BeldarBlog

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

New unpaid political endorsement on BeldarBlog

Those using aggregators as their sole means to review new posts here may miss the new unpaid political endorsement now running in my sidebar. I suspect it will be the first in a series between now and November 2008.

Comments pro and con, so long as in reasonably good taste, are earnestly solicited.

Posted by Beldar at 01:05 AM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, April 20, 2008

True statement, despite having come from Hillary: "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan"

I know that with the degree of concentration they've maintained on their overriding goal of replacing George W. Bush, it's hard for the Hard Left, and indeed for the entire Democratic Party, to actually remember what was going on within the United States in the first few days and weeks after 9/11/01. An overwhelming majority of Americans were grimly resolved to hit back — to hit back as hard as we possibly could, meaning militarily — against al Qaeda and their cooperative hosts, the Taliban, in Afghanistan.

But the sentiment was not unanimous. Others besides Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, were eager to put the blame for 9/11 squarely on America, and still others, like Amnesty International, earnestly argued against any military response and in favor of a brisk law enforcement effort in cooperation with other governments, including the Taliban.

Now, in the 2008 election campaign, it's Hillary Clinton, of all people, who's been caught telling the truth for once — and it's a bitter truth that the Hard Left, including its hysterical Obama supporters, continues to deny. From the opening paragraphs of a Huffpo piece entitled "Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser," we read of Sen. Clinton's expression of irritation at her opposition from the Hard Left:

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party — and MoveOn.org in particular — for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with....

MoveOn.org is quoted in the same Huffpo piece as not only resolutely disputing Hillary's statement, but linking it to that great boogey-man Karl Rove:

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

And just now, as I'm working my way through today's TiVo'd talking heads shows, I heard Fox News' Chris Wallace repeat and seemingly accept this disavowal — hook, line, and sinker — as part of his interview with Clintonista Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Fox News Sunday. Perhaps afraid to offend any genuinely dangerous snakes, even Snake-Oil Chuck didn't correct Wallace and defend the accuracy of Clinton's statement.

So let me say this as precisely as I can: Eli Pariser and MoveOn.org are calculating, deliberate liars, and you have to be an utter idiot to believe their claims that he personally, or that MoveOn.org, "never opposed the war in Afghanistan."

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 03:52 PM in 2008 Election, Global War on Terror, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Beldar on Baze

Today, in Baze v. Rees, the SCOTUS rejected two capital defendants' challenge to Kentucky's use of the "three-drug cocktail" for administering its death penalty. The vote was seven to two — only Justices Ginsberg and Souter voted to reverse — but no more than three justices agreed on any single rationale for affirming the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision to permit the continued use of this procedure. Instead, the Court produced seven separate opinions spanning 97 pages; only Justices Souter and Kennedy did not write a separate opinion.

Prof. Orin Kerr, blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy, promises a detailed post later, but there are interesting comments already to his quicky preliminary post here. Beldar's own summary (admittedly guilty of over-generalization, for your convenience and my amusement):

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 05:24 PM in 2008 Election, Law (2008), SCOTUS & federal courts | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Recordings and Sen. Obama's "politics of purpose"

Some folks are faulting the blogger who recorded, then reported, Sen. Barack Obama's comments at a San Francisco fund-raiser about "bitter" small-town voters who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them." They argue that intimate fund-raisers like this one "are always off the record," such that  Sen. Obama was fully justified in being less careful with his language than he would have been had he known it was going to be recorded for public scrutiny.

They're obviously unfamiliar with even the very thin record of legislative accomplishments that Sen. Obama can claim in either the Illinois or U.S. Senates. From his campaign website:

Amid the partisanship and bickering of today's public debate, [Obama] still believes in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose — a politics that puts solving the challenges of everyday Americans ahead of partisan calculation and political gain.

In the Illinois State Senate, ... after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

So: If a recording can be used to undercut a capital murder prosecution, that's good. If a recording can be used to expose a side of a Democratic presidential candidate that he'd rather conceal, that's bad.

Such is Sen. Obama's "politics of purpose" — as practiced, if not as preached.

Posted by Beldar at 06:30 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, April 05, 2008

NYT chooses picture that reveals much about Dubya

From Fox News (emphasis mine):

White House officials are criticizing The New York Times for publishing a photo they see as editorially unfair.

