Maggie's Farm

Soon we'll be entering the chewy center of an election year. Super Tuesday will decide the matter of party candidates and then the fur will begin to fly. I would suggest that the Democratic nominee be forced to spend six years in a POW camp prior with multiple broken bones left unattented to and the daily torture visited on POW's prior to opening their mouths about how they'll defend this country..I mean fair is fair. Ok being practical let's just make them run their campaign from Gitmo or one of the many ships at anchor around the world hosting captured non combatants.

First allow me to say I ain't no RINO. I worked for H2O's election in '64 and I'm a firm believer in militarily winning the wars you enter and then negotiating peace treaties. I'm not a wonk on every McCain position but he's the only Rep that can come close to beating the Dems. Rudy has waited too late, his advisers should be whipped.

McCain is known to my brother in law as they went through flight school together and both ended up flying A-4's in Vietnam. He tells me McCain is as tough as they come and that is quite a compliment coming from a Marine Aviator commenting on a Navy counterpart.

I haven't settle on who I'll go for but it won't be any of the Socialists Democrats that will finish off this nation.

As an aside the authors in discussing virtue, one of their main themes could have done better than picking Alexander Hamilton who was involved in one of the first major sex scandals in this nations history. It involve blackmail, adultery, and all manner of nefarious behavior.

It became known as the Reynolds Affair, after Maria Reynolds, the tart Hamilton was doodling with. Google Maria Reynolds and Alexander Hamilton and then tell me why the article's authors could not have picked George Washington, a man of unchallenged rectitude and honor. Bad choice on their part to use Hamilton as a paragon of virtue.

Finally it is interesting to note that in our long history only two currently serving Senators have been elected to the Presidency. Warren G Harding and John F Kennedy .....

Ok this isn't about McCain but it is political and well worth noting.


There has been a running argument over racism in America. Mostly about how racists whites are and how it's IMPOSSIBLE for a black to be a racists..bull..this scenario is working it's way through the hood right now.

Skin Deep
Just how strong is black affection for the Clintons?

Michael Crowley, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2008


When Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign first began, there was reason to think she would be hard to beat in a primary. Despite her Iraq vulnerability and assorted baggage, she seemed to have an impenetrable bulwark in the black vote. "Bill Clinton's popularity with blacks has been presumed to carry over to her and help her win the important South Carolina primary ... and other similar Southern primaries," explained Newsweek in November 2006. Newsweek wisely noted that the candidacy of Barack Obama could change that presumption. But, even after Obama joined the race, some Clinton advisers didn't fret. Last January, one party strategist told Politico that "this is all about loyalty and the strength of relationships that the Clintons have engendered over the years. It's going to be hard to look them in the face and say, 'I can't support you.'"

At first, that seemed true. A CNN poll in October showed Hillary leading Obama among blacks nationally by a comfortable 57-31 margin. But, by mid- January, those same numbers had swung a stunning 52 points, leaving Obama with a 59-31 advantage .

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=2165a62c-1a13-43af-8808-50c884193e4c

Blacks in America are the demogaphic that has driven racism in this country since the 1950's.

NJ, after reading AC's column and getting a bit more wonked up on McCain I must say that if I saw another Rep candidate that could beat the Dems in Nov. I'd take a very hard look at that individual. There doesn't appear to be a candidate that can top McCain or more importantly beat the Democrats. If McCain chooses Fred Thompson as VP then we can win this thing. All along Thompson wanted the VP slot anyway and he would bring the entire South with him.

Few Presidents get to govern on their past records or their platform. Events rapidly overtook W, a President who promised to keep America more focused on America and not nation building. Well he didn't get to do that. The next President will be confronted with the same challenge, reacting to, or preempting actions inimical to the USA.

I trust NO Democrat to do either. The Democratic leadership are all dedicated socialists.

We can only hope that if elected McCain will alter some of his Senatorial positions, amnesty being a huge one for me and millions of others.

It is a pity our choices are so, well, pitiful, but it is imperative with so many elderly Supreme Court Justices ready to retire that we have a Republican in the WH.....I'm open to any Republican candidate who can get that job done....we'll bring the heat to him on various issues after we secure the prize. To do otherwise is to consign our nation to developing international perils we don't want , and must not capitulate to. And the Democrats love capitulation and apology.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

First, they came for Piglet

By MARK STEYN



My favorite headline of the year so far comes from the Daily Mail in Britain:

"Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."

Her Majesty's government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient.

So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity." Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."

Well, yes, one sort of sees what she means. Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" – in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity."

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/islamic-anti-pigs-1967025-activity-islam#

Well NJ, when you figure out the perfect Republican candidate that has a chance to win it all let me know.

Until then you can continue to educate me on the shortcomings of JM..

