McCain’s staff during the time period deny it. So, how does this story have any legs? Answer: It doesn’t other than for tabloid-quality amusement.

 

The most interesting thing about this story isn’t that McCain might have had an affair nine years ago, but it’s that the New York Times knew about this story when they endorsed McCain. This story was on the Drudge Report around three weeks ago and these rumors about McCain have been around since McCain last ran for president in 2000. Why would the Times endorse McCain as the Republican nominee? More than likely because they knew they could torpedo his campaign early. Or maybe because either way the election goes, they get a liberal in the White House. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had more in their bag of scandals saved for later. However, the real truth to this is that the New York Time’s threshold for breaking stories is closer to the National Enquirer than it is to a legitimate news source. Their front page exposé on McCain is largely an empty rumor.

 

Fabricating stories isn’t anything new for the Times. Remember Jayson Blair in 2003? In case you don’t, Jayson Blair was a national reporter for the Times that covered a number of stories, including the Iraq war, and ended up resigning after it was discovered that nearly half of what he was writing was either plagiarism or pure fabrication (36 of 73 articles to be exact).

 

There are plenty of other allegations of misreporting and wrong-doing by the Times. Chris Hedges, who is a reporter for the Times, gave a rambling commencement speech at Rockford College in Illinois that was profoundly anti-Bush and anti-war. Maureen Dowd was investigated for misrepresenting a George W. Bush quote in an article to suit her own political agenda. While there is no problem with people giving speeches and expressing their opinions about politics, they shouldn’t do it under the guise of “unbiased reporting”. People this partisan shouldn’t be allowed to report the news under the pretext of being non-partisan. The Times leans distinctly left and has been for years, yet somehow maintains the illusion of legitimacy. It should be no surprise that the Times threw McCain under the bus this early. Is anyone actually shocked by this? Come September, the Times will endorse the Democratic nominee whomever it is. When was the last time they endorsed a Republican over a Democrat for president? Not in my lifetime.

 

This should be a lesson to you Republicans who voted for McCain over Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson because of his electability. McCain has been cozy with the liberal media for years, but do you think for a second that they will cozy up to him when it’s real election time? If you really think so, you’re out of your mind. This should be the last time you let the media pick our candidate. McCain is likely to get beaten like a drum in November and primarily because he doesn’t represent the base of the Republican party. You don’t beat the Democrats by picking a candidate just like them. But that’s a topic for another day.