Accompanying an article on Friday about this week's NATO summit in Romania, The Times included a very large photo — almost half a page in size — that showed President Bush standing somewhat alone. The shot was taken moments before the NATO group photo, as leaders were looking for their positions on the platform. But President Bush had obviously found his.

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said, "Only The New York Times would choose a photo of the president standing alone during a week when NATO allies instead stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him on our security policies."

President Bush achieved two major goals during this week's summit: NATO leaders unanimously endorsed the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe and agreed to provide more troops for the war in Afghanistan.

Here's the picture, which accompanied this article, entitled "NATO Endorses Europe Missile Shield":

With the additional information Fox provides, however, that I've bold-faced in the block quote above, this picture is indeed very characteristic of Dubya — a man whose presidency has been the opposite of Bill Clinton's in most respects, including Clinton's famous proclivity to ramble, delay, and show up late. If the next goal on the checklist is a group picture, Dubya goes ahead and hits his spot, leading by example and deed, not by mere rhetoric. With him, being gregarious doesn't get in the way of action.

International meetings like these are mostly photo ops anyway — based on instructions given by their respective principals, the diplomacy has mostly been done beforehand between the actual diplomats, whose bosses are then expected to shake hands, hit their spots, and smile for the cameras before the press conferences. George W. Bush doesn't have to literally glad-hand or arm-twist to remind anyone present that without American leadership — from its founding in 1949 to today — there would be no NATO, and certainly no effective alliance between America and the fragmented, argumentative, over-cautious, and self-obsessed European states.

The other leaders are mostly shown looking down to find their spots. Dubya was already in his. Next order of business?

Posted by Beldar at 04:00 AM in Global War on Terror, Mainstream Media | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1)

Friday, April 04, 2008

Is Obama still smoking while hiding and denying it?

I've written very recently of my sympathy for Sen. Obama's difficulty in trying to quit his cigarette habit. It literally took a heart attack three years ago to get me to stop, and even so, the last time I had a craving for a cigarette was ... oh, about six seconds ago. I am certainly not one of those ex-smokers who's become completely intolerant of those who still indulge, or those who have tried to quit without success so far. And I am, and always will be, vulnerable to the possibility of resuming the habit. So I'm slow to condemn smokers.

But it's disturbing to have my suspicions renewed that Sen. Obama's not only a chronic smoker, but a chronic liar about whether he's been successful in quitting. Jake Tapper of ABC News blogged yesterday about an episode from last August in which he'd smelled cigarette smoke on Sen. Obama, despite the campaign's emphatic denials that he'd still been smoking. And Tapper was apparently reminded of that episode by Obama's vague and evasive statements on the topic of his smoking on MSNBC's Hardball Softball with Chris Matthews on Wednesday:

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 06:00 AM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack (1)

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Dear Dr. Dean: Amputate, but don't deny or further delay the surgery on FL & MI delegations

Doctors like getting advice from lawyers on non-legal matters about as much as doctors like being sued by lawyers on medico-legal matters. Add in that I'm a conservative Republican who holds you in laughably low regard and who's consistently mocked you since 2003, and this memo is almost certain to go straight to the bottom of your circular file.

But even a blind pig can occasionally find an acorn; even a Republican can occasionally see something about the Democratic Party that's obscure to a Democrat; and even a lawyer can occasionally persuade a doctor that his stubborn pride is about to result in an incredible injustice. (Okay, I made that last part up; it's actually never happened in the history of the world, at least in this particular quantum universe. But there's always a first time. Well, not always. But maybe.)

Although you've been reasonably successful in concealing it, you probably have a favorite between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That would only be human, but it ought not matter for purposes of the discussion in this memo. Indeed, as one of your political opponents, I used to be convinced that the best thing for the GOP would be for the Dems to nominate Hillary. But I'm now persuaded that my party ought to be able to beat either of them. Or put another way, either Obama or Clinton would make an incredibly attractive target for my scorn and ridicule leading up to the 2008 election. Either as a voter or a blogger, I'm now mostly indifferent on the subject of who your party nominates.