Who do you support at the moment?

NJ..BTW is it an unforgivable heresy to not follow the party line on every issue, and perhaps even on occasion work with the Socialist Democrats?

I'd much prefer to occupy the WH and have the Republican conservative leaders school JM on the realities of getting things done, as opposed to having ANY Socialist Democrat in the WH.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no McCain fanatic but as mentioned I believe he's the only one who can beat the Dems. Give me a better choice who can possibly win and I'll sure listen.

And not voting as a protest against the Republican Party is insanity.

BD...just look at it as aroma therapy..

South Carolina Makes Obama the Black Candidate

Black voters made all the difference for Obama in South Carolina. Preliminary exit poll results indicate a very large turnout among African-Americans -- they accounted for just over half of voters in the primary today, compared with 47 percent in 2004 and 43 percent in 1992. And Obama won black voters overwhelmingly, with eight in 10 of their votes, to fewer than two in 10 for Clinton and almost no support for Edwards among blacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4195368&page=1

Exactly my point about McCain ..he's the one the Dems fear the most. He's the only one who can beat the Dems. And I believe if he chooses Fred T. as his #2 they'll have the WH in Nov.

Electability is spot on right.

A WALK DOWN MEMORY LANE AS BILL C. TELLS US CONGRESS THAT SADDAM HAS NUKES.....ENJOY

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/10-years-young-another-clinton-speech.html

Why the Gang of Fourteen was Necessary

In read the following ask yourself this question. Do you want each Congress to change the rules of how votes are counted in their respective chambers, or do you believe that continuity is important and equitable in keeping a well run nation.

John McCain became a member of the so called Gang of Fourteen to preserve continuity of rules that had been in place for almost one hundred years.

Under the "advice and consent" role laid out in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Senate is obliged to approve or reject the president's nominees to the federal bench. The Founders had a clear rationale for imposing this special duty on the Senate: While House membership is apportioned based on the population of each state, the Senate is composed of two senators from each state. This provides the Senate with a crucial capacity to protect minority interests, particularly with regard to appointments.

Without this capacity, which exists only in an arena of unlimited debate, the majority is free to rubber-stamp any nominee offered by the president. Elimination of filibuster means elimination of unfettered debate. And this, in turn, means the 55 Senate Republicans can silence the concerns of the 44 Democrats and approve over the Democrats' objections any judicial nominee. This "nuclear" option would empower the slim Republican majority to pack the federal judiciary with judges favorable to the president's agenda.

With this tantalizing possibility as a backdrop, Sen. Frist and his allies propose to eliminate the provision of Senate Rule XXII that requires a two-thirds majority vote to invoke cloture, or close debate, and replace it with a simple majority-vote rule.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., coined the term "nuclear" option to describe this proposal; it is also called the "constitutional" option (the historic and more politic term recently adopted by the Republicans). The tactic acquired the label "constitutional" because proponents relied upon Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution, which reads, in part, "[e]ach House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Proponents argue that Rule XXII is therefore not binding since it was adopted by a previous session of the Senate. By any name, the proposal is a gag measure to be used against the senators who oppose a judicial nominee.

In the 88 years since the adoption of Rule XXII, senators from both sides of the aisle have threatened the "nuclear" option more than a half-dozen times. Each time, the Senate has been loath to drop this particular bomb on its own house, and for good reason.

The rules of procedure adopted by the Senate are "the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves" against "the irregularities and abuses … which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities," as Thomas Jefferson warned. (T. Jefferson, A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, § I.)

various sources used,including my own education and brain.

Sean,
That is pure poppycock. With all of the Executive Branch appointments and the fact that McCain would choose a vast majority of them from the Republican party is an indispensible part of securing the WH.

Your throw away line about McCain being a semi socialist is buncumbe and if you would turn off Rush and pick up some history books you'd know the difference.

To believe that the country is going down the tubes may be the absolute gospel so you and your ilk are going to sit back and in a fit of pique simply allow it to happen ...with a Democrat at the helm. that's brave. When the going gets tough you cut and run......in the Marine Corps we called guys like you panty waste. So what will your position do? If we're down the drain it won't matter to our enemies who come to conquer us who the hell is in charge, or WAS in charge. We'll just be easy pick'ns.....well maybe you want to take your ball and go home, but too many good men have sacrificed their lives for our nation since 1775 for me to get sucked into such a solipsistic attitude. Your, and I assume Rush's position is juvenile in extremeis. Get some balls.

Ronald Reagans come along once a century. Question is do you want to capitulate to the Democrats because you eschew the good waiting for the perfect? That's a damn long wait.

Sure sounds like you're ideology is driving what is an arena of practicality and take no prisoners. I assure you, you do not want a Democrat in the WH controlling the entire Executive branch.