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 03:12 AM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

A soccer game on a steamy spring afternoon in Houston

The drizzle earlier in the afternoon hadn't been enough to wash the high-count grass and tree pollen out of the air. With brilliant shafts of late afternoon spring sunshine now wandering across the soccer field, this was definitely a "two coats of sunscreen" day, and you you could almost, but not quite, see the clouds of humidity just above the grass. Of course, no one who really knows Houston would have mistaken today for August, but the conditions were still far from ideal. And when the other team's bus driver took them to the wrong middle school, the prospect of a win by forfeit for the home-team Johnston Greyhounds grew more attractive, at least to the adult fans present.

Still, the other team wanted to play, and this was already a make-up game for one rained out earlier in the season. Anyway, the seventh and eighth grade girls on the Greyhounds hadn't signed up for varsity soccer just to compile a record. They wanted to play too. And so they cheered when the other team's bus finally hove into view.

The littlest Greyhound had already renewed her generous coat of sunscreen. She demonstrated once again for her dad how well she'd learned (from him, or at least with his encouragement) to rinse her mouth with a huge gulp of tepid water. She gargled, and then spat it onto the ground with such forceful defiance as to mock the very idea that boys, or men, might also try to play this game from time to time.

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 10:48 PM in Family, Sports | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Webb as Obama's Veep choice?

James Joyner speculates about the possibility that Barack Obama might choose a fellow first-termer, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), as his running mate. (H/t InstaPundit.) That prospect tickles my funny bone, so I'll republish here (with modifications and additions) a comment I originally left on an Althouse post some time ago:

George Soros' head would instantly explode if Obama picked Jim Webb as his Veep nominee. Are Democratic 527s the main beneficiaries of his estate planning, I wonder?

The thought of Webb and Obama sharing a ticket really makes me giggle. I can envision a joint appearance with Webb getting into gear about the Scots-Irish and their heritage, and how they provided the work ethic which built the United States into the greatest country in the world — all while Michelle Obama silently seethes.

Then Barack Obama would explain that the Second Amendment permits the District of Columbia to ban handguns outright. At that exact moment, Webb would slyly nudge his briefcase, with its Glock and three extra magazines of ammo, further under the table.

Midway through Rev. Wright's closing benediction, I would expect Webb to engage him in a fist-fight.

Posted by Beldar at 08:37 PM in 2008 Election, Humor, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Obama's never been a "professor of law" nor any full-time or tenure-track legal educator

How big a deal is it that in speeches and in campaign literature, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has identified himself from time to time as a "law professor" or even a "professor of law"?

It's not as big a deal as the Clinton campaign has made it. But it's a bigger deal than some poorly informed or outright dishonest Obama apologists have been trying to make it appear.

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 11:57 PM in 2008 Election, Law (2008), Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (18)

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Bainbridge nails it on Obama's "financial markets" speech today

Having been alerted by the MSM that Barack Obama planned a major speech from New York City today on the financial markets and his would-be Administration's plans to deal with them, I hunkered down to watch the speech with a vague thought of writing a blog post about it. I can understand why after a few minutes, the main CNN and Fox News channels cut away: there are supermodels to obsess over, after all, and car chases, and all of the other crap they use to fill 90% of their daytime broadcasting hours. To my dismay, however, not even the cable/satellite financial channels carried the whole speech. Here we have the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, who most odds-makers still peg as the likely next POTUS, announcing how he plans to address the nation's economic problems (which all of the news channels have been obsessing about, continually and hysterically if only intermittently, for months) — and none of those hundreds of channels can spare him 30 uninterrupted minutes? Sheesh, if a financial news channel can't cover that, what damned good is it?

My confident guess is that the Obama campaign's economic advisers collaborated for several weeks on this bundle of observations, criticisms, and campaign promises. But TelePrompter or not, the candidate did it due credit with his delivery, and he seemed as sincere as I've ever seen him (which could lead me into the proverbial whole nuther post, but I'll save that for another day).

Anyway, it turns out that UCLA Law Prof. Stephen Bainbridge has already written the post I wish I had, and he's done so from a position of better authority and with more erudition than I would have managed. His post is entitled "Parsing Obama’s Financial Regulation Speech," and it's exactly that — a very, very careful and detailed reading and analysis of what was, indeed, a remarkably detailed political speech. I highly recommend it — but it's too rich to meaningfully excerpt here at much length, so my recommendation is that you follow the link and read the whole thing.

I will amplify, however, on one of Prof. B's observations that I think is hugely important for voters who are concerned about the biggest of big economic pictures:

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 08:16 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (5)

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

WaPo: Well, sure, Obama's a capital-L Liberal, but Dubya made him be that

This entire WaPo news article is unintentionally funny, mostly because of its discussion of the convergence of interests between Hillary Clinton and John McCain in portraying Barack Obama as a "Liberal." But the funniest part is in the middle, in which — per "fair and balanced Journalism 101" principles — the WaPo writers step back to examine the underlying fairness of that portrayal, and the Obama camp's response to it (emphasis mine):

The double-barreled attack has presented Democratic voters with some persistent questions about Obama: Just how liberal is he? And even if he truly is a new kind of candidate, can he avoid being pigeonholed with an old label under sustained assault?

Despite being rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, Obama has sought to confound easy categorization. While his record and platform mostly adhere to a left-leaning Democratic model, he has cast them as a common-sense response to the Bush administration. His ability to appeal to independents and even Republicans has been one of his main attractions for Democrats eager to retake the White House, and a cause for concern among some GOP leaders.

Got that? Well, yes, if you look at, ya know, Obama's record and platform, he's the most liberal candidate the Democrats have fallen in love with since George McGovern. But that's just a "common sense response" to Dubya. (Unstated but necessary assumption as part of this "common sense": Of course, everything bad is Dubya's fault, and Dubya's faults are so bad that they can justify anything by way of response.) Therefore, "pigeonholing" even a pigeon, or engaging in "easy categorization" of someone who (based on his record and platform) is easy to categorize, is something that Team Obama and the Anointed One are justified in seeking to confound (i.e., conceal the truth about).

Posted by Beldar at 06:29 AM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (3)

Monday, March 24, 2008

Puzzling through Prof. Kmiec's endorsement of Obama

This (by Pepperdine University Law Prof. Douglas W. Kmiec, a genuine legal star in the Reagan and Bush-41 Administrations) is the least persuasive and most hang-dog endorsement (of Barack Obama) that I've ever seen. If it were written in a newspaper, I'd have suspected that it had been butchered by the editors, and that they'd mistaken the substance for the fluff and mistakenly hacked out all of the former to meet some very sharp and arbitrary word-count. But this is a self-published post on Slate.com's new legal blog, "Convictions," so Prof. Kmiec lacks that excuse. We must grade his essay as if it were his best work, or at least his work (and not some editor's mangled version).

Objectively, he gets an F. In fact, were I his professor, I wouldn't even accept this as a completed assignment. Instead I'd return it to him with instructions that his endorsement must at least either (a) offer good reasons to vote for the candidate who he's endorsing or (b) offer good reasons to vote against the opponent of the candidate who he's endorsing. Prof. Kmiec has done neither.

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 11:35 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (9)

Saturday, March 22, 2008

People who are too smart to find the word "arms" in the Second Amendment

I'll warn you up front: This is as harsh an assessment as I've ever written on this blog.

I know this guy has lots of credentials that are supposed to mean he's smart and well-educated.

But I've read this blog post about the pending Heller case before the Supreme Court about five times now. I cannot find in it a single sentence to confirm that the author actually does know the difference between a right directly and explicitly guaranteed in a constitution and a right created solely by legislative enactment, much less why that distinction might be important to a court. He seems to have missed the day in high school civics when the teacher explained that constitutions are supposed to be different and special.

He also writes, with a straight face:

How do we know that the Supreme Court is hypocritical?  Because it holds itself out as an impartial institution that decides the law only, but makes decisions that a twelve-year old could tie to the politics of its members — as Heller seems to make (or will make) painfully clear.

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 01:27 AM in Law (2008), SCOTUS & federal courts | Permalink | Comments (7)

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Congrats to Mark Yudof

In the fall of 1977 and spring of 1978, Mark Yudof was my first-year section's Contracts professor at Texas Law School. I especially remember him for his very dry wit, and he was quite engaging — a raconteur of a professor, teaching with relish that most essential and transformative of first-year law school subjects.

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 09:53 PM in Current Affairs, Law (2008), Trial Lawyer War Stories | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Beldar's one-paragraph, one-picture reaction to Obama's speech on Rev. Wright and racism

In his speech yesterday on racial matters in Philadelphia, the supposedly "post-racial" candidate of the 21st Century revealed himself to be as fully immersed in — and therefore constrained by and a prisoner of — identity-based politics as any traditional Democratic candidate who's ever lived, breathed, and pandered. The "solutions" offered by this speech and his candidacy could equally well have been proposed by, for example, Lyndon Johnson in 1964 or Walter Mondale in 1984 or Al Gore in 2000. Throughout his candidacy, there has indeed been a youthful spring in Barack Obama's step, a hypnotic cadence in his voice, and a vigor in his shaken fist as he has continued to lead his adherents — boldly, onward and upward, to turn a new corner! The problem is, each corner Obama is leading them around is only part of an Escher Staircase, no more than an elegant illusion. The only way off of that staircase is to recognize, and conform one's beliefs and conduct and words to, the transcendent truth about race and racism in modern America: To end racial discrimination, we have to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Obama does not get that.

(Original image © M.S. Escher 1960, "Ascending & Descending"; this altered version is intended only for purposes of fair-use political commentary and satire, not for commercial purposes.)

Posted by Beldar at 10:03 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (11)

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Review: Beldar's watching, and highly recommends, "John Adams"

As I age, I become more sentimental, and about more things. One topic of my sentimentality is American history generally, and the American Revolution and the American Civil War especially.

Thus, I identified completely last summer when reading this post by Ann Althouse, who described listening to an audio-book version of Paul Johnson's George Washington: The Founding Father while she walked through lower Manhattan. She would have been close, I think, to Fraunces Tavern, the still-standing inn where in December 1783 Washington famously bid a fond and tearful farewell to his officers of the Continental Army. She had just reached this passage in the audio-book as she was crossing Lafayette Street:

In London, George III questioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. "Oh," said West, "they say he will return to his farm." "If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

Prof. Althouse wrote that upon hearing these lines, she broke down and cried. Cynics might wonder: Why would a law professor find herself weeping in public, even while walking historic ground, even while listening to a well-written history? But what I wonder is: How could any well-educated and reasonably self-aware adult American in those circumstances not do so?

Click to read more of this post »»»

Posted by Beldar at 07:41 AM in Books, Film/TV/Stage | Permalink | Comments (7)

Monday, March 17, 2008

Happy St. Pat's

Short and sweet:

I extend to each of you my favorite Irish toast:  "May misfortune follow you each and every day, for all the rest of the days of your life — and may it never, ever catch up!"

Posted by Beldar at 06:12 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Durbin: "To hold Sen. Obama accountable for speeches and sermons that were given before he joined the church is fundamentally unfair"

At least the lightbulb of the junior senator from Illinois shines much more brightly than that of the senior senator from Illinois, who seems to have missed the fact that the junior senator joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, and that even when he was away in law school (1988-1991), Sen. Obama listened to tapes of Rev. Wright's sermons.

Posted by Beldar at 05:44 PM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (2)

DKos announces preemptive civil war against Hillary and Clintonistas; no time to wait for U.N. mandate

The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Hillary Clinton's campaign is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this campaign's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

DKos will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. DKos will not permit the world's most dangerous politician to threaten us with the world's most dangerous politics.

Our war on Hillary is well begun, but it is only begun.  This campaign may not be finished on our watch — yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short.  If we stop now — leaving Hillary and her supporters unchecked — our sense of security would be false and temporary.  History has called DKos and our netroot allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

— From Markos Moulitsas ("Screw Them") Zúniga's DKos post today entitled The Clinton Civil War. (H/t  Allahpundit on Hot Air.)

--------------

UPDATE (Mon Mar 17 @ 5:06pm): Ah, well, dang, it appears that due to an editing error, most of that block quotation above was actually copied from these two sources. Sorry for the confusion, Kos. But you did write (bold-face mine, italics by Kos):

It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with — those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately....

Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

People like me have two choices — look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line....

So file my first quotes away in the "fake but accurate" files.

Posted by Beldar at 05:05 PM in 2008 Election, Humor, Politics (2008) | Permalink | Comments (3)